Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
If they want to ban it they can, but I doubt many events will really care unless it starts winning an above average amount of tournament games. They are a shock to the meta now but that will balance out in a few months.
I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.
I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots
A narrow ban within a specific context is fine, particularly if it's not permanent. In this instance, I'd have probably just said "levi dreads cannot benefit from X/Y/Z abilities" (same way nerfing rotate ion shields was better than just banning Castellans) for the time being instead, but that's just me.
Whether it's the most deserving thing in the world to ban is up for debate, but I'm ok with targeted, specific, and temporary bans when something looks particularly absurd.
Vaktathi wrote: A narrow ban within a specific context is fine, particularly if it's not permanent. In this instance, I'd have probably just said "levi dreads cannot benefit from X/Y/Z abilities" (same way nerfing rotate ion shields was better than just banning Castellans) for the time being instead, but that's just me.
Yeah, something like that would probably be a better approach.
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Its not that simple.
In the past the question was if your list can kill a castellan knight in one turn. Now the question is, can your list kill an IH leviathan dreadnought in one turn ?
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Its not that simple.
In the past the question was if your list can kill a castellan knight in one turn. Now the question is, can your list kill an IH leviathan dreadnought in one turn ?
Why do you have to? Many lists won't be forced to interact with a leviathan until turn 2/3 due to their 24'' range, and the castellan doesn't lose a turn of shooting by getting touched. Conversely, a 3++ castellan is not even remotely as durable as a Leviathan, so the answer to your question is "no, absolutely not, and you've already lost for trying"
Not trying to dismiss the power of the leviathan, but I don't think players should be approaching the levi in the same way as the castellan
No, I don't support bans on knee jerk panic reactions. If IH is busted, we need to demand GW to fix it, I'd not punish the players, I simply wouldn't play in the tournaments if they made it that awful I'd want to ban levis, vote with my wallet and cease buying until it's handled. This isn't a player made issue, its a GW dun messed up issue.
People often travel and pay to play at events. If a combination of rules sees that many players have a less than fun experience due to the prevalence of these combos, the gaming scene loses. I'm not talking about outlier mean combos, I'm talking in your face, Wreck-it Ralph combos that just puts a dark cloud over a single event. We're not there yet, but initial reports I have seen on IH in BRs so far don't look positive. It's obviously not just a Leviathan issue, but I'm interested in seeing where the dust settles when this new supplement has had a real road test.
Tournament-FAQ the problem Stratagems to not apply to Leviathans. The Helbrute shoot-twice stratagem applies to the unit rather than the keyword so it won't work on Leviathans, why do you need to blanket-ban the unit when the mechanism to ban the specific combo exists in the rules?
Why do you have to? Many lists won't be forced to interact with a leviathan until turn 2/3 due to their 24'' range, and the castellan doesn't lose a turn of shooting by getting touched.
T2/3 ? The leviathan has 32" threat range. Thats good enough for T1.
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
Get your facts rights, IH supplement was not allowed in most recent events and also people will need time to purchase and paint their models.
It was obvious after LGT that SM are super good, when played from good players with the models in place.
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
Get your facts rights, IH supplement was not allowed in most recent events and also people will need time to purchase and paint their models.
It was obvious after LGT that SM are super good, when played from good players with the models in place.
The fact that someone won an event with just the base codex version of IronHands says they are a massive overcorrection in the usual GW style.
Rather than ban the unit which isn't a problem with other chapter's why not just ban the true issue of the Iron Hands Supliment.
Remove Leviathans and Redemptors or Ironclad dreadnaughts take their place for half the points. Also just for lols only the redemptor is targetable as the rest are sub 10W.
Really instead of banning 1 unit the Supliment needs banned if anything.
Eonfuzz wrote: Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?
Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?
I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious
It'll be fine. Wait patiently & the Imperial Fists & Salamander books will arrive & all those dreaded IH lists will morph into some other color of marines.
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
Get your facts rights, IH supplement was not allowed in most recent events and also people will need time to purchase and paint their models.
It was obvious after LGT that SM are super good, when played from good players with the models in place.
The fact that someone won an event with just the base codex version of IronHands says they are a massive overcorrection in the usual GW style.
Rather than ban the unit which isn't a problem with other chapter's why not just ban the true issue of the Iron Hands Supliment.
Remove Leviathans and Redemptors or Ironclad dreadnaughts take their place for half the points. Also just for lols only the redemptor is targetable as the rest are sub 10W.
Really instead of banning 1 unit the Supliment needs banned if anything.
any codex after issuing tends to win games as people aren't familer with how to counter the tricks yet
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.
I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots
There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.
Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.
Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.
I just feel there have been so many broken units/strats/combos in various times in 8th. Castellans, dark reapers guilliman, flyers, tank commanders etc etc. And now suddenly a ban on the new broken jazz. I feel if bans were meant to be a community thing they should have happened earlier.
The state of the game is in my mind already set in a way that there is always something broken. So I dont see the point in banning anyone from playing regardless of what models they have and what books they use. Accept the gakky balance and play, this aint starcraft.
Banning is never a good solution to a problem, just creates feel-bad's and leads to players calling for everything else they see as broken to get banned as well.
We will likely see the two week FAQ for Iron hands in a couple of days, I'm hoping for the Half Damage strat to be restricted to 13W Dreads or below, its a simple fix that greatly reduces the problem.
I don't see the Levi as a problem on its own, I've had one for a couple of years and it puts out great firepower but at a poor range, is certainly durable but can easily be put down by armies that are prepared to fight knights. Add to that its utter uselessness in combat and if it even gets tagged its out of the fight and I think that 300pts is a pretty fair price, if anything was to change I'd put the price of the stormcannons up by 10-15pts each as they are the best but cheapest option.
The main problem is the stacking of the iron hands rules, all of which directly benefit the leviathan in a big way. Better overwatch, moving and shooting, rerolling 1s, extra AP, 6+++ Add in the strat and relic and its a massive boost for no cost.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions, aggressors for instance are much better in ultramarines, Assault centurians as raven guard or outside of marines all Aeldar as Alaitoc or all Drukarii Coverns as Prophets of flesh.
I don't think we really want each specific flavour of the different factions to have a different points cost chart to reflect the relative power of the different units with their stacked special rules, that would take the fun out of list design and playing to the strengths of subfactions.
40K isn't chess and I wouldn't want it to be.
I don't think we really want each specific flavour of the different factions to have a different points cost chart to reflect the relative power of the different units with their stacked special rules, that would take the fun out of list design and playing to the strengths of subfactions.
The shock horror of having balance and fluff at the same time eh?
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,
okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.
I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots
There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.
Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.
Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.
My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,
okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.
They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,
okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.
They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.
It would also fix some of the traits.
well thenI guess they should work hard on a CA, and review the points costs of stuff. Because there is no way two identicaly armed leviathans, one from the Word Bearer legion and the other from the Iron Hands chapter should cost the same. Because besides the name, they aren't really the same thing.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,
okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.
They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.
It would also fix some of the traits.
well thenI guess they should work hard on a CA, and review the points costs of stuff. Because there is no way two identicaly armed leviathans, one from the Word Bearer legion and the other from the Iron Hands chapter should cost the same. Because besides the name, they aren't really the same thing.
The chaos and sm versions don't even have the same stats. Sm leviathan has a flat 4+ invul while chaos has 5+ for shooting and 4+ for cc. The sm levi can also take hk missiles while the csm version can't take any kind of equivalent. Another example of different costs for the same thing is that thunder hammer cost more for characters than basic troops because the characters superior stats make it a more powerful option on them so this isn't a new concept.
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.
I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots
There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.
Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.
Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.
My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.
5++, -1 damage, 6+++. It does not benefit from halve the damage nor have 4++. Which helps a ton. No more 4 damage goes down to 1. More damage past inv saves and nearly twice the damage for each wound past invulnerable save. That's big.
Continuity wrote: I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.
Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.
I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots
There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.
Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.
Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.
My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.
5++, -1 damage, 6+++. It does not benefit from halve the damage nor have 4++. Which helps a ton. No more 4 damage goes down to 1. More damage past inv saves and nearly twice the damage for each wound past invulnerable save. That's big.
It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.
Ironstone executioner builds shifting the meta away from flat 2 damage is kinda interesting TBH. Flat 2 damage has reigned supreme in all competitive builds in all factions for quite a while...
Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-meta, high damage weapons that will have no problem at all killing executioners
It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.
Well armies can't be affected differently. not much change for your tau, but if an armies anti tank comes from razorbacks, land raiders and venerable dreads, then it becomes a real problem, because the weapons bought for anti tank are already pricy, and they don't get cheaper just because someone can make a lascannon do 2D max.
It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.
Well armies can't be affected differently. not much change for your tau, but if an armies anti tank comes from razorbacks, land raiders and venerable dreads, then it becomes a real problem, because the weapons bought for anti tank are already pricy, and they don't get cheaper just because someone can make a lascannon do 2D max.
Again given lascannons cost what they do and have a single shot so high variance I don't take them ecen for my marines they cost too much to spend half the game doing 0 damage, ven dread get autocannons for now, their really isn't a good argument for any weapon that has a 57% chance to do 0 damage like lascannons.
I know people don't like it when I say this, but lascannons on vehicles are kind of the the only source of anti tank GK get. We can't really replace it with something else, because there is nothing else to take. And trying to plink a leviathan with str 4 psylancers or storm bolters requires loaded dice to work.
Eonfuzz wrote: Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?
Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?
I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious
I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,
okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.
They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.
It would also fix some of the traits.
I mentioned that the same thing should have the same cost referring to factions within the same codex, having six different lists of points costs within the space marine book would just be getting silly and would also be add an entirely new level to the more or less impossible job that is points balancing the sheer variety of units in this game.
The thing they should be able to do within the context of the same codex is better balance the subfactions, especially as with the new super doctrine bonuses the choice of subfaction is now far more relevant.
I like the bonuses for playing a pure list and it shouldn't be overlooked that these bonuses are coming at the cost of not being able to soup at all, soup has been the main course of complaint over balance for the past two years after all.
I can only assume that the other codexs will be getting pure faction bonuses in the near future - either via psychic awakening or chapter approved, if they don't then there is no justification of a chaos/bloodangel/dark angel etc... unit costing the same as a much more powerful marine version.
Eonfuzz wrote: Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?
Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?
I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious
I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.
Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....
Do you feel the Levi Ban was warranted given the new IH issues?
Honestly - In this specific circumstance Yes.
I am not opposed to a TO banning something which can cause a lot of drama and other issues and something like the Leviathan benefiting from the Iron Hand buff train is definitely something capable of that.
It's not the most elegant or even best solution but its a temporary stop gap and the fact you CAN bring a non IH Leviathan is saying the model is not the issue, it's what it can benefit from, from the Forge Father, Ironstone buff train.
The game is not in the best place from a competitive viewpoint but casual games have never been more fun from my experience and this new marine codex is posing an issue no matter how you play (Except for narrative, you guys are awesome and custom datasheets are always amazing in narrative missions). The TO mentioned originally it was banned due to potential issues arising from it and that is fair since HE/SHE is the TO, their word is law and if it poses unpopular, people don't play.
Also in other news - How on earth do I even begin to beat IH even in casual games with mono chaos daemons?! stupid repulsors and executioners...
Ishagu wrote: Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.
It's a more elegant fix.
Bans are a good way for a community to tell GW things, at a certain point it is not up to the players to sell GW stuff. If the company cannot keep it in line then it’s there own fault if players react to that.
It’s also not really a great fix, having to sort though a bunch of chapter tactics and strats is far less elegant fix. Particularly for a unit shared but other chapters.
Ishagu wrote: Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.
It's a more elegant fix.
None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.
Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.
The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .
Im really enjoying how a not insignificant proportion of the respondents to this seem to think they're being asked whether TOs should be able to do something, and not whether or not a particular rules coalescence is an issue. Brilliant study design right there.
Eonfuzz wrote: Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?
Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?
I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious
I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.
Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....
Funny I also remember them saying the same thing about Orks, Drukhari, and GSC, yet none of these need to be banned in tournament. You can't point at an example of when the community was right, just to ignore the times that they were wrong, my statement is that it could go either way, and youresponding that they could turn out to be OP doesn't counter that. The fact that you had to dig up an example all the way back from over 6 years ago now, kinda highlights my point if anything.
Ishagu wrote: Of course it's more elegant. You remove the extr,a layer of rules that break it, whilst not banning the model.
People spend money and time buying/building/painting their models. None should be banned.
but people bought them exactly because of the doctrin, chapter tactics and IH interaction. Without at least the first two, it is a rather overcosted tank, that get wrecked by eldar flyer lists.
Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....
It seems to be a repeating itself thing. Now I don't have an expiriance spaning mulitiple editions, but I do play 8th for some time now. And a year plus ago, people advice to stuff being bad was "GW is going to fix it next something", now it is "get a new army" or "wait for next edition" mostly.
eldar flyer lists are a thing for how long a year and a half? castellans were wrecking stuff up for a year, Inari were special for almost 2 years too. It seems to me that if GW makes something bad, or rather made something bad, and their future books are based on the old bad ones, then bad stuff stay bad for a very long time. they can only fix stuff, by either rewriting stuff from ground up, which they don't seem to do often, a new edition making an army or unit awesome all of the sudden, or they go ham and undercost something heavily and throw a ton of extra rules on it.
Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....
It seems to be a repeating itself thing. Now I don't have an expiriance spaning mulitiple editions, but I do play 8th for some time now. And a year plus ago, people advice to stuff being bad was "GW is going to fix it next something", now it is "get a new army" or "wait for next edition" mostly. eldar flyer lists are a thing for how long a year and a half? castellans were wrecking stuff up for a year, Inari were special for almost 2 years too. It seems to me that if GW makes something bad, or rather made something bad, and their future books are based on the old bad ones, then bad stuff stay bad for a very long time. they can only fix stuff, by either rewriting stuff from ground up, which they don't seem to do often, a new edition making an army or unit awesome all of the sudden, or they go ham and undercost something heavily and throw a ton of extra rules on it.
Absolutely nowhere in the response you just quoted was he replying to anyone saying anything even resembling all that stuff you just went on about it.
He was quite clearly responding to me saying "hey, let's see if it's broken in application rather than theory before banning it". Nothing about "op units should never be fixed! buy a new army! wait for next edition!", that's just a rant you chose to go on here, completely unrelated to the context of the statement you just quoted, and I would never say any one of those things.
Gadzilla666 780931 10586985 wrote:
The chaos and sm versions don't even have the same stats. Sm leviathan has a flat 4+ invul while chaos has 5+ for shooting and 4+ for cc. The sm levi can also take hk missiles while the csm version can't take any kind of equivalent. Another example of different costs for the same thing is that thunder hammer cost more for characters than basic troops because the characters superior stats make it a more powerful option on them so this isn't a new concept.
yeah, but units are different. A jump pack captin is different from a sgt. What seems to be the problem here, is that this the BA/RG situation, where everyone can take a TH/SS captin or chapters master, but the BA/RG are going to out perform other codex options for no extra point cost . And then GW to counter the BA/RG captins efficiency rises the price of the TH, which hurts armies that don't even have jump pack HQs.
GK had the problems all the time. Razorbacks and Stormravens are great with Gulliman, points hike to everyone, not just to ultramarine armies. First turn deepstriking BA captins are soloing knights and tyrants are shoting off armies after coming froom deep strike, the whole deep strike gets changed. Not the offending unit costs, not their rules, no they just regulary nerf everyone, which always hurts the armies with least options the most.
Yes, but honestly I think the better solution is to just say that you can't use the half damage strat on a Leviathan. People can still use their models that way.
Absolutely nowhere in the response you just quoted was he replying to anyone saying anything even resembling all that stuff you just went on about it.
He was quite clearly responding to me saying "hey, let's see if it's broken in application rather than theory before banning it". Nothing about "op units should never be fixed! buy a new army! wait for next edition!", that's just a rant you chose to go on here, completely unrelated to the context of the statement you just quoted, and I would never say any one of those things.
And I am said that this is the reaction people always give about the OP stuff. They tell to wait, first for people to play and learn the army. Then they say to wait for CA/FAQ. Then what ever was closer the FAQ or CA, then the advice given is to learn to play, because the stuff isn't that OP. And finaly when after a year or so, the really OP stuff is really OP, the advice given are either soup it up or change army. The wait for X argument is a stupid one, specially when most people play the game for around a year or two. There is good chance that if someone had a really bad match up with let say flyer eldar or Inari, by the time GW nerfed one and maybe will nerf the other, the person with the bad match up may no longer be playing.
This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.
So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.
Ishagu wrote: Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.
It's a more elegant fix.
None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.
Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.
The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .
Even if you take them away or increase the cost the model is still invulnerable. Even a 6k Warlord Titan is not guaranteed to kill a Leviathan in one turn.
The issue is not the model's stats or weapons, it's the rule stacking from relics, starts, chapter traits, etc. That is what needs to be limited.
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
True. The only list I can find came 16th at the Iron Halo GT:
spearhead detachment
Captain
x2 - four man servitor squads
Leviathan with dual stormcannons
x3 Repulsor Executioners with laser cannons
x2 Repulsors with twin hvy Bs, hvy onslaught, and onslaught.
But that was ran without the IH Supplement - just the new Codex.
what would seem quite logical is that new units are not allowed to be fielded until they have at least had the 2 week FAQ and people have had a bit of time to "break them".
All they had to do, imo, was say "Duty Eternal" can not be used on "Relic Dreadnoughts" as this is probably at least one change GW will implement seeing how they changed Relic Whirlwind Scorpius.
Mr Morden wrote: what would seem quite logical is that new units are not allowed to be fielded until they have at least had the 2 week FAQ and people have had a bit of time to "break them".
I know a lot of the tournaments I have been to have a one month restriction on using a new codex or supplement for just that reason.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.
It's been a while since I've rolled my eyes this hard.
If I was an IH player I would be pissing myself laughing at the knee jerking going on in relation to the Levi as someone said all this waa waa waa over yet more theory crafted bollocks when the real issues are going to go under the radar for now.
The only actual game related experience I remember reading in the other thread was someone upset because his elder flier spam list got its arse ripped out by a IH list with a Levi in it. Which I think is the main reason your seeing resistance as I guess there’s a lot of meta chases just finished building elder fliers
Pain4Pleasure wrote: So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.
It's been a while since I've rolled my eyes this hard.
Glad I could help. What I said is facts, iron hands have enough decent things so take those. Sorry if you’re a marine player but.. maybe you shouldn’t be?
ccs wrote:Can't vote. Your poll is missing "No Opinion".
Then ignore the poll.
Tibs Ironblood wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the ban. The tournament has the right to house rule whatever they want. Don't like it don't go.
Its not a question of right, of course they have the right, they have the right to make a leviathan only tournament if they want. It's a question of the Leviathan being so good that it needs to be banned for balance reasons. Is it a pre-nerf Castellan, one of several manifestations of a broken supplement, or a just chance for a neglected army to win for once?
beast_gts wrote: Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.
This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.
True. The only list I can find came 16th at the Iron Halo GT:
spearhead detachment
Captain
x2 - four man servitor squads
Leviathan with dual stormcannons
x3 Repulsor Executioners with laser cannons
x2 Repulsors with twin hvy Bs, hvy onslaught, and onslaught.
But that was ran without the IH Supplement - just the new Codex.
Ishagu wrote: Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.
It's a more elegant fix.
None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.
Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.
The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .
Even if you take them away or increase the cost the model is still invulnerable. Even a 6k Warlord Titan is not guaranteed to kill a Leviathan in one turn.
The issue is not the model's stats or weapons, it's the rule stacking from relics, starts, chapter traits, etc. That is what needs to be limited.
I actually kind of agree with the storm cannons being the primary issue. They are so auto include because they are so good. It would be cool to see some grav flux bombards...Switch their point costs that would be interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDrake wrote: If I was an IH player I would be pissing myself laughing at the knee jerking going on in relation to the Levi as someone said all this waa waa waa over yet more theory crafted bollocks when the real issues are going to go under the radar for now.
The only actual game related experience I remember reading in the other thread was someone upset because his elder flier spam list got its arse ripped out by a IH list with a Levi in it. Which I think is the main reason your seeing resistance as I guess there’s a lot of meta chases just finished building elder fliers
Levi dread could easily kill 2 eldar flyers in 1 turn with a little luck and auras. Hemlocks return damage is pathetic...they deal flat 2 damage so are effectively worthless vs ironhands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.
Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.
Nitro Zeus wrote: This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.
Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.
If you think math is easy, you don't understand math.
He clearly didn’t mean that math as an academic field is easy, no need to be purposely obtuse just because his tone was aggressive
Banhammers almost always suck. If you want to overcorrect, ban the use of stratagems on the Leviathan. If you want good balance, just don't let it become a character or use the half-damage stratagem.
No, with the caveat that I really don't care. Bringing the most broken list possible seems to be the name of the game. If that beats someone else's most broken list possible, too bad.
Nitro Zeus wrote: This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.
Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.
If you think math is easy, you don't understand math.
-1 damage when most damage doesn't go higher then 6 and is mostly centered around 2-3 is a huge increase is survivability. And they gave it away for 'free' in an aura.
Its not hard to see that might be broken.
Bharring wrote: Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.
(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)
But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?
Bharring wrote: Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.
(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)
But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?
Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.
Context, -2/-3 are broken in a d6 system, strong in d10 and okay in d20.
Bharring wrote: Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.
(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)
But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?
Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.
It doesn't get a whole lot of benefit from a lot of the Warlord traits and keep in mind you only get to do that with one Levi if you're trying to bring a lot. That's already 2CP too.
Bharring wrote: Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.
(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)
But some stuff is just math.
Cryptography is just math. I could run some numbers, get your private key, and claim to be you. And we're just talking plug 'n chug - the actual equations are public knowledge and simple. But the numbers I'd need to run are *huge*. Well beyond anything I can reasonably do. So we're safe(-ish) assuming that you're you and not me.
If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong.
Some basic understandings suggest that yes, it is strong. But exactly how strong? Not as simple as it seems.
First, what's firing at it. Is it BS3+ or BS4+? That changes things.
Is it more impacted by heavy weapons or light weapons factors in (because the heavy weapon movement penalty)?
Is it fast or slow?
Does it impact ranged weapons or CC weapons?
Is it always on, or only on some phases?
Is there a range limit / other limitation?
How tough is it?
How frequently will you see it?
Each of these add additional factors. Each of these complicate the matter.
More to the point, we can reason that an aura that gives -1D is going to be really freaking powerful. But mostly from estimations - the actual numbers are more than all those "It's just math" posters have ran.
Sure there's a lot of D2 and Dd3 weapons, but people says it halves them?
It does that to D2 weapons when the target has 2+ W remaining sure. But 1W models? Not so much. But it also doesn't do nothing to 1W models if they have FnP. And models with odd numbers of wounds left? It takes less than double the firepower.
And then we have Dd3 weapons - people thinks it halves them? That's off. It does 4/3D on average instead of 2D on average - that's not half.
So I see a lot of people spout off about how "easy" the math is, then botch the simple stuff. Does not inspire confidence.
Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons.
Shows the bias right here. The max is impacted far less than the average. When you roll a 2 or 3 on a d6 it's much more impactful than when you roll a 6.
this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.
Certainly an area of concern, but a lot of bad claims are being made.
Bharring wrote: Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.
(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)
But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?
Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.
It doesn't get a whole lot of benefit from a lot of the Warlord traits and keep in mind you only get to do that with one Levi if you're trying to bring a lot. That's already 2CP too.
A Leviathan character can:
Have wounds intercepted by Infantry units
Get 5++ FNP instead of 6++, or become impossible to lock in combat, or get extra attacks on a 6. (That last one is especially powerful when you have 20 attacks.)
