Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
Good. If GW can't get the balance right, it falls to the events to house rule this stupidity. The Leviathan is an OP crutch that has held up a broken army almost the entire edition, and now is even more so by the new 8.5 codexes. Ban them all.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Good. If GW can't get the balance right, it falls to the events to house rule this stupidity. The Leviathan is an OP crutch that has held up a broken army almost the entire edition, and now is even more so by the new 8.5 codexes. Ban them all.
It's too extreme because it isn't broken in the first place. It's near the cost of a Knight but doesn't have the survivability of one unless you pour a terrible amount of resources into it and doesn't have the same lethality, all on top of easily being stop in combat.
Overreaction is overreaction, and whoever decided on this should feel bad about themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Good. If GW can't get the balance right, it falls to the events to house rule this stupidity. The Leviathan is an OP crutch that has held up a broken army almost the entire edition, and now is even more so by the new 8.5 codexes. Ban them all.
It was never OP to begin with. It was simply good. A 300 point model SHOULD be good.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's too extreme because it isn't broken in the first place. It's near the cost of a Knight but doesn't have the survivability of one unless you pour a terrible amount of resources into it and doesn't have the same lethality, all on top of easily being stop in combat.
Overreaction is overreaction, and whoever decided on this should feel bad about themselves.
Or play a tournament system that doesn't reward killing above objectives.
Additionally should we now aso ban all knights? Flyers etc.
I guess I am just sick of seeing Levi-naughts in every single SM list I encounter. I have literally played 9 matches in the last 3 weeks, and of those nine, 4 of them had Leviathans. Which is fine. I am just being a grump about seeing the same model constantly, especially with the new 8.5 strats. I felt the same way about the Castellan.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess I am just sick of seeing Levi-naughts in every single SM list I encounter. I have literally played 9 matches in the last 3 weeks, and of those nine, 4 of them had Leviathans. Which is fine. I am just being a grump about seeing the same model constantly, especially with the new 8.5 strats. I felt the same way about the Castellan.
It's about the only dread that is actually usefull though.
Sadly.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess I am just sick of seeing Levi-naughts in every single SM list I encounter. I have literally played 9 matches in the last 3 weeks, and of those nine, 4 of them had Leviathans. Which is fine. I am just being a grump about seeing the same model constantly, especially with the new 8.5 strats. I felt the same way about the Castellan.
It's about the only dread that is actually usefull though.
Sadly.
Bingo. You basically only have Gun Platform Ven Dreads as the only good codex Dread. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong, period.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's too extreme because it isn't broken in the first place. It's near the cost of a Knight but doesn't have the survivability of one unless you pour a terrible amount of resources into it and doesn't have the same lethality, all on top of easily being stop in combat.
Overreaction is overreaction, and whoever decided on this should feel bad about themselves.
Or play a tournament system that doesn't reward killing above objectives.
Additionally should we now aso ban all knights? Flyers etc.
Indeed. Im *very* curious what this particular TOs stance on pre-nerf Castellans was.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess I am just sick of seeing Levi-naughts in every single SM list I encounter. I have literally played 9 matches in the last 3 weeks, and of those nine, 4 of them had Leviathans. Which is fine. I am just being a grump about seeing the same model constantly, especially with the new 8.5 strats. I felt the same way about the Castellan.
It's about the only dread that is actually usefull though.
Sadly.
Bingo. You basically only have Gun Platform Ven Dreads as the only good codex Dread. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong, period.
It's the same for Chaos, hellbrutes Cheap but bad.
Decimator overpriced, etc.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's too extreme because it isn't broken in the first place. It's near the cost of a Knight but doesn't have the survivability of one unless you pour a terrible amount of resources into it and doesn't have the same lethality, all on top of easily being stop in combat.
Overreaction is overreaction, and whoever decided on this should feel bad about themselves.
Or play a tournament system that doesn't reward killing above objectives.
Additionally should we now aso ban all knights? Flyers etc.
Indeed. Im *very* curious what this particular TOs stance on pre-nerf Castellans was.
They probably brought holly water and a bible out if you even dared to mention one
That's unfortunate, I want to see some player bring 3 IH leviathans expecting easy wins and then getting clowned by an eldar airwing running circles around them before getting tagged by a venom charging from behind a wall.
Leviathan is an obvious boogeyman to point fingers to because of the whole "lmao look not even a warlord titan can kill it" meme, meanwhile those 3 repulsor executioners just keep on paddling.
Continuity wrote: That's unfortunate, I want to see some player bring 3 IH leviathans expecting easy wins and then getting clowned by an eldar airwing running circles around them before getting tagged by a venom charging from behind a wall.
Leviathan is an obvious boogeyman to point fingers to because of the whole "lmao look not even a warlord titan can kill it" meme, meanwhile those 3 repulsor executioners just keep on paddling.
I watched a batrep from glasshammer IH vs an 8 plane Eldar list. On T3 Eldar only had 1 plane. It was brutal. That same Eldar list went 5-0 at LGT fwiw.
A ban on one thing in a specific context is fine, particularly if it's a temporary thing, though I'd have probably just said "X/Y/Z ability won't apply to A/B/C unit" or the like instead and still allowed people to otherwise run the unit.
I don't like big sweeping or generalized bans, but I have a hard time finding outrageous fault here.
I havent delved super deep into the IH supplement, can someone detail exactly what abilities are at play here and generally what the total cost of supporting such a unit is? If the Leviathan basically can get all those abiliies through passive faction bonuses and stratagems, thats excessive, if it requires 400pts of supporting units, its not quite as much of an issue.
It's a 1cp strat that makes your opponent halve damage to a dreadnought unit that phase. Stacked with the Iron Stone relic that reduces damage to nearby vehicles by 1. Stacked with Ferios 5++ bubble and ability to heal 6 wounds on vehicles. Then the chapter tactic that gives the whole army 6+++. Then Psychic power that gives it +1 to hit.
It requires little to no support and is easy to slot in since it doesn't take a detachment like a knight. Fairly autonomous much cheaper than S knight at 303 and more durable. Those are just some reasons I use leviathans more than knights. Banning might be too harsh response this early but I can see some justification. Without knowing more about that local environment hard to say how impactful the decision really is.
chimeara wrote: It's a 1cp strat that makes your opponent halve damage to a dreadnought unit that phase. Stacked with the Iron Stone relic that reduces damage to nearby vehicles by 1. Stacked with Ferios 5++ bubble and ability to heal 6 wounds on vehicles. Then the chapter tactic that gives the whole army 6+++. Then Psychic power that gives it +1 to hit.
Vaktathi wrote: A ban on one thing in a specific context is fine, particularly if it's a temporary thing, though I'd have probably just said "X/Y/Z ability won't apply to A/B/C unit" or the like instead and still allowed people to otherwise run the unit.
I don't like big sweeping or generalized bans, but I have a hard time finding outrageous fault here.
I havent delved super deep into the IH supplement, can someone detail exactly what abilities are at play here and generally what the total cost of supporting such a unit is? If the Leviathan basically can get all those abiliies through passive faction bonuses and stratagems, thats excessive, if it requires 400pts of supporting units, its not quite as much of an issue.
as other have said, the only "tax" you have to take is the iron father, a psyker and a relic.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess I am just sick of seeing Levi-naughts in every single SM list I encounter. I have literally played 9 matches in the last 3 weeks, and of those nine, 4 of them had Leviathans. Which is fine. I am just being a grump about seeing the same model constantly, especially with the new 8.5 strats. I felt the same way about the Castellan.
It's about the only dread that is actually usefull though.
Sadly.
No it isn't. Not even a little. Every single dreadnaught is useful right now. They might not be top tier, but they all put in work.
Even the redemptor has potential to shred people in ironhands.
Vaktathi wrote: A ban on one thing in a specific context is fine, particularly if it's a temporary thing, though I'd have probably just said "X/Y/Z ability won't apply to A/B/C unit" or the like instead and still allowed people to otherwise run the unit.
I don't like big sweeping or generalized bans, but I have a hard time finding outrageous fault here.
I havent delved super deep into the IH supplement, can someone detail exactly what abilities are at play here and generally what the total cost of supporting such a unit is? If the Leviathan basically can get all those abiliies through passive faction bonuses and stratagems, thats excessive, if it requires 400pts of supporting units, its not quite as much of an issue.
as other have said, the only "tax" you have to take is the iron father, a psyker and a relic.
Thats why people are saying leviathans are broken
You don't really need the psyker either. +1 to hit on BS 2 isn' super important.
Continuity wrote: That's unfortunate, I want to see some player bring 3 IH leviathans expecting easy wins and then getting clowned by an eldar airwing running circles around them before getting tagged by a venom charging from behind a wall.
Leviathan is an obvious boogeyman to point fingers to because of the whole "lmao look not even a warlord titan can kill it" meme, meanwhile those 3 repulsor executioners just keep on paddling.
I watched a batrep from glasshammer IH vs an 8 plane Eldar list. On T3 Eldar only had 1 plane. It was brutal. That same Eldar list went 5-0 at LGT fwiw.
Yeah, the plane thing isn't that big of a deal considering the super leviathan hits on 4s rerolling even at -3.
Vaktathi wrote: A ban on one thing in a specific context is fine, particularly if it's a temporary thing, though I'd have probably just said "X/Y/Z ability won't apply to A/B/C unit" or the like instead and still allowed people to otherwise run the unit.
I don't like big sweeping or generalized bans, but I have a hard time finding outrageous fault here.
I havent delved super deep into the IH supplement, can someone detail exactly what abilities are at play here and generally what the total cost of supporting such a unit is? If the Leviathan basically can get all those abiliies through passive faction bonuses and stratagems, thats excessive, if it requires 400pts of supporting units, its not quite as much of an issue.
as other have said, the only "tax" you have to take is the iron father, a psyker and a relic.
Thats why people are saying leviathans are broken
Two Levis, FF, and Psyker would be north of 800 points. Are two Levis more damaging than a Castellan, which also basically never dies unless titans / haywire / mortal wounds get in its face?
Are two Levis more damaging than a Castellan, which also basically never dies unless titans / haywire / mortal wounds get in its face?
Lol what? Castellans are easy to kill. Focused fire from AP1 or AP2 weapons with 2D or D3D weapons dumpsters them fast, as does melee. Most armies have very effective ways of dealing with castellans quickly.
Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:
*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.
During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.
*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...
*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Why does that matter? 300 points is stupidly cheap.
I'm seeing the same lists over and over at the local stores.
ChargerIIC wrote: Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:
*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.
During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.
*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...
*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot
*Me: Fair enough
Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.
ChargerIIC wrote: Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:
*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.
During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.
*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...
*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
I really think all units should be played with first to see if they even are a problem, the meta a lot of times will short itself out too (unless it is a completely broken unit). This is a sad knee jerk reaction. Give it some time at least.
For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. edit: just reread sorry.
I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"
Stevefamine wrote: As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. Is the event at 2000-2500 points? Then I can see it being an issue.
I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"
How do you nerf them is the question, if you raise costs then it hurts none iron hands, you amend iron hands in any way and all it does is punish the rest of the range to get at the leviathan.
To be honest, saying it can't benefit from 1 or 2 parts of the iron hands combo might be the fairest way to bring it in line.
I'm laughing at y'all. A counter meta will develop, this is just a large stone thrown into a small pound. Haywire is a fine counter to this, because it can't negate mortal wounds. Weight of Fire will be a fine counter, because it's all damage 1. Mortarion with a couple buff powers still kills him dead (along with everything else nearby). Locking it in combat still works.
Pretty much; the game still works. It only doesn't work if you play a standard "fire optimization" method of playing, which is at risk whenever new stuff comes out, because it may no longer be optimal (something else might be).
even for non iron hands they're considered one of the best units out there. That said it';d be easy eneugh to ammend the stratigium to only apply to codex dreads.
or simply ammend the strat to cost 1 CP for dreads with 9< wounds and 2 CPs for dreads with 10+ wounds
Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.
Why? The broken stuff comes from GW codex. Like here the issue isn't leviathan itself. It wasn't broken before marine codex 8.5 came. It's broken because 8.5 codex gave up so much ridiculous amount of free rules and buffs without any concern.
Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.
Why? The broken stuff comes from GW codex. Like here the issue isn't leviathan itself. It wasn't broken before marine codex 8.5 came. It's broken because 8.5 codex gave up so much ridiculous amount of free rules and buffs without any concern.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
ChargerIIC wrote: Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:
*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.
During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.
*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...
*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot
*Me: Fair enough
Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.
It wasn't a flat forgeworld ban. It was basically a list of everything that the forums had complained about but wasn't a blood angel model. I don't know many places that have such a ban in effect any more. The worst you can accuse forgeworld of these days is the Xiphon Interceptor and a bunch of outdated rules keywords.
Even with a forgeworld ban, you are enabling the situation where a new player gets excited about a model, checks out the local scene, and is told that they aren't going to be allowed to play if that model is present. They don't have a commitment to the hobby yet, so its much easier for such players to turn to other games while your player meta dies via attrition.
They're not even that good in an IH list because they cost so much, have the relic tax and don't want to be touched in CQC.
Throw in the fact that they do junk damage against anything t8 and they have supper limited range most competitive lists I've seen will maybe have one (vs the 2-3 executioners which seem even more auto-take).
Not the rush out and spam 6 flyrants level of broken. Yep they are hard to kill and synergize really well with the rest of the tools IH bring to the table (t8 flying screens) but that is an IH problem and not a levi dread problem (say it loud for the people in the back).
That being said I had 3 and now am selling at least 1 because of the inevitable nerf coming due to casual and mid-table warriors screaming about how OP they are and GWs complete lack of understanding what makes a unit good and how to balance anything this edition.
I've run 2 in a SW list or one as DW and they are just okay in those armies (negs to hit after moving, no half damage strat, no -1 to damage relic, old style re-rolls, no extra -1 ap, no native re-roll 1s but yet I'll be expected to pay points like it's IH, Bobby G problem all over again...).
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
It has 20 shots lol. at 16 it would be much more fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: They're not even that good in an IH list because they cost so much, have the relic tax and don't want to be touched in CQC.
Throw in the fact that they do junk damage against anything t8 and they have supper limited range most competitive lists I've seen will maybe have one (vs the 2-3 executioners which seem even more auto-take).
Not the rush out and spam 6 flyrants level of broken. Yep they are hard to kill and synergize really well with the rest of the tools IH bring to the table (t8 flying screens) but that is an IH problem and not a levi dread problem (say it loud for the people in the back).
That being said I had 3 and now am selling at least 1 because of the inevitable nerf coming due to casual and mid-table warriors screaming about how OP they are and GWs complete lack of understanding what makes a unit good and how to balance anything this edition.
I've run 2 in a SW list or one as DW and they are just okay in those armies (negs to hit after moving, no half damage strat, no -1 to damage relic, old style re-rolls, no extra -1 ap, no native re-roll 1s but yet I'll be expected to pay points like it's IH, Bobby G problem all over again...).
300 points not very expensive...
TO specifically banned IH levi not everyone elses. Which IH is in fact broken...It is damn near impossible to destroy. In fact - IH are broken in general. IH are basically auto win right now.
It's a bit like the alaitoc flyer spam problem, taking crimson hunters in anything other than alaitoc and they're still good but they become more balanced.
Leviathans in non iron hand armies are good, it's the iron hand buffs that push it over the edge.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
no the game isn't just about killing. GW balanced the game around objective based play and when you change the objective, GEE SUDDENLY BALANCE ISSUES CROP UP!
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
That's just silly.
The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.
I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.
Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
no the game isn't just about killing. GW balanced the game around objective based play and when you change the objective, GEE SUDDENLY BALANCE ISSUES CROP UP!
Dude...do you understand that when you get blown off an objective you no longer have that objective...the game is about killing and controlling objectives...With damage being as absurd as it is in this edition. What GW mission doesn't reward killing ether?
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
So the problem with this mentality is that GW has created an IGOUGO game, which with broken units like the Levi, can totally ruin a game for the play that didn't roll well to decide who goes first. I'm fine with this thing wiping out my stupidly placed unit. My problem is that this prevents a fair match, in any respect. I play an army that mostly punches it's problems, custodes. It's very difficult to take out three Levis if half your force is dead on your first turn.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
That's just silly.
The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.
I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.
Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.
Sounds to me like the bloke you were playing was just trying to have fun while ignoring free objectives that he easily could have controlled because you had no units left...Not saying you can't win a game in the manner you are saying but complaining about ITC objectives is just lame - they reward the same kind of play that GW missions do for the most part. They are just a little different.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...
"Gman tax" may or may not have been an intentional thing (probably not). But it was *absolutely* a thing.
See, armies without Gman were nowhere close to competitive. Armies with Gman were competitive. So you have units - Tacs, Razorbacks, whatever - that were simultaneously competitive and noncompetitive at the same time. Depending on whether you took Gman. Thus, the units were fine(-ish) played with him, but clearly needed a points cut without him. As such, there was a clear difference between their value with Gman vs without Gman.
So, given the rules, the points of these units themselves could do one of several things:
a) Make these units competitive without Gman (and thus be OP with Gman)
b) Make these units competitive with Gman (and thus trash without him)
c) Make these units unfair (either way) whether Gman was included or not
Given that, there is a construct where there is a points value each such unit is worth in scenario (a), and a points value in scenario (b). The difference between them is the "tax". The unit either pays the "tax" (and thus is trash without Gman) or doesn't pay the "tax" (and thus is OP with Gman). The "Tax" was real, even if it wasn't intentional. It was a very useful construct for discussing the situation (and relative options).
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
So the problem with this mentality is that GW has created an IGOUGO game, which with broken units like the Levi, can totally ruin a game for the play that didn't roll well to decide who goes first. I'm fine with this thing wiping out my stupidly placed unit. My problem is that this prevents a fair match, in any respect. I play an army that mostly punches it's problems, custodes. It's very difficult to take out three Levis if half your force is dead on your first turn.
Totally - Igougo is a much bigger problem than mission objectives in ITC or chapter approved missions. The counter deploy for going second fixes that quite a bit but with STI still existing deployment is still pretty screwed for 1 player...it's just random which player that is. I would love to see the appoc way of things make it into 40k in regards to unit activation...I don't like anything else about apoc though.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
You know the LARGE majority of the kill based secondaries DO NOT stack with each other yea?
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.
That's just silly.
The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.
I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.
Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.
Sounds to me like the bloke you were playing was just trying to have fun while ignoring free objectives that he easily could have controlled because you had no units left...Not saying you can't win a game in the manner you are saying but complaining about ITC objectives is just lame - they reward the same kind of play that GW missions do for the most part. They are just a little different.
The first game was actually a prep game for tourny play (for my opponent). So clearly the guy was trying to "win" more than just kill me. He just got overly invested in killing me when he saw how badly the dice hated me, and didn't notice how I painted him into a corner. The second game, yeah, my opponent was just trying to kill me.
Killing better makes the objectives game easier, but only caring about killing makes it really easy to lose on objectives.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...
"Gman tax" may or may not have been an intentional thing (probably not). But it was *absolutely* a thing.
See, armies without Gman were nowhere close to competitive. Armies with Gman were competitive. So you have units - Tacs, Razorbacks, whatever - that were simultaneously competitive and noncompetitive at the same time. Depending on whether you took Gman. Thus, the units were fine(-ish) played with him, but clearly needed a points cut without him. As such, there was a clear difference between their value with Gman vs without Gman.
So, given the rules, the points of these units themselves could do one of several things:
a) Make these units competitive without Gman (and thus be OP with Gman)
b) Make these units competitive with Gman (and thus trash without him)
c) Make these units unfair (either way) whether Gman was included or not
Given that, there is a construct where there is a points value each such unit is worth in scenario (a), and a points value in scenario (b). The difference between them is the "tax". The unit either pays the "tax" (and thus is trash without Gman) or doesn't pay the "tax" (and thus is OP with Gman). The "Tax" was real, even if it wasn't intentional. It was a very useful construct for discussing the situation (and relative options).
Gman was a 400 point units that gave you a huge damage ramp for low str weapons...for high str weapons it was not efficient as it usually just mean you could reroll 1's and 2's instead of just 1's. Prevalence of invune saves - to hits (space marines could only reroll failed hits back then) and chapter tactics not applying vehicals (taking crappy ultras tactic doesn't matter when your best units have fly keward anyways and cant benefit from say RG or IH tacitc) That all culminated in space marines having a specific way to play that was decent against the meta (a bunch of shots rerolling everything is a great way to destroy units with 3++ saves). It wasn't as if you couldn't play in certain matchups where gman was a better choice than CM LT...I mean...400 is 20% of your army in an army with practically no defense...Very hard to win when you have no units left. Fine with the gman nerf though...just not fine with IH being so far and away better than other chapters in such an obvious way. The army can do a lot of damage as any chapter...but only 1 chapter is getting defensive buffs. This likely won be a space marines exclusive problem...like...imagine a knight with buffs like these on it? Or a baneblade/hellhammer?
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.
The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.
It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.
Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.
Tactics employed will be worlds apart.
so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.
need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.
to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Why does that matter? 300 points is stupidly cheap.
I'm seeing the same lists over and over at the local stores.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Why does that matter? 300 points is stupidly cheap.
I'm seeing the same lists over and over at the local stores.
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
I'm sorry that the Eldar are so weak that they're an unfair comparison to Space Marines! (#notaseriouscomment)
Fine. Pretend I said:
"I can bring more than 1 QuadLas Pred! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with 4 LasCannons, it's 4x S9 Ap-3 shots with Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 8 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does almost twice the damage per hit!"
Or "I can bring [...] HammerHeads [...]"
Or ...
If your problem is that Space Marines are supposed to be so much more powerful than CWE that it's not useful to compare them, then (a) there's no real point in continuing discussion, because that's silly, and (b) does anyone really think CWE are really that bad? It's almost like you have more a problem with me than with my content.
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
What units compare favorably to the Leviathan at the ~300pts level? Serious question.
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Why does that matter? 300 points is stupidly cheap.
I'm seeing the same lists over and over at the local stores.
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
How many planes can you get for 303 points?
Less than two. Hemlocks are 210, CHEs are 175. Either way, the Levi eat them for breakfast - even Alaitoc CHEs vs non-IH Levis.
Bharring wrote: For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!
Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!
300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.
Your units being bad has no point in this conversation. Stop playing martyr for Eldar for Pete's sake.
What units compare favorably to the Leviathan at the ~300pts level? Serious question.
Almost nothing. Most comparable unit is probably a tau riptide which is about 280.
its only t7 and has bs4+ - has to hurt itself to power up it's gun and it has similar firepower...18 str 6 ap -2 with flat 2 damage at 36" range plus 8 str 5 ap-1. They are both really good but the levi gets a lot of things for free without support and has +1 str and AP if in heavy doctrine. Hitting on 2's naturally without marker lights t8 makes anti tank way less effective and a 4++ natural without spending stratagem points to get a 3++ for the riptide. The riptide works for tau though because of another dumb mechanic...SP from drones which if you have some LOS blocking it also reaches invulnerable levels easily. Hard to give a perfect points cost for these 2 units but with them bot being really competitive I'd say it really is just ironhands that sets them apart in a big way.
Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.
The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.
It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.
Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.
Tactics employed will be worlds apart.
so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.
need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.
to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.
Games in CA18 are still quite killy don't worry. The difference is that killing is a mean, not an end.
You are right in saying that i don't like ITC, but it is for a much simpler reason than the one you exposed.
The game has stats and rules which have different impact on a game, and those are balanced through the point cost.
If ITC changes the objectives of the game without changing the point costs, it is obvious that they will meet a lot of balance problems.
The most obvious example are noLoS weapons, which in ITC have been called OP more than once, while in CA18 no one has problems with those.
I would hugely prefer if ITC together with a different set of rules also adopted his own point costs, that would more coherent.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.
Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily
for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool
then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker
So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.
And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.
Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...
"Gman tax" may or may not have been an intentional thing (probably not). But it was *absolutely* a thing.
See, armies without Gman were nowhere close to competitive. Armies with Gman were competitive. So you have units - Tacs, Razorbacks, whatever - that were simultaneously competitive and noncompetitive at the same time. Depending on whether you took Gman. Thus, the units were fine(-ish) played with him, but clearly needed a points cut without him. As such, there was a clear difference between their value with Gman vs without Gman.
So, given the rules, the points of these units themselves could do one of several things:
a) Make these units competitive without Gman (and thus be OP with Gman)
b) Make these units competitive with Gman (and thus trash without him)
c) Make these units unfair (either way) whether Gman was included or not
Given that, there is a construct where there is a points value each such unit is worth in scenario (a), and a points value in scenario (b). The difference between them is the "tax". The unit either pays the "tax" (and thus is trash without Gman) or doesn't pay the "tax" (and thus is OP with Gman). The "Tax" was real, even if it wasn't intentional. It was a very useful construct for discussing the situation (and relative options).
Gman was a 400 point units that gave you a huge damage ramp for low str weapons...for high str weapons it was not efficient as it usually just mean you could reroll 1's and 2's instead of just 1's. Prevalence of invune saves - to hits (space marines could only reroll failed hits back then) and chapter tactics not applying vehicals (taking crappy ultras tactic doesn't matter when your best units have fly keward anyways and cant benefit from say RG or IH tacitc) That all culminated in space marines having a specific way to play that was decent against the meta (a bunch of shots rerolling everything is a great way to destroy units with 3++ saves). It wasn't as if you couldn't play in certain matchups where gman was a better choice than CM LT...I mean...400 is 20% of your army in an army with practically no defense...Very hard to win when you have no units left. Fine with the gman nerf though...just not fine with IH being so far and away better than other chapters in such an obvious way. The army can do a lot of damage as any chapter...but only 1 chapter is getting defensive buffs. This likely won be a space marines exclusive problem...like...imagine a knight with buffs like these on it? Or a baneblade/hellhammer?
Ummm? You do realize ih can take the fw relic super heavys right? All their buffs work on those too just like the leviathan. People just haven't caught on because no one plays them. The problem is the codex not the models it affects.
I've zero issues with a tournament organizer making rules like this. If it's logical or worthwhile, then it won't impact stuff. If players think it's over-stepping then players won't attend and the situation will self-correct next time he tries to run an event.
As a Chaos player, my Leviathans are almost always useless and shot to death immediately. However the basic loyal one is better, and is now subject to a heap of glorious buffs/benefits/etc., particularly in the IH book.
Tournament players should use or not use whatever they feel like from what GW offers. Tournaments without Forgeworld. Highlander tournaments. Tournaments without Flyers. Tournaments with a model-cap and thus no hordes. Tournaments without special characters. Whatever.
Variety is the spice of life. And truly competitive players will relish the challenge anyhow. Always playing the same tired mission format over and over again is the beginning of the end of 40K and the hobby.
The leviathan by itself is fine. What should happen, to both factions, is to restrict FW from benefiting from legion traits and strats. FW units are designed to operate without them anyway due to better stats and invulns.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is what happens. It would be a hit to chaos but that's more about FW dreads being one of the crutches of the faction atm.
The problem with introducing power of this level (and knights etc) is that it tends to compress the lower end of the game into unplayable blank entries. Nothing new it's the same cycle gw always devolves into before hitting the reset button..
ChargerIIC wrote: Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:
*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.
During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?
*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.
*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...
*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot
*Me: Fair enough
Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.
Again people show that they have no clue what they are talking about.
GW WRITES ALL RULES, INCLUDING FW, IN 8TH EDITION.
No, I don't get it. How do I not have a clue what I'm talking about?
Regardless of what YOU think about banning FW units, and if you think they're legit GW rules or not, your opinion is irrelevant. FW bans are common in tournaments.
Because if you ban fw units which get their rules from gw might aswell ban anything that crawls.
Do you get it now?
And?
There're plenty of tournaments that ban one thing or another. Lords of War. Unique Characters. Orks. Flyers. Psykers. Whatever. Switch it up!
The joy of having a rich buffet like the one offered by GW for 40K is putting together different flavours. Trying to eat everything all the time is dumb.
Horst wrote: No, I don't get it. How do I not have a clue what I'm talking about?
Regardless of what YOU think about banning FW units, and if you think they're legit GW rules or not, your opinion is irrelevant. FW bans are common in tournaments.
Which has no point because then you might aswell ban issue units of GW, because the GW rules team writes all rules atm.
Ergo your suggestion might aswell lead to even more houseruling, ergo you have no clue.
Except of course you like banlists longer then rules bloat we have now
Blanket FW bans are absurd, particularly at this point when the main studio has been responsible for writing all their rules for years now (and that problem FW units are generally taken care of much faster than codex ones, or that such are much rarer than problem codex units). Most such bans that still exist do so out of social inertia, or sour grapes by local stores being unable to stock FW. There certainly hasnt been large consistent issues with FW and competitive events in the last several editions where allowed. I havent been to an event that banned FW in years and many editions now, and wouldnt attend one at this point either.
This case the issue is the interaction of a new supplement with a previously existing unit, seemingly only one issue of many with this particular supplement. The narrow ban on one unit in one subfaction here appears fairly reasonable.
Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OPAF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OPAF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.
But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OPAF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.
But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.
Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.
But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OPAF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.
But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.
Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.
But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.
I dont agree with the ban personally, just what i see. and i think 8th already went up to an 11 a long time ago, i hardly even play it anymore compare to aos/warcry/apoc when a Space marine isnt even a threat thats a bad thing (PS i dont even play marines), sure IH mega vehicles are scary but Marines on the field are not.
If something is way out there in balance I’m okay with a local tourney making a ban if that’s what their players want, but this seems counter productive. Why push IH players to the even stronger repulsor spam build?
bort wrote: If something is way out there in balance I’m okay with a local tourney making a ban if that’s what their players want, but this seems counter productive. Why push IH players to the even stronger repulsor spam build?
Because the repulsor suffers no Stigma And gw can do no wrong.
It's only the evil fw that is allways wrong.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.
It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OPAF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.
But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.
Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.
But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.
I dont agree with the ban personally, just what i see. and i think 8th already went up to an 11 a long time ago, i hardly even play it anymore compare to aos/warcry/apoc when a Space marine isnt even a threat thats a bad thing (PS i dont even play marines), sure IH mega vehicles are scary but Marines on the field are not.
I don't think creep is a strong enough term. More like gw poured gas into a fire. But the leviathan is still not the problem it's the fething codex. I don't know what gw were thinking when they wrote it. I'm sure other armies will get a boost but as usual it will take time. In the meantime I'd still have to try at least one game against ih. Probably get tabled but if I could just kill that leviathan I'd consider it an immoral victory for heretics everywhere lol.
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
Codex 2.0 is fine though, just wish csm 2.0 would have been also treated that way.
My opinion is, the issues come from the supplements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.
The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.
It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.
Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.
Tactics employed will be worlds apart.
so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.
need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.
to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.
Games in CA18 are still quite killy don't worry. The difference is that killing is a mean, not an end.
You are right in saying that i don't like ITC, but it is for a much simpler reason than the one you exposed.
The game has stats and rules which have different impact on a game, and those are balanced through the point cost.
If ITC changes the objectives of the game without changing the point costs, it is obvious that they will meet a lot of balance problems.
The most obvious example are noLoS weapons, which in ITC have been called OP more than once, while in CA18 no one has problems with those.
I would hugely prefer if ITC together with a different set of rules also adopted his own point costs, that would more coherent.
This is just absurd. ITC missions do not change balance in any dramatic way that makes the current points ineffectual.
Christ, GW balances off their tournaments. ITC missions give TONS of opportunity to score without killing.
The leviathan is pretty ridiculous, to be fair, but I'm not convinced it needs a ban. All things considered, it's tougher than a knight with arguably better output than some knights, but it can be tagged and it's not going to win the game by existing, so at some point piling onto it has diminishing returns.
I feel like if it's in the position to receive all the buffs, the player might be over-investing in it and potentially limiting themselves and making it more vulnerable.
Fundamentally, it can still be tagged and cornered, and a leviathan is pretty crap at melee and won't be fighting it's way out of a block of cheap infantry any time soon. If everything is hanging out with the Ironstone and Fierros, you're really putting all your eggs in one basked [and if it's both a character and receiving half damage you're probably wasting a lot of CP]
If you ask me which is the more annoying property: I'd say grot shields from nearly space marines, because that's like a seriously obnoxious ability on anything bigger than an INFANTRY that has it. However, if you ask me which ability it shouldn't qualify for, I'd say the halving damage, because it doesn't have a answer in any capacity and while it's unoffensive on an 8 wound dreadnought [making it effectively 16 wounds], it's very offensive on a 14 wound dreadnought, making it beefier than a knight.
The Leviathan itself is also just an obnoxious unit [mostly just because it's the absurd conclusion of "more autocannons solves all problems better than specialized weaponry"], so giving it an obnoxious stratagem just makes it more obnoxious. I've beat these things before, though, usually by just pinning them down and cornering them with more infantry than they can hope to kill.
Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.
The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.
It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.
Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.
Tactics employed will be worlds apart.
so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.
need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.
to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.
Games in CA18 are still quite killy don't worry. The difference is that killing is a mean, not an end.
You are right in saying that i don't like ITC, but it is for a much simpler reason than the one you exposed.
The game has stats and rules which have different impact on a game, and those are balanced through the point cost.
If ITC changes the objectives of the game without changing the point costs, it is obvious that they will meet a lot of balance problems.
The most obvious example are noLoS weapons, which in ITC have been called OP more than once, while in CA18 no one has problems with those.
I would hugely prefer if ITC together with a different set of rules also adopted his own point costs, that would more coherent.
This is just absurd. ITC missions do not change balance in any dramatic way that makes the current points ineffectual.
Christ, GW balances off their tournaments. ITC missions give TONS of opportunity to score without killing.
So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.
So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.
This argument has no substance. You guys are just waxing poetic about a mission style that you are not intimately familiar with and trying to tie it to data that doesn't exist.
I feel like we're having the same discussion we had about Knights like a year ago. The solution wasn't the counter meta, or a change is strategy, it was a nerf to the unit that solved it. Problem really was how long it took for Games Workshop to get around to it. There might be some other units that come out (or new rules) that are specifically good against them, and are able to hold their own vs the rest of the list, but we don't know for sure.
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.
You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?
Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.
Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.
Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.
So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.
This argument has no substance. You guys are just waxing poetic about a mission style that you are not intimately familiar with and trying to tie it to data that doesn't exist.
Excuse me but you are wrong objectively.
You don't balance around glorified houserules now do you, so why accept it here?
Or would you be happy if you wanted help drawing a circle and you get a triangle?
You can't deny the fact that the missions fundamentally change the flow of the game, as do the ITC terrain rulings.
Spoletta mentioned that in etc someone did run harlequin troupes, something not really seen in ITC.
So it has no influence and we are biased against it because we don't know it?
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
You could make that same argument about eldar flyers, tau gun lines, knights and on and on. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it's op. Resin isn't magically better than plastic. Fw units are not inherently any better than codex units. Or are you going to argue that renegades and heretics are stronger than guard?
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.
You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?
Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.
Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.
Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Horst wrote: What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?
Three years at LVO, and I never get passed turn 2 because of the stupid way ITC handles objectives, which also favors gunline elite armies over hoards. CA2018 missions are superior in every way.
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.
You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?
Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.
Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.
Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
I was just talking to him b.c he was acting like the players that play with FW down play their power.
But thats also the point, GW models are not balanced either, so many units are so terrible and some are so powerful that everyone takes max of them every game. Why stop at FW then? Why not remove all top 5% strongest units from all tournaments? Isnt the point of tournaments to bring the best anyways? If there is 1 over powering list players will try to find a way to stop it and they will.
Karol wrote: Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.
I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.
You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?
Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.
Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.
Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?
Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.
You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?
Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.
You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.
Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.
A relic that gives Wave Serpent field to every vehicle in an aura including even close combat attacks - what could have gone wrong? No playtester probably ever thought about taking it!
Or a new character who is about half as expensive than should be - requires extreme competence and competetive level think to notice.
Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.
You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.
QFT. I've been in some narrative games before, they involve a lot of discussion beforehand to ensure there is at least a somewhat balanced game to be played, like what units you can bring, what your army should look like, etc. Way more customization before the game is even played than a competitive game.
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?
Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.
You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.
Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.
Those combos shouldn't even be available on accident. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in terms of defending bad balance.
Game isnt balanced around ITC...It is not balanced at all. It's literally just like the memes...dudes drinking beer at the pub randomly coming up with stuff...
Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.
I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.
Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.
Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?
Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.
You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.
Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.
Those combos shouldn't even be available on accident. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in terms of defending bad balance.
I wasn't talking about the ih stuff. It's pretty obvious and I already said I don't know what gw was thinking when they wrote this codex. I was talking about stuff like parking a riptide next to a los blocking piece of terrain and stacking shield drones behind it so they can't be shot away. Things like that. I was also getting a little salty about the typical move of nerfing a unit for every faction that can use it just because one factions rules make it op. Once again fw isn't the problem this codex is.
Off the top of my head, if you want that extra Levi, you need to buy another Heavy Support because Relic.
Ah yes what a big tax. Have to take another great unit. It's soooo bad to have to take another good unit. It's like claiming something on necrons were bad if you had to take immortal or dda to unlock it.
Personally would like to see FW banned from many tournaments. Not because I think they are unbalanced or unfair, but mostly because it's just another stack of models/datasheets to learn on top of the million that already exist.
Would much prefer to see people take ven Dreads and redemptors, and keep the deredeos and leviathans for home play.
As a side note, GW should just come out and FAQ that the Iron Stone relic cannot be used with the Duty Eternal strat.
Sure. Ban the marine supplements as well then. Why you need to learn more rules? Oh and get rid of all the specialist detachments as well on the same logic!
bullyboy wrote: Personally would like to see FW banned from many tournaments. Not because I think they are unbalanced or unfair, but mostly because it's just another stack of models/datasheets to learn on top of the million that already exist.
Would much prefer to see people take ven Dreads and redemptors, and keep the deredeos and leviathans for home play.
So come Nov. when the SoB codex arrives (no doubt with new units/strats etc) you gonna sob that they should also be banned because you can't remember them all? How about whatever Psychic Awakening brings? Whatever books come in 2020?
I applaud the attempt to staunch the bleeding but the patient is terminal.
Let's all get ready to salivate for 9th where this will all be fixed
Getting seriously burnt out on this cycle of balance fails that define an edition.
"Just wait the new books will be like this now"
"Well that one wasn't but just hold on this is just the new design paradigm"
"OK well, I guess that's just the way it is now. It's not that bad a few broken corner case lists have edged them out at major events so they aren't unbeatable"
Beyond sheer inertia I have no idea how this is the juggernaut of tabletop gaming.
Stevefamine wrote: As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. Is the event at 2000-2500 points? Then I can see it being an issue.
I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"
How do you nerf them is the question, if you raise costs then it hurts none iron hands, you amend iron hands in any way and all it does is punish the rest of the range to get at the leviathan.
To be honest, saying it can't benefit from 1 or 2 parts of the iron hands combo might be the fairest way to bring it in line.
It's very easy:
- Do not allow damage reduction rules to stack.
- Raise the cost of the Dreadnought takes half damage for a turn stratagem to 2 CP for Relic dreads.
Presto, nerfs both IH specifically and Leviathans (and other Relic dreads) in general without making them useless AND prevents stupid damage reduction combos from popping up in the future.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Could just ban iron hands from tournaments all together until the inevitable nerf. /notsarcasm
Well we are looking at half a year+ ban then. And of course are the rest of marines fair either?
*Looks at CSM 2.0 codex* No. No they're not
Jokes aside, it's an... interesting choice and TO's ABSOLUTELY have the right to ban things from their tournament, hell it looks like this TO knows it'll be a point of contention among the attendees and he's possibly going with the path of least resistance to avoid headaches. Also maybe he hates IH/FW but his call, if people don't like it they need to boycott the event.
I have seen a lot of grumbling and complaints among locals in my meta, some even outright refusing to place IH's if they're against a forgefather parking lot. IH players are frustrated because they can't get a game, I personally tried one game with my Chaos Daemons, was supremely unfun and haven't jumped at the opportunity to repeat the experience.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Could just ban iron hands from tournaments all together until the inevitable nerf. /notsarcasm
Well we are looking at half a year+ ban then. And of course are the rest of marines fair either?
*Looks at CSM 2.0 codex* No. No they're not
Jokes aside, it's an... interesting choice and TO's ABSOLUTELY have the right to ban things from their tournament, hell it looks like this TO knows it'll be a point of contention among the attendees and he's possibly going with the path of least resistance to avoid headaches. Also maybe he hates IH/FW but his call, if people don't like it they need to boycott the event.
I have seen a lot of grumbling and complaints among locals in my meta, some even outright refusing to place IH's if they're against a forgefather parking lot. IH players are frustrated because they can't get a game, I personally tried one game with my Chaos Daemons, was supremely unfun and haven't jumped at the opportunity to repeat the experience.
I really don't understand those IH players. If you'd just play a normal list most people would be fine with playing them. Why are you bringing a nuke to a knife fight if the goal is to have fun stabbing each other, not killing the other guy.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Could just ban iron hands from tournaments all together until the inevitable nerf. /notsarcasm
Well we are looking at half a year+ ban then. And of course are the rest of marines fair either?
*Looks at CSM 2.0 codex* No. No they're not
Jokes aside, it's an... interesting choice and TO's ABSOLUTELY have the right to ban things from their tournament, hell it looks like this TO knows it'll be a point of contention among the attendees and he's possibly going with the path of least resistance to avoid headaches. Also maybe he hates IH/FW but his call, if people don't like it they need to boycott the event.
I have seen a lot of grumbling and complaints among locals in my meta, some even outright refusing to place IH's if they're against a forgefather parking lot. IH players are frustrated because they can't get a game, I personally tried one game with my Chaos Daemons, was supremely unfun and haven't jumped at the opportunity to repeat the experience.
I really don't understand those IH players. If you'd just play a normal list most people would be fine with playing them. Why are you bringing a nuke to a knife fight if the goal is to have fun stabbing each other, not killing the other guy.
Because they enjoy clubbing seals?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Could just ban iron hands from tournaments all together until the inevitable nerf. /notsarcasm
Well we are looking at half a year+ ban then. And of course are the rest of marines fair either?
*Looks at CSM 2.0 codex* No. No they're not
Jokes aside, it's an... interesting choice and TO's ABSOLUTELY have the right to ban things from their tournament, hell it looks like this TO knows it'll be a point of contention among the attendees and he's possibly going with the path of least resistance to avoid headaches. Also maybe he hates IH/FW but his call, if people don't like it they need to boycott the event.
I have seen a lot of grumbling and complaints among locals in my meta, some even outright refusing to place IH's if they're against a forgefather parking lot. IH players are frustrated because they can't get a game, I personally tried one game with my Chaos Daemons, was supremely unfun and haven't jumped at the opportunity to repeat the experience.
I really don't understand those IH players. If you'd just play a normal list most people would be fine with playing them. Why are you bringing a nuke to a knife fight if the goal is to have fun stabbing each other, not killing the other guy.
Because they enjoy clubbing seals?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.
Yeah, but it's clear that if you're into clubbing seals, people won't like you because of that. Not because your club has spikes.
Stevefamine wrote: As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. Is the event at 2000-2500 points? Then I can see it being an issue.
I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"
How do you nerf them is the question, if you raise costs then it hurts none iron hands, you amend iron hands in any way and all it does is punish the rest of the range to get at the leviathan.
To be honest, saying it can't benefit from 1 or 2 parts of the iron hands combo might be the fairest way to bring it in line.
It's very easy:
- Do not allow damage reduction rules to stack.
- Raise the cost of the Dreadnought takes half damage for a turn stratagem to 2 CP for Relic dreads.
Presto, nerfs both IH specifically and Leviathans (and other Relic dreads) in general without making them useless AND prevents stupid damage reduction combos from popping up in the future.
There is a lot more nasty to come than Iron hand Leviathans from the Iron hands Supplement.
Hope you enjoy fighting 3 untargetable charictor dreadnaughts hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's (venerable dreadnaughts plus strategums) that can shift wounds onto any infantry squads around them.
Ironhands Airwing as you know they are clearly an army known for their use of airpower and charictors.
It's also great to see people suggesting Forge World just be banned from the game again - I remember years ago there were people on the forums arguing Forge World was a 3rd party company and claiming the Imperial Armour books weren't legitimate because they'd lost a game to one of them. You might as well just ban whole codexes at this point.
bullyboy wrote: Personally would like to see FW banned from many tournaments. Not because I think they are unbalanced or unfair, but mostly because it's just another stack of models/datasheets to learn on top of the million that already exist.
Would much prefer to see people take ven Dreads and redemptors, and keep the deredeos and leviathans for home play.
So come Nov. when the SoB codex arrives (no doubt with new units/strats etc) you gonna sob that they should also be banned because you can't remember them all? How about whatever Psychic Awakening brings? Whatever books come in 2020?
Agreed stupid statements like these help no-one - the rules for the various FW units are no more obscure than the latest splatbook for Marines or the latest bonus in a campign book. If you cna cope with numerous Marine supplements than you can cope with a couple of FW books.
tournament organisers can do exactly what they want - they are putting the effort into running the thing as long as they are up front about any restrictions - if you can;t deal with your super powerful OP unit not being present - then don't go and let people who want to win against an equally powerful opponent enjoy themselves
tneva82 wrote: Sure. Ban the marine supplements as well then. Why you need to learn more rules? Oh and get rid of all the specialist detachments as well on the same logic!
Organizers have rights to impose restrictions if they think it will make their event better. ETC don`t allow forgeworld and index weapon options.
Now GW is thinking about legends so they also drop them.
Nova had restriction on GSC to come to turn 3, since they trough it was to powerful for their mission format. GW also implemented the some rule.
After this it will not take long before the levi dreaths and IH got some nerfs.
p5freak wrote: Did the TO also ban the 100 pts. T8 W12 eldar psyker ?
The 100 point psyker who needs to pay extra for a gun (145 with D cannon), DOESN'T know smite and his powers are, give a wraith unit 6+++, give them an additional D6 to advance/charge and drop the lowest, or reduce all enemy units leadership by 1 as long as they're within 6".
You can give it a warlord trait to make its guns target characters and with a D cannon that's tasty, but 145 super sniper with 24" range (doesn't need los) with D3 shots is tasty but nowhere near in comparison to IH leviathans.
Wraithseers are an interesting option but not worth spamming, are awful compared to other HQ choices and equal points worth and have a fraction of the support IH Leviathans do.
I hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way when GW gets to balancing the Leviathans. I run one in my Sallies with the Melta Lance and a snippy claw (which is already a sub-par way to run it). Raising the points for the base model just because of it's interactions with IH would be quite devastating.
Marin wrote: Organizers have rights to impose restrictions if they think it will make their event better. ETC don`t allow forgeworld and index weapon options.
Now GW is thinking about legends so they also drop them.
Nova had restriction on GSC to come to turn 3, since they trough it was to powerful for their mission format. GW also implemented the some rule.
After this it will not take long before the levi dreaths and IH got some nerfs.
As long as they're not breaking the leviathan in the process I'm fine with that. Mine is green and a lot less prone to collateral damage, and I want to be able to use it
Orodhen wrote: I hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way when GW gets to balancing the Leviathans. I run one in my Sallies with the Melta Lance and a snippy claw (which is already a sub-par way to run it). Raising the points for the base model just because of it's interactions with IH would be quite devastating.
I'm looking forward to the eventual cull where one of the few units that makes my army viable is nerfed into the ground because GW can't balance its way out of a paper bag.
Continuity wrote: That's unfortunate, I want to see some player bring 3 IH leviathans expecting easy wins and then getting clowned by an eldar airwing running circles around them before getting tagged by a venom charging from behind a wall.
Leviathan is an obvious boogeyman to point fingers to because of the whole "lmao look not even a warlord titan can kill it" meme, meanwhile those 3 repulsor executioners just keep on paddling.
I watched a batrep from glasshammer IH vs an 8 plane Eldar list. On T3 Eldar only had 1 plane. It was brutal. That same Eldar list went 5-0 at LGT fwiw.
You can only hope that GW learnt from their Ynnari rework and don`t nuke the unit.
The saving is that is FW unit and they can modify things easier on the fly. But the other SM ventricles could really suffer, because the rule team overbuffed single faction.
Orodhen wrote: I hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way when GW gets to balancing the Leviathans. I run one in my Sallies with the Melta Lance and a snippy claw (which is already a sub-par way to run it). Raising the points for the base model just because of it's interactions with IH would be quite devastating.
I'm looking forward to the eventual cull where one of the few units that makes my army viable is nerfed into the ground because GW can't balance its way out of a wet,riddled with holes¨paper bag.
Continuity wrote: That's unfortunate, I want to see some player bring 3 IH leviathans expecting easy wins and then getting clowned by an eldar airwing running circles around them before getting tagged by a venom charging from behind a wall.
Leviathan is an obvious boogeyman to point fingers to because of the whole "lmao look not even a warlord titan can kill it" meme, meanwhile those 3 repulsor executioners just keep on paddling.
I watched a batrep from glasshammer IH vs an 8 plane Eldar list. On T3 Eldar only had 1 plane. It was brutal. That same Eldar list went 5-0 at LGT fwiw.
You can only hope that GW learnt from their Ynnari rework and don`t nuke the unit.
The saving is that is FW unit and they can modify things easier on the fly. But the other SM ventricles could really suffer, because the rule team overbuffed single faction.
nope, with CA and the longevity it just is a pendulum letting be swung longer, but learnt, i doubt it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can we all agree that the Levi by itself is slightly OP, but the IH crap with a Levi is broken as all hell?
Because the IH here is the problem. While the Levi is bad, it's not the problem. The godmode cheat code you get with IH is the problem.
The IH codex proves that GW has no clue what they are doing with rules. Who wrote the rules? Someone who had NEVER heard of FW before?
1st, which levi,secondly on it's own, and with most dreads it is fine, i'd persoanlly rather field an allied knight then one, altough with the doctrines and trait rework gw atleast for loyalist broke it through overall rules creep.
Third: Most FW rules atm seem that way, considering multiple FW lists got "butchered" to the point they are non functional anymore and don't have the capability to actually represent what they were. GW also thinks that correspondant units in FW are equal to their mainline units, which leads to a whole slew of hillarious situations, like Renegade and heretics Militia, or Cultists, which got the same pricehike nerf as CSM however are worse then them by design of the whole list.
It is fair to assume that their ruleteam has not really an idea about FW units or armies as a whole so it is a save bet they wouldn't realise that this would be a issue, then again the repulsor variant is superior imo.
Who knows what is going on in that local "meta". Who knows how that tournament usually reacts to what are considered overpowered models.
If that's what they want to do, that's what they want to do. Competitive WH/40k tournaments have always had to be largely houseruled to be viable as a genuine competitive event anyway.
I think that people are making too much fuss about this model.
The old castellan was much much worse than this. For slightly more than the cost of a leviathan + support it had more than double the firepower, 28W T8 3++, could get out of melee and had huge range.
We are not nearly on the same level. An IH leviathan with full support kills just about a leman russ target (out of cover) at range 24", is shut down by a nurgling pissing on its leg and is easily killed with shock weapons (no 5++ stratagem against those, if i remember correctly the marine one works only again the psy phase) and a huge load of other conventional weapons out there. An havoc squad with 3 CP, a reroll 1 aura and a psy power one rounds it, laughing in the face of -1 damage, half damage and 5++.
I don't see how it is ban worthy when we had so much worse in the past.
I would argue the Leviathan is probably one of the best models in the game. It's expensive but it's effective - it does whatever job it needs to be geared to. It's one of the few models that CSMs or SMs can bring that can take on a Riptide at range and go toe to toe with it and even win.
Unfortunately the game is filled with naff models that can barely justify their points cost, and so a useful model is to be dragged down by their presence. I can promise you, GW will probably just end up completely ruining it.
It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
p5freak wrote: Did the TO also ban the 100 pts. T8 W12 eldar psyker ?
Comparing the wraithseer and leviathan is like comparing oranges to apples.
A mildly satisfying easy peeler to a freshly picked pink lady.
We are talking about p5 here, is anyone really surprised? A single guardsman can take on a battalion of primaris marines in this guys opinion if it feeds his agenda at the end of the day. As stated before, ban iron hands for half the year. Shoot, the whole codex. Enough other imperium armies to represent them in the meantime anyway. And chaos is just.. better model wise as is the player base.
Crazyterran wrote: It’s okay, Repulsors/Executioners will just be the IH leviathan that can fall back and shoot.
Repulsors can't get the character rule for protection, nor use the half damage stratagem.
I haven't done the math but to me it feels like Repulsors are easier to kill the Leviathans.
Crazyterran wrote: It’s okay, Repulsors/Executioners will just be the IH leviathan that can fall back and shoot.
Exactly. What is the point of nerfing a unit that is not the one causing the problem? I expect a lot of black and grey SM army owners to be very upset at the incoming nerf.
Crazyterran wrote: It’s okay, Repulsors/Executioners will just be the IH leviathan that can fall back and shoot.
Repulsors can't get the character rule for protection, nor use the half damage stratagem.
I haven't done the math but to me it feels like Repulsors are easier to kill the Leviathans.
making the leviathan a character changes nothing, it has more than 10 wounds. Its the ven dreads in the backfield that become characters
Surprise surprise, GW doesn't consider Forgeworld units at all when making a new Codex.
Who would have thought ?
Redemptor Dreads, Repulsors, Executioners and "Classic Dreads" benefit massively from Feirros and the Ironstone relic. But none of them are on the same level of ******* than a Leviathan Dread.
Keep in mind that Feirros can heal 6 wounds a turn and sniping the supporting characters is far from "easy" because IH have a stratagem that will turn an entire intercessor squad into bodyguards.
- A Blood Angel Smash Captain will need 8 rounds of combat to take down, alone, an IH Leviathan Dread protected by the Ironstone and Eternal Duty.
- 19 Fire Prism attempts using focused fire are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 57 Lascannon shots are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 3 Excutioners firing their Laser Destructor at an IH Leviathan have less than 1% chances of killing it.
- A friggin' Warlord Titan will fail 13% of the time to kill an IH Leviathan in one turn.
To make the IH Levi more balanced, we less need to look at the Levi itself, but instead need to look at the strategem that reduces the damage by half for a whole phase....for 1 CP.
I'd propose...that this remains 1 CP, but is changed to reduces incoming damage from 1 enemy unit for the phase by half.
It requires minimal rework, no points changes, and probably fixes the issue entirely.
Selfcontrol wrote: Surprise surprise, GW doesn't consider Forgeworld units at all when making a new Codex.
Who would have thought ?
GW couldn't even balance GW itself, the combined teams output ofcourse is going to get worse over time. Also gw can't balance it's way out of a wet paper bag with holes in it.
Redemptor Dreads, Repulsors, Executioners and "Classic Dreads" benefit massively from Feirros and the Ironstone relic. But none of them are on the same level of ******* than a Leviathan Dread.
Keep in mind that Feirros can heal 6 wounds a turn and sniping the supporting characters is far from "easy" because IH have a stratagem that will turn an entire intercessor squad into bodyguards.
- A Blood Angel Smash Captain will need 8 rounds of combat to take down, alone, an IH Leviathan Dread protected by the Ironstone and Eternal Duty.
- 19 Fire Prism attempts using focused fire are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 57 Lascannon shots are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 3 Excutioners firing their Laser Destructor at an IH Leviathan have less than 1% chances of killing it.
- A friggin' Warlord Titan will fail 13% of the time to kill an IH Leviathan in one turn.
To make the IH Levi more balanced, we less need to look at the Levi itself, but instead need to look at the strategem that reduces the damage by half for a whole phase....for 1 CP.
I'd propose...that this remains 1 CP, but is changed to reduces incoming damage from 1 enemy unit for the phase by half.
It requires minimal rework, no points changes, and probably fixes the issue entirely.
Or just go back to the drawing board on the supplements and actually delivering something that is not a hackjob.
I’ve mentioned on Bolter and Chainsword that I think the Levi needs adjustment. It’s always been powerful. Until now it’s been balanced IMO due to being one of the few points efficient units in an absolutely garbage codex.
I think they should reduce the Stormcannons profile to 8 shots, or change the ranged invuln to only 5++ if two ranged weapons are equipped. Basically either nerf the damage or durability. They already are short ranged.
Let’s not forget that Leviathans are trash in combat when equipped with dual ranged weapons, and they aren’t titanic so tagging them shuts them down. And snipers are a real thing that can shut down the iron stone relic character. I’ve yet to actually play any games with the new supplements, but Raven Guard look like they could maybe dumpster Iron Hands IMO.
It is a little early for extreme nerfs, as people are still mentally in the “firepower to 1 round a Castellan “ mentality, and that simply doesn’t work vs IH leviathans. Have to see the meta react a little to get a feel I think.
To make the IH Levi more balanced, we less need to look at the Levi itself, but instead need to look at the strategem that reduces the damage by half for a whole phase....for 1 CP.
I'd propose...that this remains 1 CP, but is changed to reduces incoming damage from 1 enemy unit for the phase by half.
It requires minimal rework, no points changes, and probably fixes the issue entirely.
i think the stratagem can be fine on weaker dreads, but your fix seems pretty simple and would remediate anti-tank weapons being the worse choice against levis. Another option is to remove the <Dreadnought> keyword from forgeworld models, much like vindicator, predators, helbrute and now whirlwind stratagems only affect the "vanilla" models.
Selfcontrol wrote: Surprise surprise, GW doesn't consider Forgeworld units at all when making a new Codex.
Who would have thought ?
Redemptor Dreads, Repulsors, Executioners and "Classic Dreads" benefit massively from Feirros and the Ironstone relic. But none of them are on the same level of ******* than a Leviathan Dread.
Keep in mind that Feirros can heal 6 wounds a turn and sniping the supporting characters is far from "easy" because IH have a stratagem that will turn an entire intercessor squad into bodyguards.
- A Blood Angel Smash Captain will need 8 rounds of combat to take down, alone, an IH Leviathan Dread protected by the Ironstone and Eternal Duty.
- 19 Fire Prism attempts using focused fire are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 57 Lascannon shots are required to kill an IH Leviathan.
- 3 Excutioners firing their Laser Destructor at an IH Leviathan have less than 1% chances of killing it.
- A friggin' Warlord Titan will fail 13% of the time to kill an IH Leviathan in one turn.
What a surprise that some TO consider banning it.
Except you forget all the Codex Dreads suck as basically anyone, even as Iron Hands. Only the Gun Platform Ven Dreads are even worth anything.
Also maybe when so much is invested in one model, surprise surprise, it is hard to kill. Everything you talk about is an investment of both CP and points.
And snipers are a real thing that can shut down the iron stone relic character.
IH have a stratagem that turns an entire friendly squad into bodyguards. Sniping characters when you have 10 intercessors acting as bodyguards is not something easy to do. If you are unlucky enough to not have access to anything except psychic powers to "snipe" (looking at you CSM), you have to manifest the power, then your opponent can try to deny that and if he fails he can still use an IH stratagem that let you deny the power on 4+.
So let's deepstrike then ? Auspex scan. Also Infiltrator with their 12" deep-strike denying bubble.
Executioners and Repulsors cannot be tied up in combat. This is true. But getting into melee against SM V2 is not easy at all and you will have to deal with Overwatch on 4++ which is almost equal to a 2+ BS if you have acess to full rerolls thanks to a Chapter Master nearby.
Also, even with Feirros and an Ironstone, Executioners, Redemtors and Repulsors can still be cleanly shot off the board with enough concentrated firepower. It's not easy, but doable. Leviathans are friggin' monsters compared to them.
Also maybe when so much is invested in one model, surprise surprise, it is hard to kill. Everything you talk about is an investment of both CP and points.
300 points for the Leviathan, 110 for the vastly undercosted Feirros, around 80 for a Captain equiped with an Ironstone, 2 CP for Chapter Master (for these sweet 4+ Overwatch with full rerolls) and 1 CP a turn for Eternal Duty.
"Huge" investment indeed for an overpowered model.
But I guess you could make a case that regular Dreads are garbage when compared to an overpowered one.
I would like to see the IH strat raised to 3CP, and only affect that model once per game. So you can make that Levi unkillable for a turn, but then it's game on.
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can we all agree that the Levi by itself is slightly OP, but the IH crap with a Levi is broken as all hell?
Because the IH here is the problem. While the Levi is bad, it's not the problem. The godmode cheat code you get with IH is the problem.
The IH codex proves that GW has no clue what they are doing with rules. Who wrote the rules? Someone who had NEVER heard of FW before?
Well apparently they've never heard of repulsor executioners, venerable dreadnoughts, contemptor mortis, or space marine flyers. And I'm sure there's more we've not noticed yet. This codex makes units that are good in other armies horrific in their's. And if you think fw dreadnoughts are bad wait till you see what an ihfw super heavy looks like.
Crazyterran wrote: It’s okay, Repulsors/Executioners will just be the IH leviathan that can fall back and shoot.
Repulsors can't get the character rule for protection, nor use the half damage stratagem.
I haven't done the math but to me it feels like Repulsors are easier to kill the Leviathans.
making the leviathan a character changes nothing, it has more than 10 wounds. Its the ven dreads in the backfield that become characters
You can give it the student of history warlord trait and it can consolidate 6" out from combat so that you struggle to pin it down. Thats if you somehow survived the overwatch
The IH Levi is a problem because it simply can't be shot to death. It negates a huge amount of army builds.
The one counter available is to boop it in combat, which a significant number of armies aren't and can't be build to do.
On the other hand... IH Levi Dreads are just the tip of the iceberg honestly when it comes to the new marine dex. There are a ton of absolutely insane other units that walk all over other army builds. There are at least 2 other IH armies that are being discussed (repulsor executioners and character dread blobs), let alone an actually tuned and well practiced list that doesn't just pick the most blatantly obvious combos, or looking in to any of the other marine chapters or build-your-own-successors.
To make the IH Levi more balanced, we less need to look at the Levi itself, but instead need to look at the strategem that reduces the damage by half for a whole phase....for 1 CP.
I'd propose...that this remains 1 CP, but is changed to reduces incoming damage from 1 enemy unit for the phase by half.
It requires minimal rework, no points changes, and probably fixes the issue entirely.
GW needs to go revisit a lot of stratagems and change their CP cost depending on how powerful a unit they are affecting.
Knights obviously do this, having different cost for the different classes of knights.
Daemons have their Deep Strike stratagem cost more for larger units.
So it shouldn't be that unreasonable to see an almost blanket rule - if the target of a stratagem is 12PL or more, add 1 (or double?) the cost of the stratagem.
BOOM. tonnes of problem units fixed in a heartbeat.
The other thing they could and probably should target is the Ironstone relic - the thing that gives -1 DMG in a bubble. Its so amazing, I don't think it can be balanced in its current iteration at all. Re-write it from the ground up - Iron stone gives +1 to FNP rolls within 6".
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Ah, you’re the kind of player that I make activtate their chest clock and ensure I ask as many questions as possible during your turn to make sure you may make mistakes, waste time answering my questions, and I win because you run out of time and I just get multiple turns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except you forget all the Codex Dreads suck as basically anyone, even as Iron Hands. Only the Gun Platform Ven Dreads are even worth anything.
Maybe before the codex was released, but they've got a new lease on life now.
Also maybe when so much is invested in one model, surprise surprise, it is hard to kill. Everything you talk about is an investment of both CP and points.
Its not really a huge investment in one model though? Everything that you would take with the levi dread, are good units in their own right.
And even then, even if you consider every single point spent supporting the Levi as not existing without the Levi... its still harder to kill than equal points of nearly any other unit in the game.
Selfcontrol wrote: Redemptor Dreads, Repulsors, Executioners and "Classic Dreads" benefit massively from Feirros and the Ironstone relic
So why not ban Feirros until they give him proper price and the relic?
I don't think that Feirros is an issue.
It's a 5++. I don't remember Demon Engines being broken. If you raise its cost is because he is a bit too good in melee for the cost.
Daemon engines aren't broken because
a) even at full HP their damage output is pretty terrible
b) their 5++ is already factored in to their cost.
This is kind of an issue with ALL aura abilities in the game and how intentional synergy can rapidly devolve in to OP cheese.
If Feirros sits next to a 300pt vehicle that was correctly costed without an invulnerable save, and improves its survivability by lets say 20% on average, then if he does literally nothing else all game he's still covered 3/4 of his points cost.
If he sits next to 2 vehicles, he's covered is points and then some.
Oh, but he ALSO has hit rerolls. and bonuses to hit. and healing. Not to mention his own respectable combat abilities...
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
What if I play Renegades and Heretics? What if I play a faction reliant on FW units to have any hope of competing on the same level as Eldar, new Marines, Guard, etc? What if I simply dont have enough non FW units for an army to make a coherent list otherwise (been there myself).
The distinctions you are drawing (e.g. "base army") exist nowhere in the rules, it is one you are projecting onto the game, differentiation by sales channel at best.
I've TO'd events myself. FW was never a problem from that perspective, and should be less so today than at any other point in the past with Battlescribe and digital downloads and FW books that don't cost $90.
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
Sorry but you seem to be saying - People should only use the things "I" buy - if you buy other stuff I don;t - then no that should not be used. Just admit your self interest.
How is it harder to keep an eye on a coupel fo Index books rather than all the various Marine splatbooks, campaign books etc,
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except you forget all the Codex Dreads suck as basically anyone, even as Iron Hands. Only the Gun Platform Ven Dreads are even worth anything.
Maybe before the codex was released, but they've got a new lease on life now.
Also maybe when so much is invested in one model, surprise surprise, it is hard to kill. Everything you talk about is an investment of both CP and points.
Its not really a huge investment in one model though? Everything that you would take with the levi dread, are good units in their own right.
And even then, even if you consider every single point spent supporting the Levi as not existing without the Levi... its still harder to kill than equal points of nearly any other unit in the game.
Selfcontrol wrote: Redemptor Dreads, Repulsors, Executioners and "Classic Dreads" benefit massively from Feirros and the Ironstone relic
So why not ban Feirros until they give him proper price and the relic?
I don't think that Feirros is an issue.
It's a 5++. I don't remember Demon Engines being broken. If you raise its cost is because he is a bit too good in melee for the cost.
Daemon engines aren't broken because
a) even at full HP their damage output is pretty terrible
b) their 5++ is already factored in to their cost.
This is kind of an issue with ALL aura abilities in the game and how intentional synergy can rapidly devolve in to OP cheese.
If Feirros sits next to a 300pt vehicle that was correctly costed without an invulnerable save, and improves its survivability by lets say 20% on average, then if he does literally nothing else all game he's still covered 3/4 of his points cost.
If he sits next to 2 vehicles, he's covered is points and then some.
Oh, but he ALSO has hit rerolls. and bonuses to hit. and healing. Not to mention his own respectable combat abilities...
LOL no they do not have any new lease on life. They're all still terrible for the price outside being Ven and being a gunboat. FW is the only source for a good variety of both good range OR melee dreads.
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
What would happen if a tournament decided to ban Stratagems? They're not part of the base army, they're an appendix tacked onto the end.
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
What would happen if a tournament decided to ban Stratagems? They're not part of the base army, they're an appendix tacked onto the end.
If we ban FW it just makes the game better. Or at least the marine half of the FW line. If something is broken xeno or chaos wise, I mean they deserve it because look at the state they are in. Imperium? They get so many things that most players don’t really care if that player base has nice things or not
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If we ban FW it just makes the game better. Or at least the marine half of the FW line. If something is broken xeno or chaos wise, I mean they deserve it because look at the state they are in. Imperium? They get so many things that most players don’t really care if that player base has nice things or not
What units do you actually want to ban?
The Malcador? Custodes Venatari? The Lynx? The Warp Hunter? What units are actually a problem? Or is this just the same kind of blanket "let's try and make the broadest one-sentence fix we can, to the Warp with whatever else we break along the way" that produces most of GW's rules and the Proposed Rules forum?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If we ban FW it just makes the game better. Or at least the marine half of the FW line. If something is broken xeno or chaos wise, I mean they deserve it because look at the state they are in. Imperium? They get so many things that most players don’t really care if that player base has nice things or not
What units do you actually want to ban?
The Malcador? Custodes Venatari? The Lynx? The Warp Hunter? What units are actually a problem? Or is this just the same kind of blanket "let's try and make the broadest one-sentence fix we can, to the Warp with whatever else we break along the way" that produces most of GW's rules and the Proposed Rules forum?
Pretty much this. Honestly, good for you for buying a FW model. I have a few as well. But honesty as a TO idc if your army isn’t viable without FW, should of thought of that before purchasing an army that could at any point in time fall off the map by never getting updated. Not my problem friend
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
What if I play Renegades and Heretics? What if I play a faction reliant on FW units to have any hope of competing on the same level as Eldar, new Marines, Guard, etc? What if I simply dont have enough non FW units for an army to make a coherent list otherwise (been there myself).
The distinctions you are drawing (e.g. "base army") exist nowhere in the rules, it is one you are projecting onto the game, differentiation by sales channel at best.
I've TO'd events myself. FW was never a problem from that perspective, and should be less so today than at any other point in the past with Battlescribe and digital downloads and FW books that don't cost $90.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some. let's look at the books..
Codex Space Marines, Codex (insert specific marine supplement), Vigilus book, Space Marines FW book, FAQs, etc, etc. pretty extensive. Are you going to be annoyed if your opponent keeps asking you to show him the datasheet or strategem for a specific model from all of those sources? It's purely a book keeping issue. Each player has a single codex (and now I guess the marines have a supplement) to draw their army from. If tehy soup, the list gets even more extensive.
And sorry, but what faction depends on FW to make them competitive?
If anyone had that many rules and insisted on using them, every single turn on THEIR clock I’d ask as many questions as I’d want, look at data sheets, ask about specific weapons, interactions, movements, special rules, etc. who cares if their clock goes down.
That's kind of a gak attitude to have, cuz honestly, if people don't buy an army it's guaranteed to stop getting updates. Guess, to be safe, everyone should only buy and play Ultramarines.
bullyboy wrote: ...And sorry, but what faction depends on FW to make them competitive?
This is honestly the thing that has me kind of baffled about the whole "Ban FW!" thing that pops up every now and again. GW writes way more broken rules than FW ever has. The only case where FW models are actually integral to my army are my Custodes because GW couldn't be bothered to write a functional and complete army with them. I use FW models because I like them, not because they make me auto-win games by being broken, and then GW comes along and breaks the Iron Hands beyond all hope of repair, and people start shouting "FW broken, ban FW!" Nobody says "Ban GW rules!" when the Knights show up and every single list has a Castellan in it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can we all agree that the Levi by itself is slightly OP, but the IH crap with a Levi is broken as all hell?
Because the IH here is the problem. While the Levi is bad, it's not the problem. The godmode cheat code you get with IH is the problem.
The IH codex proves that GW has no clue what they are doing with rules. Who wrote the rules? Someone who had NEVER heard of FW before?
Well apparently they've never heard of repulsor executioners, venerable dreadnoughts, contemptor mortis, or space marine flyers. And I'm sure there's more we've not noticed yet. This codex makes units that are good in other armies horrific in their's. And if you think fw dreadnoughts are bad wait till you see what an ihfw super heavy looks like.
Ehhh - those are all pretty overpriced. Relic fellblade and falchion are in the 1000 points range. The Astraeus is like 750 but doesn't hit all that hard at all. Knights are significantly better than all these options. Yes - the ironhands abilitiy to give any vehicle POTMS for the whole game for the cost of 0 is flat out busted but lets just tac on reroll 1's for SNG's too.
People think the sky is going to fall if FW are banned from a tournament....that's pretty hilarious really. It's just one source of material. Same could be said of the Vigilus books...not in this event? OK, no problem. Or the upcoming Psychic Awakening. Not every list, datasheet, modification, etc needs to be available all the time. Bloat for the bloat God and all that.
It's like people who just play ITC all the time, nothing else. The game can be soooo much better. You're practically playing the same mission Every.Single.Game.
bullyboy wrote: ...And sorry, but what faction depends on FW to make them competitive?
This is honestly the thing that has me kind of baffled about the whole "Ban FW!" thing that pops up every now and again. GW writes way more broken rules than FW ever has. The only case where FW models are actually integral to my army are my Custodes because GW couldn't be bothered to write a functional and complete army with them. I use FW models because I like them, not because they make me auto-win games by being broken, and then GW comes along and breaks the Iron Hands beyond all hope of repair, and people start shouting "FW broken, ban FW!" Nobody says "Ban GW rules!" when the Knights show up and every single list has a Castellan in it.
FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: People think the sky is going to fall if FW are banned from a tournament....that's pretty hilarious really. It's just one source of material. Same could be said of the Vigilus books...not in this event? OK, no problem. Or the upcoming Psychic Awakening. Not every list, datasheet, modification, etc needs to be available all the time. Bloat for the bloat God and all that.
It's like people who just play ITC all the time, nothing else. The game can be soooo much better. You're practically playing the same mission Every.Single.Game.
Can't blame them - they should be able to use their favorite models.
The solution is simple...GW/FW need to stop sucking at rules writing.
bullyboy wrote: People think the sky is going to fall if FW are banned from a tournament....that's pretty hilarious really. It's just one source of material. Same could be said of the Vigilus books...not in this event? OK, no problem. Or the upcoming Psychic Awakening. Not every list, datasheet, modification, etc needs to be available all the time. Bloat for the bloat God and all that.
It's like people who just play ITC all the time, nothing else. The game can be soooo much better. You're practically playing the same mission Every.Single.Game.
Playing different missions =/= straight up banning units and armies line you want
bullyboy wrote: People think the sky is going to fall if FW are banned from a tournament....that's pretty hilarious really. It's just one source of material. Same could be said of the Vigilus books...not in this event? OK, no problem. Or the upcoming Psychic Awakening. Not every list, datasheet, modification, etc needs to be available all the time. Bloat for the bloat God and all that.
It's like people who just play ITC all the time, nothing else. The game can be soooo much better. You're practically playing the same mission every.single.game.
You don't understand why people might take it personally when you say "Oh, (person), you can't use your stuff 'cause it'd make the game better"? ...If I restated it as "Oh, (person), the game would be better without you" does it make more sense?
So, honest reflection, we are all decrying the unbalanced nature of FW, but if there was zero FW, GW products would still be inherently broken. The IH silliness extends to GW models as well. I for one don't want to see unkillable Contemptors coming at me, or unkillable Executioners.
GW is not as widely unbalanced as GW is, but the GW unbalance is extreme in certain instances.
FW makes their units unbalanced. It's their thing. GW unbalances their units through sheer idiocy. Sloppy writing and not being aware what else is in their universe, leads to overpoweredness.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
I don't get why people are so hung up on banning stuff just because they don't bother keeping current on things they don't own. It's not like they're some sort of 3rd party company with fanmade rules for 40k.
I don't know anything about Dark Eldar, you don't see me trying to get them banned. Yes they are official an GW army, but then so is everything FW makes.
Orodhen wrote: Citadel miniatures. Made by GW, rules by GW.
Forgeworld miniatures. Made by GW, rules by GW.
I don't get why people are so hung up on banning stuff just because they don't bother keeping current on things they don't own. It's not like they're some sort of 3rd party company with fanmade rules for 40k.
I don't know anything about Dark Eldar, you don't see me trying to get them banned. Yes they are official an GW army, but then so is everything FW makes.
Not my problem to know your rules. Your problem to explain them to me during the tournament match. As many times as I ask.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
considering the rules teams have been folded together one would expect better results right?
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
I think it is fair to assume that when GW makes rules they do not consider forge world units when they write them. Then they just give the rules away in an FAQ.
A lot of the ban FW cries come from a fear of the unknown, it's often units people don't see often and dont understand so they become the boogeymen.
Often people get a whooping from unit because they weren't sure how it behaves and didn't plan for it, so when they see it's not in a codex it becomes easy to point at it and blame it.
Agreed the weirdest combos are usually FW units because codex writers seem to forget they exist for some reason.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
I think it is fair to assume that when GW makes rules they do not consider forge world units when they write them. Then they just give the rules away in an FAQ.
After the death of the FW subdivision leader and the initial wave of releases GW rules team has fully taken over.
THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT EXISTS BEYOND THE CODEX POND.
They just lack the willingness to propperly adress the issues, and or admit they fethed up on some of the supplements.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
considering the rules teams have been folded together one would expect better results right?
Ehh - I find that really hard to believe. If I was writting a space marine codex and making changes to units within it why wouldn't I simultaneously modify the FW army entries? They benefit from the codex just as much as any unit inside the codex. They don't even consider them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: A lot of the ban FW cries come from a fear of the unknown, it's often units people don't see often and dont understand so they become the boogeymen.
Often people get a whooping from unit because they weren't sure how it behaves and didn't plan for it, so when they see it's not in a codex it becomes easy to point at it and blame it.
Agreed the weirdest combos are usually FW units because codex writers seem to forget they exist for some reason.
I own a levi dread. The people Ive used it against when were are playing just semi competitive games would really rather not face it. Because it results in them just picking up units every time it shoots. This was before the new marine codex made it even better...It is a clear OP unit and overall best unit marines have access to. It's not a boogeyman - it's been out in front all edition and everyone knows its OP. The only reason space marines wern't able to win with it is because they rest of their army was fething atrociously bad.
Please, stop with the "GW writes FW rules" nonsense. It's clear to even casual observers that's not true.
- They often conflict
- They often invalidate previous units entirely, thus hurting sales
- They were an ENTIRELY SEPARATE company until recently
- GW only codifies the FW rules, they don't actively create them
- GW events have banned FW lists or models entirely at times. What business sense does this make to make a high cost model illegal?
- GW routinely makes rules regarding new units without seeming consideration of non-GW units. See IH fiasco.
- GW balance is based around non-FW units being in play. See what happens when you drop a Titan into a casual or even competitive game. You get beat up.
- The GW/FW business is not listed on either of their sites, meaning they are direct competitors for sales.
- GW rules cost money, whereas FW gives their's away basically for free. Downloaded PDFs. GW gives nothing away for free.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
considering the rules teams have been folded together one would expect better results right?
Ehh - I find that really hard to believe. If I was writting a space marine codex and making changes to units within it why wouldn't I simultaneously modify the FW army entries? They benefit from the codex just as much as any unit inside the codex. They don't even consider them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: A lot of the ban FW cries come from a fear of the unknown, it's often units people don't see often and dont understand so they become the boogeymen.
Often people get a whooping from unit because they weren't sure how it behaves and didn't plan for it, so when they see it's not in a codex it becomes easy to point at it and blame it.
Agreed the weirdest combos are usually FW units because codex writers seem to forget they exist for some reason.
I own a levi dread. The people Ive used it against when were are playing just semi competitive games would really rather not face it. Because it results in them just picking up units every time it shoots. This was before the new marine codex made it even better...It is a clear OP unit and overall best unit marines have access to. It's not a boogeyman - it's been out in front all edition and everyone knows its OP. The only reason space marines wern't able to win with it is because they rest of their army was fething atrociously bad.
I agree on the leviathan, I more meant why people knee jerk to the ban all fw card.
bullyboy wrote: People think the sky is going to fall if FW are banned from a tournament....that's pretty hilarious really. It's just one source of material. Same could be said of the Vigilus books...not in this event? OK, no problem. Or the upcoming Psychic Awakening. Not every list, datasheet, modification, etc needs to be available all the time. Bloat for the bloat God and all that.
It's like people who just play ITC all the time, nothing else. The game can be soooo much better. You're practically playing the same mission every.single.game.
You don't understand why people might take it personally when you say "Oh, (person), you can't use your stuff 'cause it'd make the game better"? ...If I restated it as "Oh, (person), the game would be better without you" does it make more sense?
yeah, because there are many people that if were banned, would increase enjoyment for many others. That's a poor comparison
FW is an expansion, period. Not all expansions should have to be included all the time, especially if GW have a hard time balancing their existing content.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, stop with the "GW writes FW rules" nonsense. It's clear to even casual observers that's not true.
- They often conflict
So do mainline GW rules, or are we forgetting the exception to the exception rules?
- They often invalidate previous units entirely, thus hurting sales
LOL
- They were an ENTIRELY SEPARATE company until recently
FW is not a other Company, infact it's not even a subsidary. IT'S completely inhouse. but here Let me enlighten you:
Spoiler:
You'll occasionally find arguments online or perhaps within local gaming groups about the validity or "official-ness" of Forge World products. This has become less prevalent in recent years as the general perception of Forge World has become more mainstream, though every now and then the prejudice rears its ugly head, usually when your opponent won't let you play the FW model you forked out a small fortune for.
Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Forge World (and Black Library) is Games Workshop. They share the same trading address and legal identity. It is not a subsidiary company (which would be a separate legal entity, but owned by the parent) nor is it a licensee (which is a third party permitted to use the IP).
By comparison, Citadel Miniatures was founded as a subsidiary company and had its own separate projects outside of Warhammer/Warhammer 40,000 (so your opponent can Rage when you tell him your Forge World model has more direct legal provenance than his old metal models). GW also acquired Sabertooth games, which operated as an independent subsidiary, but both were eventually absorbed back into Games Workshop.
So, back to the issue with Forge World. Many people had an innate dislike for the fact that Forge World models and rules were not actually declared by Forge World *or* Games Workshop to be "officially" part of the game; they would refuse to allow them on the tabletop, since they did not come from a Games Workshop primary rules source (such as a Codex, or the Big Rule Book). Forge World eventually started printing prefaces in their books explaining that their rules were official; but some still claim that since "Games Workshop" itself hasn't come out and said it, that they remain unofficial. However, since the spines of FW's books have always had the Games Workshop logos on them and the inside front cover have the legal copyright and property notices from GW, this argument seems specious at best; rather, much like how the Big Rule Book has no actual explicit declaration that rules from White Dwarf are "official", the Imperial Armour books themselves should be considered as canonical (what ever that means in 40k) as GW sources.
However, as with White Dwarf, GW hates you far too much as a gamer and customer to label any of their rulebooks/codices with edition numbers, much less ensure that their FW rules are always kept up to date with the current edition, and unlike Codices where you can typically determine the edition at a glance, a lot of Forgeworld books superficially "look" similar and may even have exactly the same name (to date there have been FOUR books with the title "Imperial Armour Apocalypse" but only two of them have sub-titles). This can be a major reason the rules are banned at tournaments, and an opponent might object for the same reason they might object to fighting a Squats army under the current rules - however "obvious" the rules translation might be, some people are uncomfortable playing games across too wide an edition gap, as rules interactions may make no sense at all and/or have utterly pathological balance ramifications. Update this has become pretty much irrelevant with the release of 8th edition where forgeworld have released complete indexes for pretty much their entire line.
We all know how litigious GW can get with regards to "unofficial" products using their copyright, so you can bet if it wasn't official/legal Forge World would have had their asses handed to them, but it would seem absolutely stupid to sue the guys in the next office over in the same building as you.
So next time you get to the table and your opponent starts whining about your Forge World models not being legal, just batter him over the head with your Imperial Armour book, which will be an order of magnitude heavier than his little codex and claim your victory by default.
As an additional side note - this has nothing to do with the perception of FW rules being either powerfully unbalanced or too focused on the narrative, but on reflection, that's no different from the skub surrounding codex creep and painful nerfing already rampant within "core" GW material. So what's new?
If a Tournament Organiser decides that they don't want to include Forgeworld rules then that is entirely their prerogative as they will want the tournament to be as balanced or as hassle free as is reasonable, especially since FW have a tendency to publish their rules with minor variances across multiple "in-date" books, which can be a nightmare to manage, especially where some books have "current" rules alongside other rules which have been superseded elsewhere. Though with the advent of 8th edition, and all factions receiving simultaneous rule updates via indexes (Imperial, Xenos and Chaos Imperial Armour indexes), these rules are much easier to keep track of than ever before.
But these organisers (if they are smart) will also likely restrict "core" army selections too, so no Unbound lists or may exclude certain FOCs, because in the end which is more unbalanced and cheesy? The guy who takes a contemptor dreadnought in his Combined Arms detachment or the guy who take an unbound army of Heldrakes? (Ha Held Rakes sound scary). If the tournament organizer is using the ITC standard for 40k, Forge World units themselves are in fact quite legal.
- GW only codifies the FW rules, they don't actively create them
CA begs to differ.
- GW routinely makes rules regarding new units without seeming consideration of non-GW units. See IH fiasco.
You are talking about GW. A company that has no fething clue half the time about the game and it's units.
- GW routinely makes rules regarding new units without seeming consideration of non-GW units. See IH fiasco.
GW allready knew what rules are there, they just want to push sales for leviathans.
- GW balance is based around non-FW units being in play. See what happens when you drop a Titan into a casual or even competitive game. You get beat up.
Depends, some people can't deal with one, albeit that is nowadays less an issue due to knight prevalence, other times they start crying becausew "FW BOOGEYMAN TOUCHED ME"
- The GW/FW business is not listed on either of their sites, meaning they are direct competitors for sales.
GW/FW are the same fething legal entity, LOOK IT UP, instead of spewing BS.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If anyone had that many rules and insisted on using them, every single turn on THEIR clock I’d ask as many questions as I’d want, look at data sheets, ask about specific weapons, interactions, movements, special rules, etc. who cares if their clock goes down.
THIS is why I don't like to play competitive. You sound like "that guy" personified. Seriously if someone wants to ban fw from their tournament that's their call. They can insist every army in it be painted pink if they want. It's then everyone's decision if they want to play in that tournament. My problem is arguing for nerfing fw in the rules everyone uses. That affects people outside your tournament. Don't like the units or rules? Just ban them from your tournament and leave everyone else alone. But as far as banning things because of "too many rules "? Go download battlescribe for feths sake.
Xenomancers wrote: I own a levi dread. The people Ive used it against when were are playing just semi competitive games would really rather not face it. Because it results in them just picking up units every time it shoots. This was before the new marine codex made it even better...It is a clear OP unit and overall best unit marines have access to. It's not a boogeyman - it's been out in front all edition and everyone knows its OP. The only reason space marines wern't able to win with it is because they rest of their army was fething atrociously bad.
The same could be said with many regular GW units.
Xenomancers wrote: ...FW makes obscure units that do particular things really well...it is a balancing nightmare...Like...just look at a sicarian punisher. It's also extremely busted as iron hands and with doctrines. While it is true that GW also makes really busted rules...they are almost always exploited better by a FW unit...
Maybe if they stopped writing all their rules in a little vacuum-sealed bubble without acknowledging the existence of anything else outside of that book?
considering the rules teams have been folded together one would expect better results right?
Ehh - I find that really hard to believe. If I was writting a space marine codex and making changes to units within it why wouldn't I simultaneously modify the FW army entries? They benefit from the codex just as much as any unit inside the codex. They don't even consider them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: A lot of the ban FW cries come from a fear of the unknown, it's often units people don't see often and dont understand so they become the boogeymen.
Often people get a whooping from unit because they weren't sure how it behaves and didn't plan for it, so when they see it's not in a codex it becomes easy to point at it and blame it.
Agreed the weirdest combos are usually FW units because codex writers seem to forget they exist for some reason.
I own a levi dread. The people Ive used it against when were are playing just semi competitive games would really rather not face it. Because it results in them just picking up units every time it shoots. This was before the new marine codex made it even better...It is a clear OP unit and overall best unit marines have access to. It's not a boogeyman - it's been out in front all edition and everyone knows its OP. The only reason space marines wern't able to win with it is because they rest of their army was fething atrociously bad.
I agree on the leviathan, I more meant why people knee jerk to the ban all fw card.
I used to be like that because I couldn't afford FW. Now that I can I am more open minded about it. The truth is FW makes a lot of OP units and a lot of really bad ones too. Just like GW in that sense. The issue is FW units break the mold of what units can do. They get strange special rules designed to be cool and often get things that codex units dont get...Tons of guns / invune saves / sometimes just a stronger unit that costs more but as a result stacks much harder with stratagems.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If anyone had that many rules and insisted on using them, every single turn on THEIR clock I’d ask as many questions as I’d want, look at data sheets, ask about specific weapons, interactions, movements, special rules, etc. who cares if their clock goes down.
THIS is why I don't like to play competitive. You sound like "that guy" personified. Seriously if someone wants to ban fw from their tournament that's their call. They can insist every army in it be painted pink if they want. It's then everyone's decision if they want to play in that tournament. My problem is arguing for nerfing fw in the rules everyone uses. That affects people outside your tournament. Don't like the units or rules? Just ban them from your tournament and leave everyone else alone. But as far as banning things because of "too many rules "? Go download battlescribe for feths sake.
I’d rather get them fewer turns, moves, and activations by running out their clock with questions, and making them make mistakes because their brain is focusing on the questions and not on the strategy. On the flip side if they tried doing the same to me, I’d carry out my activations, explain in a few seconds what it does, and stop my clock for their response to my action to start their clock again. Making sure mine doesn’t get wasted with such trivial matters
If people believe FW are not slightly more OP than their codex equivalents then why is it than when asking for list advice the default often is ...take a Leviathan, take a mortis Contemptor, etc? I've lost count how many times when building a DA list that needs the last few hundred points being filled, and specifically stating not FW (mainly because I don't have the option or intend to spend the $$ to access) that I still get "take a leviathan, contemptor mortis, chaplain dread, etc). Same with my Deathwatch.
And to clarify..
Not all FW is OP, by a long shot
FW make some fine looking units
Removing FW from an event won't ruin anyone's experience
heck, give me a monodex tournament, would be a blast. Yes, that means Space Marines only, not UM, RG, IH, WS etc. Just one source for your army.
bullyboy wrote: If people believe FW are not slightly more OP than their codex equivalents then why is it than when asking for list advice the default often is ...take a Leviathan, take a mortis Contemptor, etc? I've lost count how many times when building a DA list that needs the last few hundred points being filled, and specifically stating not FW (mainly because I don't have the option or intend to spend the $$ to access) that I still get "take a leviathan, contemptor mortis, chaplain dread, etc). Same with my Deathwatch.
And to clarify.. Not all FW is OP, by a long shot FW make some fine looking units Removing FW from an event won't ruin anyone's experience
heck, give me a monodex tournament, would be a blast. Yes, that means Space Marines only, not UM, RG, IH, WS etc. Just one source for your army.
First part, Becuase in spite of GW's efforts, the CSM /SM armies lack a good and i mean good inhouse ranged Dreadnought option. Which is what the Leviathan fills.
Secondly: Yes infact most of the FW stuff is so underwhelming you are not seeing any beyond the dreads.
Thirdly: That is if they don't feth up the resin again, i still have a unsued R&H icon that is filled between all parts and bent with holes in it from my last buy before R&H went OOP. Not to mention the shoulder pads of my decimator....
Fourth: Removing FW would infact hit all that have a FW index list, FW units, etc. so stating that it would not ruin anyones experience is just :
Fifth: A monodex tournament would mostly be interesting until the strong monodexes show up, and depending on the ruleset used you would see the usual suspects to show up.
If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
So should we also ban any and all eldar flyer because it's a minority aswell and highly skew ?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
Sure, rather than sprinkling in my blood slaughterer or spined beast for a laugh, I'll swap it out for some more lord discordants. That's a much nicer list to play against
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
Sure, rather than sprinkling in my blood slaughterer or spined beast for a laugh, I'll swap it out for some more lord discordants. That's a much nicer list to play against
Could always throw down an allied in Chaos knight, i heard the melee version packs a nasty punch.
FW units have their place. I wouldn't want to set them banned. But the playable ones are strong enough that they would still see play even without access to CT or stratagems. That seems more reasonable to me.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If anyone had that many rules and insisted on using them, every single turn on THEIR clock I’d ask as many questions as I’d want, look at data sheets, ask about specific weapons, interactions, movements, special rules, etc. who cares if their clock goes down.
THIS is why I don't like to play competitive. You sound like "that guy" personified. Seriously if someone wants to ban fw from their tournament that's their call. They can insist every army in it be painted pink if they want. It's then everyone's decision if they want to play in that tournament. My problem is arguing for nerfing fw in the rules everyone uses. That affects people outside your tournament. Don't like the units or rules? Just ban them from your tournament and leave everyone else alone. But as far as banning things because of "too many rules "? Go download battlescribe for feths sake.
I’d rather get them fewer turns, moves, and activations by running out their clock with questions, and making them make mistakes because their brain is focusing on the questions and not on the strategy. On the flip side if they tried doing the same to me, I’d carry out my activations, explain in a few seconds what it does, and stop my clock for their response to my action to start their clock again. Making sure mine doesn’t get wasted with such trivial matters
1) Questions you are on the asker's time, not the answerer's.
2) You don't ever stop the clock.
3) If you really do this, please stop, you're being a dick and giving the 99.9% of competitive players who are decent human beings a bad name,
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
So should we also ban any and all eldar flyer because it's a minority aswell and highly skew ?
OR knights,
Or..
Or,,,
etc. et.c
Should we implement a total banlist then?
Would love to see an adjustment to Eldar fliers, yes (and this coming from someone with 2 hemlocks)
FW only players are taking a risk for games, period. You chose a niche army, so it comes with risk.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: If your list depends on FW, that’s a personal problem and impacts very VERY few people. Sorry but the minority loses. Goodbye FW players, find a new combo to use in the hobby or leave
So should we also ban any and all eldar flyer because it's a minority aswell and highly skew ?
OR knights,
Or..
Or,,,
etc. et.c
Should we implement a total banlist then?
Would love to see an adjustment to Eldar fliers, yes (and this coming from someone with 2 hemlocks)
FW only players are taking a risk for games, period. You chose a niche army, so it comes with risk.
By that standard all xenos armies are niches Job done, just kick em out then.
I feel dirty saying this but tbh it’s not really an issue with GW’s rules so much that it’s the frankly terrible itc rules becoming standard that causes a lot of these issues.
If you play the game as intended with actual meaningful objectives these huge point sink terror weapons are much less of an issue if there actually an issue at all.
Sometimes I look at the outrage online and wonder if it was started by some tourney player who can see a hard counter to there current point and click list.
So you chose to play a FW army.....so? You don't play in that particular event, sorry. Your choice.
I've TO'd many FOW events, and I hear the same excuses. Why can't my Soviets play in a Normandy themed event? Really?
It's not all events, just some.
If we're talking about a narrative themed event, thats one thing, but then we're also not talking about a run of the mill event at that point.
But anyway, yes I chose to play an FW army, how and why is that different than choosing to play Space Marines generally?
Codex Space Marines, Codex (insert specific marine supplement), Vigilus book, Space Marines FW book, FAQs, etc, etc. pretty extensive. Are you going to be annoyed if your opponent keeps asking you to show him the datasheet or strategem for a specific model from all of those sources? It's purely a book keeping issue. Each player has a single codex (and now I guess the marines have a supplement) to draw their army from. If tehy soup, the list gets even more extensive.
At every tournament I attended of late, basically everyone had a copy of everything on a tablet or phone, and having multiple books/sources is nothing new for 40k for several years and the last couple editions. Cutting out FW doesn't even relieve the worst pressure (which is the FAQ/CA stuff).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Please, stop with the "GW writes FW rules" nonsense. It's clear to even casual observers that's not true.
Except if you try and talk to FW about rules questions, provide feedback, etc, they point you to the main studio, all the recent new stuff like the Custodes units were done by the main studio, and all the current costs were assigned by the main studio through CA, and FAQ for FW products goes through thr main studio
- They often conflict
- They often invalidate previous units entirely, thus hurting sales
This is at least as true for codex stuff as it is for FW stuff, not too much changes there with FW aside from the fact that nobody wants to update anything from the indexes.
- They were an ENTIRELY SEPARATE company until recently
FW has never been a separate company, ever. They have always been a department within GW, on GW payroll, working at GWHQ in Nottingham.
- GW only codifies the FW rules, they don't actively create them
They certainly have done so for all new units for 8E
- GW events have banned FW lists or models entirely at times. What business sense does this make to make a high cost model illegal?
Yes, in previous editions long past. Special Characters also used to be banned from competitive events and required opponent's permission to use for several editions. GW also banned Chapter Approved stuff after a couple years in 3E/4E for reasons nobody ever could quite figure out. That doesn't mean it has much relevance in 2019 8E
- GW routinely makes rules regarding new units without seeming consideration of non-GW units. See IH fiasco.
They also do this with non-FW stuff, routinely. That's how we end up with jungle fighting Catachans being the best long range artillery regiment
- GW balance is based around non-FW units being in play. See what happens when you drop a Titan into a casual or even competitive game. You get beat up.
FW != Titans, and GW has been responsible for those rules and functionality since at least the 6E Escalation/Apoc release. GW are also the ones that went out of their way to make build the game such that it allows those units in games where they have no business, when FW was solely in charge of their rules they had extensive preconditions and restrictions on their use, far more than there are now which is basically only limited by inflating their points value in CA2017.
- The GW/FW business is not listed on either of their sites, meaning they are direct competitors for sales.
No, FW is a different sales channel that sells stuff the main studio isn't interested in (e.g. Badab War, HH, Siege of Vraks, Custodes initially, etc), that can't be done in plastic, or is just an alternativr cooler model.
More to the point, go to FW or GW's websites, scroll to the bottom and you'll find links to each others sites just fine.
FW books cost money, they dont give everything away for free. GW also gives some stuff away for free. Neither are consistent enough in either case to really be concrete here.
Ordana wrote: I love seeing all these "You can't ban FW" when big tournaments scenes like the ETC have had FW banned for years, and still do.
ETC is basically the only one that I know of. None of the major US/UK or GW run events do as far as I'm aware. ETC is its own weird thing, most other events aren't team based either.
Banning Forgeworld is the wrong move imo. Not because it's pointless, but because it doesn't solve the issue. If the book or whatever is overpowered, then I say to let it dominate the competitive scene. It'll make it more obvious to Games Workshop and the onlookers what the problems armies/units are. Banning Forgeworld is usually done to limit the amount of stuff that players need to have knowledge of and prepare for. It doesn't do anything in this situation, so I would say to unban it and let it run free for now.
SeanDrake wrote: I feel dirty saying this but tbh it’s not really an issue with GW’s rules so much that it’s the frankly terrible itc rules becoming standard that causes a lot of these issues.
If you play the game as intended with actual meaningful objectives these huge point sink terror weapons are much less of an issue if there actually an issue at all.
Sometimes I look at the outrage online and wonder if it was started by some tourney player who can see a hard counter to there current point and click list.
I disagree...ITC has literally nothing to do with this. Like I have no idea where are you are coming from? What does point and click mean and can you give me an example of an army that isn't point and click?
Darsath wrote: Banning Forgeworld is the wrong move imo. Not because it's pointless, but because it doesn't solve the issue. If the book or whatever is overpowered, then I say to let it dominate the competitive scene. It'll make it more obvious to Games Workshop and the onlookers what the problems armies/units are. Banning Forgeworld is usually done to limit the amount of stuff that players need to have knowledge of and prepare for. It doesn't do anything in this situation, so I would say to unban it and let it run free for now.
Banning forgeworld is typically done because it will inevitably remove 80% or more of the most busted combos you can expect to find at a tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pain4Pleasure wrote: All these space marine plebs sad we won’t let them keep broken units. Oh well.
The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: All these space marine plebs sad we won’t let them keep broken units. Oh well.
Ah yes, all these busted Space Marine... Mars Pattern Leman Russes, Earthshaker Carriage Batteries and Death Riders. Those horses must be jacked to be able to support a marine in power armour.
SeanDrake wrote: I feel dirty saying this but tbh it’s not really an issue with GW’s rules so much that it’s the frankly terrible itc rules becoming standard that causes a lot of these issues.
If you play the game as intended with actual meaningful objectives these huge point sink terror weapons are much less of an issue if there actually an issue at all.
Sometimes I look at the outrage online and wonder if it was started by some tourney player who can see a hard counter to there current point and click list.
ITC may exacerbate some of these problems with its kill-focused objectives- and if you have seen my posts, you know I am not exactly a fan of ITC- but the issues with the IH don't come from ITC.
There's only so much 'play the objective' you can do when an enemy unit is able to remove your objective-grabbing units with impunity. And while the Leviathan is definitely scary, that's not even touching on what Repulsors can do. They can outrun your infantry, park on objectives so you have to deal with them, and still be nearly as difficult to kill. The Leviathan can be deployed in addition to those to provide a nigh-unkillable firebase.
40K is not a game where an army can focus solely on objectives, to the exclusion of killing, and win. Movement distances and effective engagement ranges are too long compared to the size of the table for avoiding the big scary things to be a viable strategy. You can maneuver to try to reduce the amount of damage you take, and you can prioritize to leave the really tough stuff for last if needed, but if you don't have a way to kill something in your opponent's list it's an uphill battle for sure.
We've already seen this with Knight spam. If you can't take out Knights, 'just play the objective' is not a viable strategy, regardless of what mission set you're using.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: All these space marine plebs sad we won’t let them keep broken units. Oh well.
I have a Malanthrope, Stone-Crusher Carnifex, Leman Russ Annihilator, and entire fething Death Korps of Krieg army. How many of those have you seen showing up in tournaments?
The balancing on Forge World models is all over the place, but CA17 jacked up the prices (outright doubling in some instances) on nearly all of the overperformers, to the point where they're a friendly game choice and little else. Besides the Leviathan I struggle to think of any FW models that are must-haves and actually represent a balance problem for the game.
Ok once again FW no longer write rules for 40k that is all now done by the main studio and that has been the case for quite some time.
If you feel this is incorrect your welcome to email FW about whichever model touched you they will advise you to contact GW.
As per my comments about the ITC I thought that was widely known, if you play on planet bowling ball with the main objective to kill as much of the opposing force as possible then these units people freak out about can certainly have an impact.
However play on a decent board with some scenery and using objectives and suddenly a lot of these units are just not worth there points. as suddenly killing stuff is not the be all and end all of the game and you break up line of site and hinder movement of a model which in this case has 8” of movement.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Because half of ca is fw updates?
Lmao.
They will likely adjusts the levi in CA to make it non viable for all non ironhands...typically this is how all GW fixes are after a unit has caused so much damage it gets gutted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Historically most busted units come from the codexes - wierd how all the hate is for FW.
But again any TO can decide what house rules they use - isn;t that what ITC and all the others do - create house Rules
The players have to decide if they want to go to the tournament.
Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
SeanDrake wrote: Ok once again FW no longer write rules for 40k that is all now done by the main studio and that has been the case for quite some time.
But this was not the case for the FW indices, which do contain most of the current FW rules, including the Leviathan.
FW writers have an unfortunate tendency to try to one up the studio rules (perhaps this is why they are no longer allowed to write stuff for 40K.) Why does FW's relic Contemptor have two more wounds and better save than the studio one? And aren't all Contemptors basically relics, why is there even relicer version? And the Leviatahan is a completely culmination of this. It is better than any studio dreads on an insane degree. better WS, BS, S, T, W and Sv than Redemptor, the largest and most powerful studio dread. And on top of that it has 4+ invulnerable save and crazy powerful guns. Yes, it costs more points, but this sort of rules just do not need to exist, it is like some sort of a Primarch of dreadnoughts. Nerf it hard and then lower the point cost somewhat.
SeanDrake wrote: Ok once again FW no longer write rules for 40k that is all now done by the main studio and that has been the case for quite some time.
But this was not the case for the FW indices, which do contain most of the current FW rules, including the Leviathan.
FW writers have an unfortunate tendency to try to one up the studio rules (perhaps this is why they are no longer allowed to write stuff for 40K.) Why does FW's relic Contemptor have two more wounds and better save than the studio one? And aren't all Contemptors basically relics, why is there even relicer version? And the Leviatahan is a completely culmination of this. It is better than any studio dreads on an insane degree. better WS, BS, S, T, W and Sv than Redemptor, the largest and most powerful studio dread. And on top of that it has 4+ invulnerable save and crazy powerful guns. Yes, it costs more points, but this sort of rules just do not need to exist, it is like some sort of a Primarch of dreadnoughts. Nerf it hard and then lower the point cost somewhat.
One is a Relic and the other isn't. It's in the name. Duh.
Also based on the fact the codex Contemptor is garbage and the Relic one is basically decent at best I don't see your point.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Because half of ca is fw updates?
Lmao.
They will likely adjusts the levi in CA to make it non viable for all non ironhands...typically this is how all GW fixes are after a unit has caused so much damage it gets gutted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Historically most busted units come from the codexes - wierd how all the hate is for FW.
But again any TO can decide what house rules they use - isn;t that what ITC and all the others do - create house Rules
The players have to decide if they want to go to the tournament.
Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
Please point out the FW stuff in eldar flyer spam lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus BA plus Castellen lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus triple Knights lists?
Most of the ones that were spammed were when GW did a GW level dumb dumb move like making atema pattern hellhounds which had a 0 point weapon cost the same as a codex one because they didn't even bother to check WTAF they were doing.
Also if Leviathans are so broken why are you always complaining marines suck and couldn't win a fight with a wet paper bag, then band wagoning that they are the most broken thing in all 8 editions?
SeanDrake wrote: Ok once again FW no longer write rules for 40k that is all now done by the main studio and that has been the case for quite some time.
But this was not the case for the FW indices, which do contain most of the current FW rules, including the Leviathan.
FW writers have an unfortunate tendency to try to one up the studio rules (perhaps this is why they are no longer allowed to write stuff for 40K.) Why does FW's relic Contemptor have two more wounds and better save than the studio one? And aren't all Contemptors basically relics, why is there even relicer version? And the Leviatahan is a completely culmination of this. It is better than any studio dreads on an insane degree. better WS, BS, S, T, W and Sv than Redemptor, the largest and most powerful studio dread. And on top of that it has 4+ invulnerable save and crazy powerful guns. Yes, it costs more points, but this sort of rules just do not need to exist, it is like some sort of a Primarch of dreadnoughts. Nerf it hard and then lower the point cost somewhat.
This made me laugh a bit. Primarch of dreads. It is...Sad but true.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
You heard it folks, everything wrong with 40k is Forge World's fault. Nothing that didnt come from them is broken.
Wait a second.
If FW is the root cause, does that mean that the Iron Hands are fine if they dont include Forge World units?
One is a Relic and the other isn't. It's in the name. Duh.
But in the fluff all Contemptors are ancient priced relics of bygone era, so that is already reflected in the studio profile.
Also based on the fact the codex Contemptor is garbage and the Relic one is basically decent at best I don't see your point.
FW made a just better version of the codex unit for no reason. They should have just used the codex profile and added the extra weapon options. And if the Contemptor is underpowered, then that is for the studio team to fix.
Xenomancers wrote: Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
You heard it folks, everything wrong with 40k is Forge World's fault. Nothing that didnt come from them is broken.
Wait a second.
If FW is the root cause, does that mean that the Iron Hands are fine if they dont include Forge World units?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Because half of ca is fw updates?
Lmao.
They will likely adjusts the levi in CA to make it non viable for all non ironhands...typically this is how all GW fixes are after a unit has caused so much damage it gets gutted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Historically most busted units come from the codexes - wierd how all the hate is for FW.
But again any TO can decide what house rules they use - isn;t that what ITC and all the others do - create house Rules
The players have to decide if they want to go to the tournament.
Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
Please point out the FW stuff in eldar flyer spam lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus BA plus Castellen lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus triple Knights lists?
Most of the ones that were spammed were when GW did a GW level dumb dumb move like making atema pattern hellhounds which had a 0 point weapon cost the same as a codex one because they didn't even bother to check WTAF they were doing.
Also if Leviathans are so broken why are you always complaining marines suck and couldn't win a fight with a wet paper bag, then band wagoning that they are the most broken thing in all 8 editions?
Not sure why you think some anecdotes make a point here. Everyone here has conceded GW also makes broken rules. They are just more likely to be centered around an army rule or a stratagem - not just a plane OP unit. Sure there are units like castellans and shinning spears and russ commanders. Also at this point FW units have been nerfed pretty hard in the eddition. Remember malefic lords? Remember prenerf shadow specteres? Remember big bird? Fireraptors? Basically every space marine vehicle compared to their codex counterpart (this is a big deal when you consider space marines are the most popular army in the game). Plus it's really hard to put a finger on it but the most outrageous points issues are always forge world on the plus or the negative side of things.
IH rules are of course much bigger problem, but I understand if some tournament doesn't feel comfortable with banning a whole chapter. So they only banned the most broken combination.
SeanDrake wrote: Ok once again FW no longer write rules for 40k that is all now done by the main studio and that has been the case for quite some time.
But this was not the case for the FW indices, which do contain most of the current FW rules, including the Leviathan.
FW writers have an unfortunate tendency to try to one up the studio rules (perhaps this is why they are no longer allowed to write stuff for 40K.) Why does FW's relic Contemptor have two more wounds and better save than the studio one? And aren't all Contemptors basically relics, why is there even relicer version? And the Leviatahan is a completely culmination of this. It is better than any studio dreads on an insane degree. better WS, BS, S, T, W and Sv than Redemptor, the largest and most powerful studio dread. And on top of that it has 4+ invulnerable save and crazy powerful guns. Yes, it costs more points, but this sort of rules just do not need to exist, it is like some sort of a Primarch of dreadnoughts. Nerf it hard and then lower the point cost somewhat.
No they actually playtested some of there rules against the Giard codex and realised what they needed to write the stats as to make the unit work the way it should.
GW rules writer's actually seemed surprised to find that people were pissed being charged extra for a BS3 weapon that only ever hit on 4's at best. The main studio simply didn't think through all the rules interactions.
They haven't done it this time either.
They handed out a 1CP strategum to make 8 wound T8 , 3+Sv model with a 6+ FNP charictor x3 and 3 T7 3+Sv 6+FNP charictors
Xenomancers wrote: Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
You heard it folks, everything wrong with 40k is Forge World's fault. Nothing that didnt come from them is broken.
Wait a second.
If FW is the root cause, does that mean that the Iron Hands are fine if they dont include Forge World units?
You should really go back and read everything I have been saying...I am probably the most adamant in here about Iron Hands rules being way too good. I can surely acknowledge that the levi is also to good though.
You should really go back and read everything I have been saying...I am probably the most adamant in here about Iron Hands rules being way too good. I can surely acknowledge that the levi is also to good though.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Because half of ca is fw updates?
Lmao.
They will likely adjusts the levi in CA to make it non viable for all non ironhands...typically this is how all GW fixes are after a unit has caused so much damage it gets gutted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Historically most busted units come from the codexes - wierd how all the hate is for FW.
But again any TO can decide what house rules they use - isn;t that what ITC and all the others do - create house Rules
The players have to decide if they want to go to the tournament.
Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
Please point out the FW stuff in eldar flyer spam lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus BA plus Castellen lists?
Please point out the FW units in Guard plus triple Knights lists?
Most of the ones that were spammed were when GW did a GW level dumb dumb move like making atema pattern hellhounds which had a 0 point weapon cost the same as a codex one because they didn't even bother to check WTAF they were doing.
Also if Leviathans are so broken why are you always complaining marines suck and couldn't win a fight with a wet paper bag, then band wagoning that they are the most broken thing in all 8 editions?
Not sure why you think some anecdotes make a point here. Everyone here has conceded GW also makes broken rules. They are just more likely to be centered around an army rule or a stratagem - not just a plane OP unit. Sure there are units like castellans and shinning spears and russ commanders. Also at this point FW units have been nerfed pretty hard in the eddition. Remember malefic lords? Remember prenerf shadow specteres? Remember big bird? Fireraptors? Basically every space marine vehicle compared to their codex counterpart (this is a big deal when you consider space marines are the most popular army in the game). Plus it's really hard to put a finger on it but the most outrageous points issues are always forge world on the plus or the negative side of things.
You said FW was in almost every broken combo they arn't in those
You must have ment marine combos, well so was Guilliman who didn't exsist when FW wrote their rules sockingly to noone with a brain anything in a reroll your rerolls bubble is broke as I dont remember people storming events with Salamander or whitescars Fireraptors.
Orodhen wrote: I hope the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way when GW gets to balancing the Leviathans. I run one in my Sallies with the Melta Lance and a snippy claw (which is already a sub-par way to run it). Raising the points for the base model just because of it's interactions with IH would be quite devastating.
I'm looking forward to the eventual cull where one of the few units that makes my army viable is nerfed into the ground because GW can't balance its way out of a paper bag.
You should really go back and read everything I have been saying...I am probably the most adamant in here about Iron Hands rules being way too good. I can surely acknowledge that the levi is also to good though.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
How can he virtue signal if he picks a side? He could be (is) wrong, got to play both sides for maximum martyrdom points.
You should really go back and read everything I have been saying...I am probably the most adamant in here about Iron Hands rules being way too good. I can surely acknowledge that the levi is also to good though.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
How can he virtue signal if he picks a side? He could be (is) wrong, got to play both sides for maximum martyrdom points.
LOL I love how Dakka always resorts to BS personal attacks when they start to lose arguments. You guys don't even know what you are talking about anymore. We are talking about the levi and it being the most obvious busted combo and it being perfectly fine to ban the levi as a result in the short term until IH are inevitably nerfed.
Dont forget this edition is fluid and has a history of many FW units being nerfed because they were too good in one way or another...It is disproportional. That is all anyone is saying here.
Not sure why you think some anecdotes make a point here. Everyone here has conceded GW also makes broken rules. They are just more likely to be centered around an army rule or a stratagem - not just a plane OP unit. Sure there are units like castellans and shinning spears and russ commanders. Also at this point FW units have been nerfed pretty hard in the eddition. Remember malefic lords? Remember prenerf shadow specteres? Remember big bird? Fireraptors? Basically every space marine vehicle compared to their codex counterpart (this is a big deal when you consider space marines are the most popular army in the game). Plus it's really hard to put a finger on it but the most outrageous points issues are always forge world on the plus or the negative side of things.
Also? GW makes the most of the broken rules. When you have some broken list dominating tournaments you can generally bet it centers around GW rules. Not FW rules.
GW is by far the worst making even remotely balanced rules.
Xenomancers wrote: LOL I love how Dakka always resorts to BS personal attacks when they start to lose arguments. You guys don't even know what you are talking about anymore. We are talking about the levi and it being the most obvious busted combo and it being perfectly fine to ban the levi as a result in the short term until IH are inevitably nerfed.
No, we're talking about your blanket statement that Forge World is the root cause of all balance problems, while at the same time in a different threat you're arguing that the Iron Hands rules are the root cause of a specific set of balance problems, irrespective of Forge World involvement.
Either the Iron Hands rules are broken, a scenario in which Forge World plays no part, or Forge World rules are the underlying balance problem, in which case the Iron Hands are fine.
The hilarious part is that there's a middle ground where both factors can apply, but because of your own inability to not fundamentally freak out over everything you've locked yourself out of making that argument. But by all means, please continue to try to move the goal posts yet another time. It's highly entertaining.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
That's utter nonsense. More than one factor can in fact contribute to the problem.
One is a Relic and the other isn't. It's in the name. Duh.
But in the fluff all Contemptors are ancient priced relics of bygone era, so that is already reflected in the studio profile.
Also based on the fact the codex Contemptor is garbage and the Relic one is basically decent at best I don't see your point.
FW made a just better version of the codex unit for no reason. They should have just used the codex profile and added the extra weapon options. And if the Contemptor is underpowered, then that is for the studio team to fix.
They didn't make a better version, because the FW one was always around first. Instead, GW made a far worse version.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The way I see it, there's a valid argument for banning forge world from competitive play: if nobody is going to actively update the rules like ever, and standard GW rules are written without regards to their existence, then there's a lot of room for something unforseen and really broken to show up that has no chance of getting fixed because there's no review cycle for them.
Personally, as I said, I don't think it's the best solution, but I definitely see the point.
Because half of ca is fw updates?
Lmao.
They will likely adjusts the levi in CA to make it non viable for all non ironhands...typically this is how all GW fixes are after a unit has caused so much damage it gets gutted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Historically most busted units come from the codexes - wierd how all the hate is for FW.
But again any TO can decide what house rules they use - isn;t that what ITC and all the others do - create house Rules
The players have to decide if they want to go to the tournament.
Nah dude...it's a combination of stuff. FW is always in the picture with the most busted stuff.
When you consider FW units are maybe 20% of the total units in the game...and they are in almost every broken combo...it is pretty obvious that FW deserves it's reputation.
"almost every broken combo"
Yeah you have basically goldfish memory to make that statement. It's cute you think that way, though.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
That's utter nonsense. More than one factor can in fact contribute to the problem.
Yes an issue can be caused by more than 1 issue.
However people weren't jumping up and down about nerfing a model before IronHands supliment was dropped so the leviathan pre ironhands wasnt broken by dakkas own admission.
IronHands as a suplement breaks more than just Leviathans I know I did the maths it just has some combos that shouldn't have left the brainstorming session let alone made it past playtesting.
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
So you're heads big enough to hold allthe data from the existing stuff, all the current - future FAQs/Errata/etc, presumably the various Index volumes as those are valid some places, the next xxx books GW releases throughout this edition, & whatever misc stuff you can pull in from WD (assassins)/Kill Team/that RT retinue/etc.
But add the initials FW at any point & your brain melts down??
bullyboy wrote: It's funny that people basically lose their gak when a FW ban is suggested (triggered anyone?). I get it, you spent a lot of money on your new models and want to play them. The thing is, you can still play them anywhere else, but having a tournament just suggest no FW (therefore narrowing the number of datasheets present) is not a terrible suggestion. It's easier for a TO to referee an event if the number of datasheets are limited. The suggestion of banning new marines or sisters is very childish as these are base armies, not expansions on to existing armies. Exactly how does removing FW hurt anyone's list options?...you have a codex with a plethora of other options to choose from. If you want to expand to allow newer players to enjoy the experience of the tournament scene, maybe not exposing them to a new set of rules and overly expensive models (above and beyond GW) would also be prudent. Sure, the top tournaments may want to keep things more open and I don't think I ran into anything FW at this year's LVO.
TOs can go a step further and modify existing rules (and some do), it is absolutely their prerogative. Don't like it? Don't go. Super simple.
The problem is, I don't think just banning the Levi is going to be enough to balance the IH, but I'm willing to see a lot more games played before that conclusion is reached.
You know what else TOs should ban? Genestealer Cult and AdMech when they were first released because that's more datasheets to memorize!
Again, another dumb response. You have a great record. Those are base armies, not expansions to armies. I wouldn't also be bothered if Vigilus or PA books were banned for an event, less book keeping. have you ever TO'd a decent sized event?
What would happen if a tournament decided to ban Stratagems? They're not part of the base army, they're an appendix tacked onto the end.
People would lose their gak.
Some might even spontaneously combust out of shear rage.
However people weren't jumping up and down about nerfing a model before IronHands supliment was dropped so the leviathan pre ironhands wasnt broken by dakkas own admission.
Leviathan has been anomalously good for the whole edition. It has often been present in compettive lists, and it is usually recommended here over the codex dreads. It's just marines as a whole were so weak that it really wasn't a problem.
IronHands as a suplement breaks more than just Leviathans I know I did the maths it just has some combos that shouldn't have left the brainstorming session let alone made it past playtesting.
Yes, this is absolutely true and it is much bigger problem than Leviathan.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
That's utter nonsense. More than one factor can in fact contribute to the problem.
Thats the joke genius. Your two positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Either Forge World is the factor that makes a combo broken, or Iron Hands are by definition overpowered. Both statements deny the other, yet you're advancing both simultaneously.
Pick a histrionic argument to make and stick with it please.
That's utter nonsense. More than one factor can in fact contribute to the problem.
So if we gave the Custodes the ability to use IH with Telemon we'd be talking about how broken the Telemon is. But we're not. We are simply talking about the Levi, because that is the specific model that was banned. Maybe this should be a poll?
Also? GW makes the most of the broken rules. When you have some broken list dominating tournaments you can generally bet it centers around GW rules. Not FW rules.
GW is by far the worst making even remotely balanced rules.
People have INCREDIBLE faith in codexes. I'm not really sure why, but time after time people are okay with broken as long as it adheres to one of those books.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
No because FW scurry
Then All of FW should be banned, not a single faction target ban.
Why does the entire FW range, most of which is comically overpriced in points, need to be banned if it's just one unit (heck, they're not even banning the Leviathan, just disallowing its use with Iron Hands) that's a problem?
However people weren't jumping up and down about nerfing a model before IronHands supliment was dropped so the leviathan pre ironhands wasnt broken by dakkas own admission.
Leviathan has been anomalously good for the whole edition. It has often been present in compettive lists, and it is usually recommended here over the codex dreads. It's just marines as a whole were so weak that it really wasn't a problem.
FWIW, the Leviathan isn't even the best Dreadnaught for its points. Even the good old Missile/Las Venerable is slightly more efficient for its points against a surprising number of targets and the Mortis variants are better than that. A pair of those will get you better output. It's big advantage basically comes down to having weaponry that's less swingy in a world of to-hit debuffs and invul saves and its "all the eggs in one basket" nature making it a better buff target.
FWIW, the Leviathan isn't even the best Dreadnaught for its points. Even the good old Missile/Las Venerable is slightly more efficient for its points against a surprising number of targets and the Mortis variants are better than that. A pair of those will get you better output. It's big advantage basically comes down to having weaponry that's less swingy in a world of to-hit debuffs and invul saves and its "all the eggs in one basket" nature making it a better buff target.
But you absolutely need to consider buffability and other such factors when assessing the power of a unit.
FWIW, the Leviathan isn't even the best Dreadnaught for its points. Even the good old Missile/Las Venerable is slightly more efficient for its points against a surprising number of targets and the Mortis variants are better than that. A pair of those will get you better output. It's big advantage basically comes down to having weaponry that's less swingy in a world of to-hit debuffs and invul saves and its "all the eggs in one basket" nature making it a better buff target.
But you absolutely need to consider buffability and other such factors when assessing the power of a unit.
Absolutely; but the point of all of this is that the buffs aren't sane; regardless of what Dread you put them on.
FWIW, the Leviathan isn't even the best Dreadnaught for its points. Even the good old Missile/Las Venerable is slightly more efficient for its points against a surprising number of targets and the Mortis variants are better than that. A pair of those will get you better output. It's big advantage basically comes down to having weaponry that's less swingy in a world of to-hit debuffs and invul saves and its "all the eggs in one basket" nature making it a better buff target.
But you absolutely need to consider buffability and other such factors when assessing the power of a unit.
Absolutely; but the point of all of this is that the buffs aren't sane; regardless of what Dread you put them on.
Aye, even relatively bad dreads or wanna be dreads would get great with them.
I'm personally hoping for some clarification and or nerfs this weekend. I've got a huge event in a couple of weeks. So far 25-40% is some form of Marines. I can only speculate that most of that is IH. As a pure Chaos Knights player, I'm scared. I've tested vs 2 different lists, neither was fun. They both crushed me.
Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
How do you suggest an army with NO melee to compete may I ask?
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
One of my games vs IH was with a melee army. My bloodletter bomb was dropped to about 14 guys really quick with a 4+ overwatch. Bloodthirster also shot to shreds without trying even with 4++. There is no melee option that's good vs these lists, unless you have a way to deny overwatch. Playing Chaos, I get warp Talons...woot.
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
How do you suggest an army with NO melee to compete may I ask?
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
One of my games vs IH was with a melee army. My bloodletter bomb was dropped to about 14 guys really quick with a 4+ overwatch. Bloodthirster also shot to shreds without trying even with 4++. There is no melee option that's good vs these lists, unless you have a way to deny overwatch. Playing Chaos, I get warp Talons...woot.
You don't even need many Talons, just also recycle a big cultists blob into charge range and tarpit it afterwards.
Altough still horrendusly suboptimal against any other list.
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
How do you suggest an army with NO melee to compete may I ask?
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
People just get upset when their 100% shooty armies have a hard time with something. Ironically those same people will be the first to tell you to “bring a more balanced army” when you complain about their unchargable hover tank perched on top of a ruin.
One of my games vs IH was with a melee army. My bloodletter bomb was dropped to about 14 guys really quick with a 4+ overwatch. Bloodthirster also shot to shreds without trying even with 4++. There is no melee option that's good vs these lists, unless you have a way to deny overwatch. Playing Chaos, I get warp Talons...woot.
You don't even need many Talons, just also recycle a big cultists blob into charge range and tarpit it afterwards.
Altough still horrendusly suboptimal against any other list.
If only marines weren't given the ability to push deepstrikes to outside 12"....
Between omni-scrablers, Charge distance reduction on tanks and overwatch on a 4+ its beyond horrible to try and charge an IH firebase
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
niv-mizzet wrote: Game needs more reason to bring melee.
Melee can hop into the leviathan+characters firebase and disrupt everything while killing the characters.
Good luck with that!
Aye, the only melee that would be able to do something other then die is overwatch deniers, blobs so huge that the enemy can't kill them all and or units so tough that they shrug off even this insane ammount of firepower.
Sigmatron wrote: So when is the Eldar flyer spam gonna get banned at events? Hopefully more events don't follow this example.
Eldar flyers are less of an issue if your playing the actual game GW writes instead of ITC.
Few tournaments are "GW games" as apposed to ITC. So they are a problem.
Sounds like the ITC is the problem. It is not really GWs fault if your houserules cause unintended consequences.
Damn right.
ITC has warped everything about this game in a really bad way.
Sorry I must have missed the memo where 7 untouchable flyers with massive threat range, consistent damage and can essentially teleport across the board is only good because of ITC.
chimeara wrote: Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.
When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.
Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.
Seriously.
For 300 points. You keep skipping that part very conveniently.
Firstly, I'm loath to ban anything like that as it feels like a knee jerk reaction to a problem we all see.
Secondly, just because it costs so many points isn't some promise of greatness. I don't know why you keep trotting that out as some kind of justification. I mean lets see some high point suck choices shall we ? Lets here, Land raiders, super expensive, pretty poop. Logan on storm rider, almost 200 pts, not very wonderful. Vendettas pretty poop, around 230 pts. I mean really, if we take a look at many books a great number of the units aren't very good or worth what point cost they have. Just because it costs 300 pts doesn't mean it has to be good, it should be good but then when so much is bad for its cost and it's so good its an auto include that is a huge hint of a problem.
The problem may not be that the Levi is too good, the fact may be that most other choices are just so bad. The unmistakable issue is that you need to raise up poor units, drag down OP no brainer choices and either make everything ho hum or make everything feel like an auto include. Anything less and you have balance issues that will frustrate people and force these knee jerk bans and I think we know GW love to punish FW so I might not get too used to Levis if this process continues.
As well as much as I dislike banning things because it's good, if a choice becomes a no brainer inclusion to most any list that can take it, that can't be allowed to stay as it is or you can't say you want to balance the game at all. I don't even use a levi, nor have I ever played against one but I'll be damned if I haven't learned all about it from every battle report, and online chatter about it, that tells me something. IH just twists the unit up just that touch more where as before it was a no brainer now it also buffs it out which says as much about IH. Time will tell how it shakes out but I can't imagine these IH lists are much fun to play against which also leads to people crying for bans as they get bitter or angry. Much like how people cry about guard infantry squads even though they are totally fine in a mono guard list. People are just tired of seeing them in so many lists with knights so they want them nerfed and never seen again, the levi ban is just being perhaps more honest with the intent.
This all goes back and falls at GWs feet who really need to work harder on making some level of better balance, fix the borked core rules to limit some of the abuses of the shaky system and admit they are either poor at doing this or really don't want to either way its time for honesty on their end and I for one would applaud them for being forthright, finally.
Everytime the FW ban gets touted, most of the time I end up staring at my Elysians which I pay more points for and get no regiment tactic for, and laugh. Historically speaking, FW's had a couple trouble units, but those trouble units sort of hovered around 'sort of a problem' when mainline GW balance brought forth far worse. Space Wolves having cheaper tactical equivalents with two specials, one of which was free, along with long fangs splitfiring back in 5th was only one of many problems brought upon by GW balance. Guard leafblower funnily enough happened because a bunch of once exclusive FW units that weren't played were made into GW legal units, and then promptly forgotten about come time for the late 6th edition codex to be released, taking a previously FW unit, turning it into a GW unit, and then changing it back into a FW exclusive unit.
Don't get me started on Grey Knights with S8 Autocannon dreads and S7 Assault Cannon Razorbacks. This is all one edition as well, from years ago. 6th brought ally shenanigans and taudar sauce being gross, 7th had the FW R&H artillery list be one of the big ones, alongside 'all the free things' Mechanicus and Space Marines, or Eldar shenanigans in general. Beginning of 8th brought Bobby G and the Storm Raven spam, something resolved quickly, Eldar shenanigans still existing until Ynnari got nuked this year, and Guard continuing the yo-yo trend of snapping up in strength, then down in strength, then up in strength.
The IH Leviathan is some nonsense, but its something that GW likely was made rapidly aware about and will be resolved quickly. There's a significant amount of people who play FW just for fun and because they can do more unique army builds compared to conventional GW, such as a horde of deepstriking vanilla guardsmen that cost more, or the Tau player that really likes his Hazard Suits, or the Eldar player that wants a LoW that actually has some capacity to perform.
Plus with GW writing FW rules, we got the broken phase of the FW Custodes units that got fixed with the final update, or the removal of certain problem units from the FW equation. Leviathans are just a side effect of how bonkers the IH supplement makes things though, not a symptom of 'FW Bad'
