Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:07:03


Post by: Azuza001


so its pretty obvious at this point that the lone big boy is typically a bad idea now. Unless your playing purely for fun it costs too much to take a big guy (Wraithknight/Baneblade/Imperial Knight) now it seems between paying 3cp and the extreme cost for the guy. Also losing access to the chapter tactics doing this, its just not worth it.

In 8th we could use the Supreme command Detachment to make up for this issue, but no longer. So what would you guys think would be a fair fix? Make it cost 2cp? Make it so they get their chapter tactics? Do the models themselves just need better rules to make them stronger? Or am I wrong and big guys work exactly as people now want? I mean it really only seems to hurt Eldar / Imperial Guard / Necrons at this point... imperial and chaos knights already can just take a Detachment to fix this issue with some armigers to cover them.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:10:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I wouldn't make them cost 3CP.

They're already a massive points sink, so having to expend further resources on top of the cost you've already paid seems needlessly punitive.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:27:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Add one slot for superheavies in battalions and brigades.
Make it so chaos/imperium can include a knight in their detachment without breaking detachment bonuses (similar stuff to assassins/inquisition).
If actual knights want to get their household traits, they have to get a full on superheavy detachment.

That way LoW that don't get a full codexe's worth of support can be played while at least keeping their "chapter" equivalents.
Wraithknights, Baneblades, Lord of skulls would all be playable and benefit from being Ulthwe/Cadian/Night lords.




How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:37:12


Post by: Voss


To me, this is the 'fixed' state. I just wish they would have done the same with aircraft.

So fine as is. (little less so for Knights being able to weasel out of a lot of the CP cost).


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:37:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


Make it so that the detachment is free and the unit gets faction traits if it's the same faction/subfaction as your warlord. That way you can't cherry pick your faction trait and your encouraged to bring a super heavy your own faction.

Next fix the points for many of the non-knight super heavys that gw seems to hate. There is absolutely no reason why Stompas should be over 900 PPM and Fellblades 880 PPM while Castellans/Tyrants are 635 PPM. This proves gw doesn't know the rules for its own models and game.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 00:51:57


Post by: Argive


The wraithknight is clearly OP with not having an inbuilt invuln... Not allowed traits


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 01:14:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


Voss wrote:
To me, this is the 'fixed' state. I just wish they would have done the same with aircraft.

So fine as is. (little less so for Knights being able to weasel out of a lot of the CP cost).

And points cost, compared with similar units.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 01:23:07


Post by: rbstr


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Make it so that the detachment is free and the unit gets faction traits if it's the same faction/subfaction as your warlord. That way you can't cherry pick your faction trait and your encouraged to bring a super heavy your own faction.

Next fix the points for many of the non-knight super heavys that gw seems to hate. There is absolutely no reason why Stompas should be over 900 PPM and Fellblades 880 PPM while Castellans/Tyrants are 635 PPM. This proves gw doesn't know the rules for its own models and game.


Yeah, could have it work a bit like the new Supreme Command. Personally I'd still have it cost 1-2 cp, as any other "extra" detachment costs CP as well. To me it's very similar to bringing a Patrol to grab some extra HQs or whatever. However, it should get subfaction keyword/trait if it's from inside the codex and matches the Warlord.

For souping a knight into a different imperium/chaos detachment I figure 2 CP, still lacking a trait, would be a more fair cost, though.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 01:51:10


Post by: Azuza001


This is where I come to a problem with any solution. If you make it so the "penalty" isnt very harsh then it can bring back the days of everyone having a castellen show up across from them. If you leave it the way it is we have what we have now, as in you don't see them at all. I dont personally think its the rules for the units (yeah I know the wraithlord isn't the best when compared to an imperial knight, but thats a different problem that I would gladly overlook if I was allowed to take one without such a bad penalty. )

What about a new type of Detachment? Almost like the old command squad Detachment? 1 hq, 2 troops, and a super heavy? Kind of like a "patrol Detachment", like a super heavy support Detachment? That would soften the blow of the 3cp cost to me at least.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 01:59:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


There are more superheavies in the game beyond Castellans. It'd be nice to be able to include these other big models, with them benefiting from army traits.

Right now my big Hierodules are not worth the points at all, and now you're going to make me pay CP on top of their points to use them? C'mon... no one's dumb enough to do that!



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 02:11:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are more superheavies in the game beyond Castellans. It'd be nice to be able to include these other big models, with them benefiting from army traits.

Right now my big Hierodules are not worth the points at all, and now you're going to make me pay CP on top of their points to use them? C'mon... no one's dumb enough to do that!


Yes, exactly. You're getting double charged. First you pay the price of the unit, which in the case of things like Hierodules, Stompas, and the Legion super heavys is massively inflated, then you pay the CP tax. And then to top it off you don't even get a faction trait. Gw needs to treat all super heavys equally, if knights can be competitively priced then all the rest can be as well.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 02:38:12


Post by: bullyboy


It certainly sucks that you get charged 3CP AND lose chapter traits. I would be fine with taking a wraithknight at 3CP IF it also got the chapter benefits. Basically, let them take the same trait as the detachment that contains the warlord or none at all. imperial knights wouldn't get this bonus, but they can already access strats to become characters, take relics etc.

I expect we'll see some changes to the wraithknight this edition.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 02:40:49


Post by: yukishiro1


I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 02:51:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.

It is at least a consistent opinion. Unlike gw, who seems to think some super heavys (knights) deserve rules and prices that allow them to be played without massively penalizing your army, while others such as Stompas and the Legion super heavys are simply priced out of the game and given additional drawbacks such as losing faction traits for good measure.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 03:10:49


Post by: jeff white


yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 03:30:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 03:47:10


Post by: Azuza001


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".



I know in my local friendly gaming group thats how it is. If you want to play a game, no problem. But if your bringing big guns/competition level army lists its at least considered good manners to let your opponent know that. Otherwise you won't get many games at our group, we have no problem playing that level if thats what someone wants but we wana know so we are not bringing a fluff fun list to a major gun fight.

So the consensus here is if you take a super heavy you get the warlords army trait for free assuming your playing a super heavy that can take said trait. That actually seems fair, knights would never get it (and they dont need the help) but wraith knights / stompas / baneblades / ect... they would because their keywords match properly. I like it. Seems actually a bit better/fair.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 03:55:40


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


I would eliminate both it, the Supreme Command, and the SH Detachment, and make it:
Battalions get 1 Lord of War slot
Brigades get 3 Lord of War slots

Then, I'd eliminate Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights as all-super heavy codecies, either by adding in troops or better yet, appending them as lords of war choices for Mechanicus and Chaos Space Marine armies.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 03:59:27


Post by: DarknessEternal


Change nothing. They're supposed to be harder to play.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 04:00:12


Post by: Gadzilla666


Azuza001 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".



I know in my local friendly gaming group thats how it is. If you want to play a game, no problem. But if your bringing big guns/competition level army lists its at least considered good manners to let your opponent know that. Otherwise you won't get many games at our group, we have no problem playing that level if thats what someone wants but we wana know so we are not bringing a fluff fun list to a major gun fight.

So the consensus here is if you take a super heavy you get the warlords army trait for free assuming your playing a super heavy that can take said trait. That actually seems fair, knights would never get it (and they dont need the help) but wraith knights / stompas / baneblades / ect... they would because their keywords match properly. I like it. Seems actually a bit better/fair.

Agreed, sounds good to me. But they still need to fix the points. A quad sponson Baneblade shouldn't cost more than a Castellan/Tyrant, nor should a Stompa, or Fellblade (ok, maybe a little more for a Fellblade).


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 04:03:16


Post by: Apple fox


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
One good reason to move specifically big Game defining units to a casual non competitive format, like Mini Apoc or special missions. Is then you can Point them Aggressively. With Missions that make the huge center piece of an army, also the center piece of the game.
It also means if one is very powerful, it doesn't cause huge issues with standard competitive meta, and can even have tournaments where they become available.

Right now it feels more like GW sold what it thinks is best and just not really putting the effort needed in to make them play nicely with the systems they have in place.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 04:19:03


Post by: alextroy


GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 04:19:43


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

 alextroy wrote:
So, nothing to fix here.
If that were the case, this thread wouldn't exist.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 04:39:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 05:02:18


Post by: BaconCatBug


I wouldn't.

If anything, I'd totally remove the ability to take any form of Lord of War in matched play. If you want to play with Superheavies and Primarchs, play Apoc.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 05:17:56


Post by: Apple fox


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 05:43:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 05:52:44


Post by: Breton


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.


I would have removed all the CP costs for detachments entirely. A fluffy Combi-wing army with Ravenwing and Deathwing together - Or Wild Riders, or White Scars Bikers, or the other non-troops but fluffy armies I don't know enough to name - are already suffering too much without ObSec. If they want to eliminate soup - and that's what people assume this sort of thing is for - they need a better mechanic for it. This was a stupid change to Dets/CP that repeated the same mistake they made last edition just going the other direction.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 06:03:31


Post by: Apple fox


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.


Most of those where supported by the rules well for a long time, and designed with those in mind. With the ones being Issues at times like Flyers and drop pods following the same issues as above, Points can only ballance things so far in a game thats pushing its design limits allready.

One of the big issues Super heavy units have is that people dont like Bullet sponges, When you only have so much of a response to them though design issues rather than Tactical choice. The game and its state are much harder to support with a healthy meta.

Of course there are ways to deal with them, Probably the best way to deal with them is to flatten them on the curve. Both points and power, They can still be powerful units. But act more like Tanks in the army, just taller.
But even that runs into issues when you have factions with a Design to run no smaller units in support.
This is why i think they have done it this way, its to late for them to redesign them to fit nicely so they are left with lopsided rules.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 07:27:24


Post by: Blackie


Relegate Superheavies to narrative play only or 5000 points matched games. Problem fixed


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 07:44:52


Post by: Dysartes


Step 1: Remove those that want to remove super-heavies from the game from the game. If you don't want to face them in games with your local group, you can already agree this; and if you attend tournaments, you have to take your lumps.

Step 2: Conduct a fair points/rules review of all TITANIC/LOW units so that they are neither auto-takes, nor do they feel like an anchor if you do take them (looking at you, Stompa), regardless of whether the unit is from FW or a Codex.

Step 3: Allow units in the SHA detachment to benefit from the Warlord's Chapter Tactic (or equivalent), if from the same 'dex.

Step 4: Allow situation to simmer, while asking for feedback on the topic.

Step 5: Review situation again, looking at the CP cost of the SHA specifically. Consider merging the SHA into the normal Auxillary Detachment, to cut the cost by a third.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 08:54:24


Post by: Gadzilla666


^^^THIS! Excellent Dysartes. Exalted.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 08:56:55


Post by: vipoid


 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wouldn't.

If anything, I'd totally remove the ability to take any form of Lord of War in matched play. If you want to play with Superheavies and Primarchs, play Apoc.


Likewise. It irks me that there's already a specific 40k game that revolves around the use of super-heavies, plus another one for Knight vs. Knight games, yet we still have to have the bloody things in standard 40k.

At the absolute minimum, it seems like Primarchs, Fliers and Super-Heavies should be exclusive to the 'Onslaught' game size. Also known as 'I want to play Apocalypse with regular 40k rules.'


Apple fox wrote:

One of the big issues Super heavy units have is that people dont like Bullet sponges, When you only have so much of a response to them though design issues rather than Tactical choice. The game and its state are much harder to support with a healthy meta.


I think this is a key point. Super-heavies in 40k have had atrocious rules since their inception, with Knights consistently being the worst offenders (anyone remember 7th, when they were immune to shooting while in melee, yet still capable of shooting their own weapons and of making melee attacks against units not even in melee with them?).

The key issue is that, rather than being less abstracted (due to their vast size and cost), they're instead more abstracted.

If Knights et al. are going to be in the game (and I don't think they should be, but whatever), then they are in dire need of becoming more interactive to both play and play against. Give super-heavies some stuff to manage. e.g. let them decide how to use the reactor power, and whether to put more energy into guns, movement or defence. Similarly, give the opponent some meaningful interaction. Maybe give them the option of targeting different areas (e.g. right-hand weapons, left-hand weapons, legs/tracks), just something more than the most basic degeneration table.

These things should be fun not just to play but also to play against. There should be more choices for the super-heavy player than 'where do I move?' and 'what units do I remove from the board this turn?', and for the opponent there should be interaction beyond rolling some dice and sighing. Is it really so hard to make big models fun? Surely opponents should have a game of trying to dismantle them piece by piece, blowing off weapons and damaging movement systems whilst the behemoth continues to blow whole chunks out of his army. Similarly, the super-heavy player should be working with fewer tools, as his massive machines suffer damage to key systems (or organs in the case of 'nids), and so distributing remaining reactor power becomes even more crucial.

Instead, as it stands, there are basically no rules-interactions at all with super-heavies. They play like walking bricks loaded with indestructible guns. There's nothing fun or interesting you can do to them, and there's nothing fun or interesting you can do with them. All you can do is pump firepower into them until they keel over and die. This is the sort of gameplay I would expect from a 1st edition draft, not the 9th edition of a game.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 09:05:54


Post by: Not Online!!!


I personally would prefer the sizecreep that got introduced by allowing Superheavies under 2000 pts to be removed.

That beeing said, i have no issues if in a 2000+ games some show up, i still think that the introduction of knights is and was a problem for the game system to handle and partially responsible for the race to the bottom for alot of units.

That said, most faction specific superheavies regardless of FW or GW, are really overpriced trash options and i am of the opinion that no unit should just be overpriced trash to begin with in order to atleast give it a niche to exist in.

personally i would prefer for GW to do as dysartes told, they got the online channels and option to change stuff on the fly, might aswell get the worth out of the site.
I'd also like that to be expanded to stuff like predators, chimeras, or baseline models.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 09:10:53


Post by: tneva82


 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."


So you have problem with people gimping their army?

Howabout I make up personal rule you are not allowed to use any marine chapter trait, no doctrines, no TFC, no intercessors, no repulsor etc. Forget your invictor warsuits as well. And absolutely no aggressor or centurion. Outriders and eradicators? They get thrown off as well.

If you can play the game of banning stuff so can I.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 10:40:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If anything, I'd totally remove the ability to take any form of Lord of War in matched play. If you want to play with Superheavies and Primarchs, play Apoc.
Except that's a completely different game, played with an entirely separate set of rules and its own set of faffing about cards and dice mechanics.

How about we just have rules for the models in 40K in 40K.

 vipoid wrote:
Likewise. It irks me that there's already a specific 40k game that revolves around the use of super-heavies, plus another one for Knight vs. Knight games, yet we still have to have the bloody things in standard 40k.
Some people want to play one game, and not be cut-off from using certain models because they're not in the game.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 10:46:19


Post by: p5freak


 Dysartes wrote:

Step 3: Allow units in the SHA detachment to benefit from the Warlord's Chapter Tactic (or equivalent), if from the same 'dex.


There is a problem. If you play a baneblade in a SHAD it would benefit from reroll 1s from cadians. If you play a LoS in a SHAD it wouldnt benefit from any legion trait, because those dont apply to vehicles. Its unfair.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 10:51:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Step 3: Allow units in the SHA detachment to benefit from the Warlord's Chapter Tactic (or equivalent), if from the same 'dex.


There is a problem. If you play a baneblade in a SHAD it would benefit from reroll 1s from cadians. If you play a LoS in a SHAD it wouldnt benefit from any legion trait, because those dont apply to vehicles. Its unfair.


Frankly ignore CSM , the traits and internal balance is anyways fethed, so nobody cares about the klos.

If you want to talk about unfair consider that PA according to GW was written with 9th in mind and you can't double down on half the relics for AL because of the no more stacking rule of neg or pos modifiers.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 10:56:29


Post by: Gadzilla666


 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Step 3: Allow units in the SHA detachment to benefit from the Warlord's Chapter Tactic (or equivalent), if from the same 'dex.


There is a problem. If you play a baneblade in a SHAD it would benefit from reroll 1s from cadians. If you play a LoS in a SHAD it wouldnt benefit from any legion trait, because those dont apply to vehicles. Its unfair.

True, but as you point out, no csm vehicles (except for hellbrutes) get legion traits. That's a problem that gw needs to address apart from the rules for super heavy auxiliary detachments. Though I don't think it's much of an issue with our current traits. I guess it would be nice if my Fellblade was scary again like in 7th....


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 10:58:14


Post by: Aash


sorry, wrong thread


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:02:48


Post by: Sim-Life


By removing them.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:14:31


Post by: tneva82


 Sim-Life wrote:
By removing them.


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:16:26


Post by: the_scotsman


Superheavies are obviously intended to be playable at around a 1500pt game, and are problematic at a 1000pt or earlier.


I would make the SH Aux cost 4CP - unusable in combat patrol.

If your Warlord is in a batalion detachment, it costs 1CP

and add a superheavy slot in a Brigade detachment (so if you run one in a brigade it gets traits, and is free for CP)


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:18:03


Post by: Dysartes


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

Step 3: Allow units in the SHA detachment to benefit from the Warlord's Chapter Tactic (or equivalent), if from the same 'dex.


There is a problem. If you play a baneblade in a SHAD it would benefit from reroll 1s from cadians. If you play a LoS in a SHAD it wouldnt benefit from any legion trait, because those dont apply to vehicles. Its unfair.

True, but as you point out, no csm vehicles (except for hellbrutes) get legion traits. That's a problem that gw needs to address apart from the rules for super heavy auxiliary detachments. Though I don't think it's much of an issue with our current traits. I guess it would be nice if my Fellblade was scary again like in 7th....


Aye, CSM traits (and other factions in the same boat) not affecting vehicles is a different issue, IMO. Most factions (that have vehicles) would probably be better off with their traits rewritten in a similar form to the IG ones (with benefits for Infantry, Vehicles or both), but that's something we're going to have to wait on 9th ed 'dexes to see if it gets changed. I've not looked at their book - do Necron traits currently benefit their vehicles or not?

SHA benefiting from the Warlord's Regimental Trait (in this case) brings up a few interesting cases - do I want my Baneblade to reroll 1's, or do I want it to get the Valhallan benefit instead, and stay in the top wound bracket for longer, even though that means ending up with an inferior trait for my Infantry? Having a quick scan over the Doctrines, I'd argue Armageddon might be the better one to take for both, but I could be wrong.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:19:09


Post by: Sim-Life


tneva82 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
By removing them.


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed


I don't play daft factions that shouldn't exist in normal 40k games. Super heavies should be Apocolypse only like they used to be.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:27:19


Post by: the_scotsman


I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
By removing them.


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed


I don't play daft factions that shouldn't exist in normal 40k games. Super heavies should be Apocolypse only like they used to be.


Everyone's got a different opinion of which faction shouldn't exist.

Hope you don't play Eldar, Harlequins, GSC, Tau, Sisters, any sub-codex of space marines, or anything but space marines/CSM, depending on who you ask.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 11:44:49


Post by: Gadzilla666


the_scotsman wrote:
I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.

This is an excellent point. Once all marines get their additional wound a squad of 10 Blightlord terminators will have 30 T5, 2+, 4++, 5+++ wounds that will have to be removed 3 at a time, which will make any weapon that isn't either D1 or D3 pretty inefficient against them due to possible wasted wounds, and probably for about 400 points before optional equipment. That sounds a lot nastier than a 26 wound Baneblade that's T8 with a 3+. Personally I have no problem with that, because anything is ok as long as you pay the right price for it. But I wonder why no wants a unit like that moved to Apocalypse along with LOW.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 12:05:29


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.

This is an excellent point. Once all marines get their additional wound a squad of 10 Blightlord terminators will have 30 T5, 2+, 4++, 5+++ wounds that will have to be removed 3 at a time, which will make any weapon that isn't either D1 or D3 pretty inefficient against them due to possible wasted wounds, and probably for about 400 points before optional equipment. That sounds a lot nastier than a 26 wound Baneblade that's T8 with a 3+. Personally I have no problem with that, because anything is ok as long as you pay the right price for it. But I wonder why no wants a unit like that moved to Apocalypse along with LOW.


I think a lot of people want such units and combinations not to be possible, heck i remember how angry people were at certain deathstars in 7th.
It also leads into combo wombo territory that is more remiscient of MTG then a wargame .



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 12:10:17


Post by: nekooni


Maybe give superheavies more degradation levels? Right now you have to kill it halfway to even impact it slightly, but you could just make it use 6 levels instead,for example. Degrade movement on first, shooting on second, movement on third again, save on 4th and so on, for example.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 12:30:20


Post by: the_scotsman


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.

This is an excellent point. Once all marines get their additional wound a squad of 10 Blightlord terminators will have 30 T5, 2+, 4++, 5+++ wounds that will have to be removed 3 at a time, which will make any weapon that isn't either D1 or D3 pretty inefficient against them due to possible wasted wounds, and probably for about 400 points before optional equipment. That sounds a lot nastier than a 26 wound Baneblade that's T8 with a 3+. Personally I have no problem with that, because anything is ok as long as you pay the right price for it. But I wonder why no wants a unit like that moved to Apocalypse along with LOW.


I think a lot of people want such units and combinations not to be possible, heck i remember how angry people were at certain deathstars in 7th.
It also leads into combo wombo territory that is more remiscient of MTG then a wargame .



I can think of a huge number of wargames where you have the choice to run a very large percentage of your force as a single model/unit, and they all have the exact same drawbacks and advantages, which generally always boil down to concentration of power vs control of the board.

I can run a single King Tiger to my opponents half-dozen odd Sherman tanks in Flames of War, I can run one of the big creatures in WMH, I can run a single big ship list in X-wing. I can't think of a single wargame where one of the well-known strategic choices isn't "concentrate your force into a single powerful model/unit in order to concentrate force multipliers and cede board control."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:
Maybe give superheavies more degradation levels? Right now you have to kill it halfway to even impact it slightly, but you could just make it use 6 levels instead,for example. Degrade movement on first, shooting on second, movement on third again, save on 4th and so on, for example.


That could work, if we're committed to not bringing back any kind of vehicle damage table.

It'd also be cool to see some different things than just the standard "get it to half hp and it's -1BS" thing. For example, for baneblade chassis vehicles it'd be cool if the damage levels were disabling one gun at a time until the last bracket is the baneblade just charging in with its tracks to try and crush people.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 12:41:06


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.

This is an excellent point. Once all marines get their additional wound a squad of 10 Blightlord terminators will have 30 T5, 2+, 4++, 5+++ wounds that will have to be removed 3 at a time, which will make any weapon that isn't either D1 or D3 pretty inefficient against them due to possible wasted wounds, and probably for about 400 points before optional equipment. That sounds a lot nastier than a 26 wound Baneblade that's T8 with a 3+. Personally I have no problem with that, because anything is ok as long as you pay the right price for it. But I wonder why no wants a unit like that moved to Apocalypse along with LOW.


I think a lot of people want such units and combinations not to be possible, heck i remember how angry people were at certain deathstars in 7th.
It also leads into combo wombo territory that is more remiscient of MTG then a wargame .


That's a problem with the whole strategem, psychic powers, character unit buffing system. Too much availability of easy buffs and the expectation of using them on units that don't perform without them but overperform with them. WOMBO COMBO needs to go, let units live or die on their own merits.

nekooni wrote:Maybe give superheavies more degradation levels? Right now you have to kill it halfway to even impact it slightly, but you could just make it use 6 levels instead,for example. Degrade movement on first, shooting on second, movement on third again, save on 4th and so on, for example.

You mean like the current stat degradation chart for the Stompa? No thanks. That's one of the reasons the Stompa is as bad as it is.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 13:42:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I really do find it pretty bizarre that so many people have this ideological opposition to the general idea of their opponents being able to field a single 400+ point model.

It's frankly easy, common, and has been easy and common for many editions to field a 400+ point UNIT that functions basically identically to how a superheavy functions - takes tons of buffs from psychic powers, auras, strats, (previoously characters joining) and removes flexibility in exchange for killing power.

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.

This is an excellent point. Once all marines get their additional wound a squad of 10 Blightlord terminators will have 30 T5, 2+, 4++, 5+++ wounds that will have to be removed 3 at a time, which will make any weapon that isn't either D1 or D3 pretty inefficient against them due to possible wasted wounds, and probably for about 400 points before optional equipment. That sounds a lot nastier than a 26 wound Baneblade that's T8 with a 3+. Personally I have no problem with that, because anything is ok as long as you pay the right price for it. But I wonder why no wants a unit like that moved to Apocalypse along with LOW.


I think a lot of people want such units and combinations not to be possible, heck i remember how angry people were at certain deathstars in 7th.
It also leads into combo wombo territory that is more remiscient of MTG then a wargame .


That's a problem with the whole strategem, psychic powers, character unit buffing system. Too much availability of easy buffs and the expectation of using them on units that don't perform without them but overperform with them. WOMBO COMBO needs to go, let units live or die on their own merits.

nekooni wrote:Maybe give superheavies more degradation levels? Right now you have to kill it halfway to even impact it slightly, but you could just make it use 6 levels instead,for example. Degrade movement on first, shooting on second, movement on third again, save on 4th and so on, for example.

You mean like the current stat degradation chart for the Stompa? No thanks. That's one of the reasons the Stompa is as bad as it is.


Yeah, i wish csm was playable without needing to build a card house of buffs on units. It sucks that i need to prescience + VotlW + Endless cacophony every turn to stay in the game. i wish i didnt need to do this and that my units werent costed with the assumption they would always have these buffs on them

Stompa would be fine if its pts cost wasnt completely mental. I like the idea of superheavies being easier to bracket, IF they get a lower pts cost to compensate.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 13:59:30


Post by: Dukeofstuff


To fix gaurd baneblades?
Right now a baneblade is basically 1/3 of a tank commander in price (ish) with 4 sponsoons and a backup trojan to reroll.
The (lets say doomhammer, which is middle of the road firewpoer for a baneblade) with 4 sponsoons has t8,. bs4+ with full rerolls, 2d6 shots of heavy artillery fire that works a lot like 4d6 battlecannon shots, 4 lascannon, and 30heavy bolter dice. It has 26 wounds, which is not a lot, given it rarely will get the benefit of cover. oh, and the trojan adds in 3 shots hb fire at bs4+, and 11 wounds.

By comparison, 3 tank commanders shoot 3 lascannons, 6d3 plasma cannons, and 6d6 battle cannon shots, have t8, bs3+, reroll their 1's, and have 36 wounds spread over 3 targets that sometiems will get the benefit of cover.

I would further suggest a command baneblade, maybe 100 points more than a regular baneblade, but limited to 1 per army. Give it t9 (better armor!) and bs3+ (better shooter) and let it issue 1 order to any 1 infantry or tank in voice or vox communication with the command baneblade.
If its a transport capable baneblade, cut the transport by 5 to reflect communications and targetting gear taking up space. Max 1 per player!

This would be a flavorful and fun tank to have in your army, stuck in of all places a command slot as a supreme command unit for gaurd
Mathematically, its pretty similar to 3 tank commanders (if you match sponsoons being there or not, that is, cause that greatly affects both price and firepower of either choice), both in what it can do and in what it can withstand in damage. I think it would be fun!


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 13:59:54


Post by: Azuza001


Sorry guys, this wasn't supposed to be about if they should exist or not. It was how to make it more reasonable to bring one in a list. I get the opinion that its no fun to face certain ones, when imperial knight codex came out in 8th i hated them. They were so overwhelming. But as time went on gw fixed them rules wise (changed cp value for their detachments, removed 3++ as a thing, increased cost of certain units...) and other rules came out to make them less of a draw (doctrines....).

But I am more concerned about baneblades / stompa / wraithknights / ext. For example, i have seen my opponent start with 3cp in this new edition because he was trying to get into imperial guard but didn't own enough for 2000 pts. He had a good start on infanty, a few tanks, and a baneblade. So to flesh it out he brought some custodies to try and help out.

It didn't go well for him. I was playing craftworld eldar (Beil Tan is the best!) and utterly crushed him. It wasn't even close pts wise. He still has his guard but now is waiting until he has 2k before he plays them, and even then he isnt sure about the baneblade (and can you blame him?). It costs 4cp just to take it and give it his army trait, and while they are good they are not THAT good.

Same with the wraithknight. They are cool to see, I still love the model. But they are not anywhere near the same lvl as an imperial knight. Or a stormsurge. Or a stompa. Heck even a tesseract vault is now harder to swallow (however they still are nasty enough in the right list to be an insane option so I still use mine once in a while).

I dont think these things should be autoincludes or auto win units. But it would be nice if I saw them on the table more and have a real chance to help out without just auto-gimping an army.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:04:32


Post by: Breton


the_scotsman wrote:


if we're committed to not bringing back any kind of vehicle damage table.




God I hope not. Most vehicles now lost a lot of durability that way.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:11:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


Azuza001 wrote:
Sorry guys, this wasn't supposed to be about if they should exist or not. It was how to make it more reasonable to bring one in a list. I get the opinion that its no fun to face certain ones, when imperial knight codex came out in 8th i hated them. They were so overwhelming. But as time went on gw fixed them rules wise (changed cp value for their detachments, removed 3++ as a thing, increased cost of certain units...) and other rules came out to make them less of a draw (doctrines....).

But I am more concerned about baneblades / stompa / wraithknights / ext. For example, i have seen my opponent start with 3cp in this new edition because he was trying to get into imperial guard but didn't own enough for 2000 pts. He had a good start on infanty, a few tanks, and a baneblade. So to flesh it out he brought some custodies to try and help out.

It didn't go well for him. I was playing craftworld eldar (Beil Tan is the best!) and utterly crushed him. It wasn't even close pts wise. He still has his guard but now is waiting until he has 2k before he plays them, and even then he isnt sure about the baneblade (and can you blame him?). It costs 4cp just to take it and give it his army trait, and while they are good they are not THAT good.

Same with the wraithknight. They are cool to see, I still love the model. But they are not anywhere near the same lvl as an imperial knight. Or a stormsurge. Or a stompa. Heck even a tesseract vault is now harder to swallow (however they still are nasty enough in the right list to be an insane option so I still use mine once in a while).

I dont think these things should be autoincludes or auto win units. But it would be nice if I saw them on the table more and have a real chance to help out without just auto-gimping an army.

You think 3CP+550 points (650 for 4 sponsons) is bad for a Baneblade? Try 3CP+880 points for a Fellblade. Damn it gw.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:27:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:32:15


Post by: Breton


Azuza001 wrote:
Sorry guys, this wasn't supposed to be about if they should exist or not. It was how to make it more reasonable to bring one in a list.


That tends to happen here, I'm finding.

I get the opinion that its no fun to face certain ones, when imperial knight codex came out in 8th i hated them. They were so overwhelming. But as time went on gw fixed them rules wise (changed cp value for their detachments, removed 3++ as a thing, increased cost of certain units...) and other rules came out to make them less of a draw (doctrines....).

But I am more concerned about baneblades / stompa / wraithknights / ext. For example, i have seen my opponent start with 3cp in this new edition because he was trying to get into imperial guard but didn't own enough for 2000 pts. He had a good start on infanty, a few tanks, and a baneblade. So to flesh it out he brought some custodies to try and help out.

It didn't go well for him. I was playing craftworld eldar (Beil Tan is the best!) and utterly crushed him. It wasn't even close pts wise. He still has his guard but now is waiting until he has 2k before he plays them, and even then he isnt sure about the baneblade (and can you blame him?). It costs 4cp just to take it and give it his army trait, and while they are good they are not THAT good.

Same with the wraithknight. They are cool to see, I still love the model. But they are not anywhere near the same lvl as an imperial knight. Or a stormsurge. Or a stompa. Heck even a tesseract vault is now harder to swallow (however they still are nasty enough in the right list to be an insane option so I still use mine once in a while).

I dont think these things should be autoincludes or auto win units. But it would be nice if I saw them on the table more and have a real chance to help out without just auto-gimping an army.


As mentioned I don't think CP and Dets/List Building should be tied together at all beyond the Stratagems for army selection. I suspect they're doing this - and the Cap on Dets per army - to try and hamstring "unfluffy" armies that take multiple small Dets to min/max the non Troops choices, or to soup multiple armies. But it doesn't really work, and punishes some of the more esoteric armies many of us would like to see more of. Beyond that - is the Baneblade worth it's points even before the CP cost? 26 3+ T8 wounds for roughly 20% to 30% or more of your 2,000 point army could evaporate awful fast. You could be connecting two separate but crossing-over issues. If (And it's an if) it's not worth it's points it's definitely not worth it's points plus a handful of CP and no changes to the Aux-LOW Det CP cost is going to change that.

How fast was he using his CP? Did he run out? How fast would he have used his CP with the 4 extra? i.e. Would he still have run out? Was he making efficient/good use of his CP?

How fast did the Baneblade die? How many times did you shoot it, with which weapons? i.e. did you get luckier than average, was it some of the change from AV to Toughness (vehicles in general took a huge hit going from AV to Toughness)? Were you loaded for bear with anti-tank? Was this the only tank he had?

Next up: GW isn't going to change the rule based on what we say here, so I'm assuming you're looking for a friendly game house rule. First I'd figure out if it's a Vehicle/Baneblade issue, a CP issue, or both. Then I'd figure out some house rules to fix whatever's broken -especially if this opponent was a buddy you don't want to get discouraged while he only has half an army - if that's what you're looking for. I just saw he only had 3 CP. Had he made his piecemeal army without the soup/det/etc penalties and given him the full 12 - basically open play with CP added - would it have made a difference?






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.


I can remember when a Thunderhawk moved to the Marine Codex for the blink of an eye for only 600 or so points. What is it now? 900? 1100? My bad, 1500 or somesuch.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:36:06


Post by: argonak


Asking superheavies is be removed from the game is silly. Never going to happen.

Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:39:28


Post by: Karol


I have little expiriance with big stuff, besides knights armies and castellans in 8th ed, and it tells me that both create two type of play expiriance, either they are part of some sort of very gimmik list with rules over laping from non core products and multiple books, or create a negative play expiriance, because either the opposing army has no way of dealing with a knight or it can kill a knight per turn tabling the knight player around turn 4-5.

Also big stuff in games make it really hard for elite units and normal tanks to be worth taking. castellans changed the meta in such a way., and it wasn't very fun for people that wanted to take some tank.

FW seems to always create problems, specialy if there is over lap with codex rules. Codex dreads weren't a problem in 8th, but chaplain dreads and leviathan were too good with 2.0 rule set.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:41:56


Post by: Keramory


Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.

Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:42:23


Post by: Breton


 argonak wrote:
Asking superheavies is be removed from the game is silly. Never going to happen.

Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.


That's how vehicles used to work for a long long time. You could lose an engine but not be destroyed. You could lose a weapon on that facing. The downside was it could be hard to get the final kill shot after the only thing left was a driver who couldn't drive. So they added Hull Points. Then they made them people with toughness and wounds. But they did a fairly poor job of it. Give it a couple editions and they'll either revert because this sucks, or they'll fix it so it doesn't suck.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:48:49


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
I have little expiriance with big stuff, besides knights armies and castellans in 8th ed, and it tells me that both create two type of play expiriance, either they are part of some sort of very gimmik list with rules over laping from non core products and multiple books, or create a negative play expiriance, because either the opposing army has no way of dealing with a knight or it can kill a knight per turn tabling the knight player around turn 4-5.

Also big stuff in games make it really hard for elite units and normal tanks to be worth taking. castellans changed the meta in such a way., and it wasn't very fun for people that wanted to take some tank.

FW seems to always create problems, specialy if there is over lap with codex rules. Codex dreads weren't a problem in 8th, but chaplain dreads and leviathan were too good with 2.0 rule set.


Imperial knights are the only group of strong LoW in the game right now.
When is the last time you played against a stompa, a cobra or a fellblade?
I'm gonna guess that never.

The castellan used to be 100pts cheaper and the strats that supported it used to be cheaper and you could bring it to a 3++ save. all these things were fixed.


lord of wars arent a problem when they are balanced, right now, knights are the only balanced ones since they can circumvent the penalties for taking them (CPs) and their pts have been adjusted enough to where they arent OP.

FW only creates problems with their undercosted dreadnoughts, everything else they produce are nothing more than cool looking models.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:53:11


Post by: p5freak


 argonak wrote:

Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.


To complicated. Losing movement and worse shooting is fine.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:53:29


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Keramory wrote:
Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.

Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?


You only get a house if you bring it in a fully fledged SuperHeavy Detachment.
So you gotta pay 6cp (because it includes a titanic unit) and add 2 armigers to fill out the detachment.
Its pretty ridiculous, hence the topic of this thread


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:53:55


Post by: catbarf


In 9th, sinking 400+pts into a single model that can't hold objectives is a significant enough penalty.

On top of that, virtually all non-Knight LoWs are overpriced, some egregiously so.

They really don't need a 3CP tax and lack of subfaction traits on top of that.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 14:56:05


Post by: p5freak


 catbarf wrote:
In 9th, sinking 400+pts into a single model that can't hold objectives is a significant enough penalty.


Where does it say that LoWs cant hold objectives ?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:02:06


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 p5freak wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
In 9th, sinking 400+pts into a single model that can't hold objectives is a significant enough penalty.


Where does it say that LoWs cant hold objectives ?


pretty sure he meant that they dont get obsec


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:24:46


Post by: the_scotsman


Keramory wrote:
Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.

Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?


I think the SH aux detachment says you don't get subfaction traits? I'm really not sure. And even if it does I'm pretty sure knights have a strat they can use that lets them have that cake and eat it too.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:25:33


Post by: Dysartes


Keramory wrote:
Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.

Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?


Not sure which version of the rulebook you've got, Keramory, but there's a reference within the Detachments section - look for the sidebar/box with Detachment Abilities in it, which is on pg 58 of the mini-rulebook from the Command Edition starter. Basically, there's a small list of detachments which are excluded from getting Detachment Abilities (such as Chapter Tactics, etc), of which the Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment (with the single LOW slot) is included.

The big Super-Heavy Detachment can get access to them, but then you're fielding 3+ LOW, and it costs more CP.

I don't know if the Freeblade stuff would apply - I suspect not, but I'm not a Knight expert.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:35:07


Post by: ERJAK


yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.

Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.

And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:38:28


Post by: Gadzilla666


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.

And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?

I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.

Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 15:57:51


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.

And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?

I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.

Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.


I was joking, seems like i need to work on my delivery a lot more

Most LoWs are in the same boat. Overpriced and undersupported when compared to knights which is a shame since i like the look of LoW that look like vehicles more than bipedal robots.
I wasnt kidding when i said just realised how many guns the fellblade gets and now i'm tempted to get one for my Night lords since at least i'll be able to split fire with it but that will 100% wait on the new FW index if it ever happens.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:06:27


Post by: Gadzilla666


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.

And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?

I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.

Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.


I was joking, seems like i need to work on my delivery a lot more

Most LoWs are in the same boat. Overpriced and undersupported when compared to knights which is a shame since i like the look of LoW that look like vehicles more than bipedal robots.
I wasnt kidding when i said just realised how many guns the fellblade gets and now i'm tempted to get one for my Night lords since at least i'll be able to split fire with it but that will 100% wait on the new FW index if it ever happens.

Ah, sorry.

Well they look great in 8th Legion colors (just make sure to stain those treads bloody, remember, we're the Eighth Legion), and Prey On The Weak is useful against anything L8 or less. Just be prepared to straighten some tread sections and gun barrels (ever work with resin before?).


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:13:24


Post by: skchsan


ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:25:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:30:36


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.


What core rules do LOW units "Virtually ignore" as compared to non-LOW units?

....ignoring of course Guilliman if you like. i think it's fair to lump the other primarchs in there though.

They can generally not be prevented from shooting by locking them in melee...but now neither can any monster or vehicle. Or like. All planes?

And that's about...it?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:31:00


Post by: yukishiro1


ERJAK wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.

Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.

And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.


Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.

Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a big part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:41:02


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

Oh, and not to mention that knights have a stratagem that essentially insta-kills any infantry characters <T6 in combat, barring unlucky rolls.>

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:43:04


Post by: Sim-Life


yukishiro1 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.

Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.

And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.


Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.

Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a bit part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.


Seconded. Especially the second point.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:51:01


Post by: Azuza001


Breton wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
Sorry guys, this wasn't supposed to be about if they should exist or not. It was how to make it more reasonable to bring one in a list.


That tends to happen here, I'm finding.

I get the opinion that its no fun to face certain ones, when imperial knight codex came out in 8th i hated them. They were so overwhelming. But as time went on gw fixed them rules wise (changed cp value for their detachments, removed 3++ as a thing, increased cost of certain units...) and other rules came out to make them less of a draw (doctrines....).

But I am more concerned about baneblades / stompa / wraithknights / ext. For example, i have seen my opponent start with 3cp in this new edition because he was trying to get into imperial guard but didn't own enough for 2000 pts. He had a good start on infanty, a few tanks, and a baneblade. So to flesh it out he brought some custodies to try and help out.

It didn't go well for him. I was playing craftworld eldar (Beil Tan is the best!) and utterly crushed him. It wasn't even close pts wise. He still has his guard but now is waiting until he has 2k before he plays them, and even then he isnt sure about the baneblade (and can you blame him?). It costs 4cp just to take it and give it his army trait, and while they are good they are not THAT good.

Same with the wraithknight. They are cool to see, I still love the model. But they are not anywhere near the same lvl as an imperial knight. Or a stormsurge. Or a stompa. Heck even a tesseract vault is now harder to swallow (however they still are nasty enough in the right list to be an insane option so I still use mine once in a while).

I dont think these things should be autoincludes or auto win units. But it would be nice if I saw them on the table more and have a real chance to help out without just auto-gimping an army.


As mentioned I don't think CP and Dets/List Building should be tied together at all beyond the Stratagems for army selection. I suspect they're doing this - and the Cap on Dets per army - to try and hamstring "unfluffy" armies that take multiple small Dets to min/max the non Troops choices, or to soup multiple armies. But it doesn't really work, and punishes some of the more esoteric armies many of us would like to see more of. Beyond that - is the Baneblade worth it's points even before the CP cost? 26 3+ T8 wounds for roughly 20% to 30% or more of your 2,000 point army could evaporate awful fast. You could be connecting two separate but crossing-over issues. If (And it's an if) it's not worth it's points it's definitely not worth it's points plus a handful of CP and no changes to the Aux-LOW Det CP cost is going to change that.

How fast was he using his CP? Did he run out? How fast would he have used his CP with the 4 extra? i.e. Would he still have run out? Was he making efficient/good use of his CP?

How fast did the Baneblade die? How many times did you shoot it, with which weapons? i.e. did you get luckier than average, was it some of the change from AV to Toughness (vehicles in general took a huge hit going from AV to Toughness)? Were you loaded for bear with anti-tank? Was this the only tank he had?

Next up: GW isn't going to change the rule based on what we say here, so I'm assuming you're looking for a friendly game house rule. First I'd figure out if it's a Vehicle/Baneblade issue, a CP issue, or both. Then I'd figure out some house rules to fix whatever's broken -especially if this opponent was a buddy you don't want to get discouraged while he only has half an army - if that's what you're looking for. I just saw he only had 3 CP. Had he made his piecemeal army without the soup/det/etc penalties and given him the full 12 - basically open play with CP added - would it have made a difference?






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.

The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.

So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.


I can remember when a Thunderhawk moved to the Marine Codex for the blink of an eye for only 600 or so points. What is it now? 900? 1100? My bad, 1500 or somesuch.



So his baneblade died t3 to my eldar guardian blob and banshees.... i know that sounds ridiculous but 20 guardians drop down, banshees drop down. Then doom onto tank, guide onto banshees, and in the shooting phase warlord trait guide onto guardians, plus jinx onto tank.

Guardians are hitting on 3's rerolling, wounding on 6's rerolling, each 6 is an auto wound, followed by a blob of 10 banshees with the same situation (3's to hit with reroll, 6's to wound auto wound with reroll) in combat (court of the young king helps make those deep strike charges). I have used the guardian trick before to kill repulsers so I knew how to deal with his tank easily enough.

I dont think the issue comes completely down to the rules though. If the tank had 10 more wounds would it still be where it is now? Or if it was t9? Who knows. But as things sit.... I hate to see cool models just gather dust.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:52:27


Post by: Not Online!!!


Honestly Azuza, what you described here, is nothing more then the fact that GW has no bloody idea that their wounding chart is in essence broken.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:57:04


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
Spoiler:
ERJAK wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.

Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.

And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.


Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.

Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a big part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.

So they skewed the game before they were nerfed? So, Iron Hands to Apocalypse then?

As to your second point, you think any unit 200 PPM should be "more bad than good" so that's where you're coming from. And as you say, it's subjective, so an opinion, which is fine, but you're opinion shouldn't affect other people's games.

skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?

Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 16:58:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


i mean i have a problem with the klos....

yes i have, the less we see this abomination on the field the better, if they'd wanted to make the only codex LoW csm have atm into khorne why the feth not make a plastic brass scorpion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

So they skewed the game before they were nerfed? So, Iron Hands to Apocalypse then?

As to your second point, you think any unit 200 PPM should be "more bad than good" so that's where you're coming from. And as you say, it's subjective, so an opinion, which is fine, but you're opinion shouldn't affect other people's games.


i mean he has kinda a point, the inclusion of knights and other super heavies, atleast imo, facilitated the race to the bottom that hit infantry and tanks. But frankly if GW would've controlled themselves when writing rules then we would've had WAY less impact than we had now.




How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:02:58


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?

Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?
No, I think you're failing to take into account the fact that LOW can't be balanced out properly precisely because of this outlier.

If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.

So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:04:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


meh for most non knights a simple price fix would solve the issue.

heck a baneblade / variations aren't that far off from fieldable allready.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:07:15


Post by: skchsan


The fact of the matter is, 40k does not need all-TITANIC army nor can it support it within it's design space.

Then, all non-knight titanic unit/LOW units can be adjusted in cost to be the new 'overpriced metal bawks'.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:09:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?

Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?

No, I think you're failing to take into account the fact that LOW can't be balanced out properly precisely because of this outlier.

If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.

So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?

And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:09:12


Post by: Breton


 skchsan wrote:


If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.

So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?


Just the aux LoW det is what they're working on. You could fit one knight in there, but if they hold to pattern you're going to lose your Tactic/trait/dynasty/hivefleet/sept/genome/insert equivalent here.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:11:29


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
meh for most non knights a simple price fix would solve the issue.

heck a baneblade / variations aren't that far off from fieldable allready.

Agreed, though some LOW need a much bigger correction.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:16:13


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:17:20


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

Oh, and not to mention that knights have a stratagem that essentially insta-kills any infantry characters <T6 in combat, barring unlucky rolls.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?


1) is wrong. I can't find anything in the rules that allows Knights, or Titanic units in general, to move over units in the movement phase. they can fall back over INFANTRY/SWARM models per a rule on their datasheet.

2) Um...sure. OK. I like that this got listed as though there are psychic knights?

3) Yup. This is true, and AFAIK the only thing the Titanic rule does...except for making it so you can't claim any kind of benefit from cover at all.

4) An ability that everything should have already had, it was pants-on-head stupid that a wraithknight could not hit a squad at its knee level on a ruin and a needed fix to not just knights, but also basic close combat units like dreadnoughts.

5) Wow, ignoring morale in 40k, imagine that, an ability that basically only ever applies to 10+ model light infantry units that aren't marines.

6) how is high damage weaponry mitigated by an invuln save? Invuln saves only reduce the effectiveness of AP?

7) Knights' invuln save reduces the effectiveness of AP-3 or better, or AP-2 or better if they use a strat. There are plenty of units in the game that have invulns just as good or better than this. All of daemons. All of harlequins. Both those armies completely and utterly invalidate the AP stat, and SOMEHOW have managed to be perfectly balanced with the rest of the game for the majority of their existence...like, I might add, knights. Knights have only ever been overpowered a couple of times, usually as a single model added as allies to another army, and just as much as any other army in the game has.

And still...knights are only one superheavy unit. You have not demonstrated that ANY of these problems are problems foundationally with any other type of unit, let alone titanic units in particular. Stormsurges, Stompas, Wraithknights, Baneblades, KLOS, not even getting into forgeworld we regularly don't hear a peep out of any of these units all edition long. So it seems to be perfectly possible to balance superheavies in regular scale 40k, its just one of those bugbears that old men will yell at clouds about like "Tau not belonging in 40k" or "Daemons not belonging in 40k" - you know, whatever people can get away with whining about wanting gone.>


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:26:09


Post by: skchsan


The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:29:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:30:15


Post by: catbarf


 p5freak wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
In 9th, sinking 400+pts into a single model that can't hold objectives is a significant enough penalty.


Where does it say that LoWs cant hold objectives ?


Yes, literally speaking, they can hold objectives.

Practically, they can only be on one objective, and they lose it to literally any unit of 2+ models, or a single lowly Troops model.

It's a lot of points wrapped up in something that can't play to the objective game, and has to be worthwhile solely on the basis of killing things. In an edition where you can't win on killing alone, that's a big drawback. The more points you put into LoWs, the fewer points you have for other forces, and the easier it is for the enemy to kill those objective-scoring units.

Taken to the extreme, pure Knights (or even mostly-Knights with some Guard meatshields) really struggle in 9th- you don't have to kill the Knights, just kill whatever they brought to score, and then get on objectives. It's a big change from 8th and introduces a new disincentive to LoWs that didn't previously exist.

Given that most LoWs are nowhere near the effectiveness of Knights, I don't think the lack of subfaction traits or the CP cost are needed as additional balancing measures.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:39:17


Post by: yukishiro1


The fact that Knights will almost always lose doesn't make playing against them more entertaining, it makes it even less entertaining. It's bad enough playing against an army you can't kill trying to win by just dying slowly enough, but if you already know ahead of time you're going to be able to, literally what is the point?

The bad interactions with the 9th missions are a sign of why super-heavies in 40k is problematic, not a sign of why we don't have to worry about them. "They suck anyway so it doesn't matter" isn't a great argument.

I mean on the specific question I agree, I see no reason not to let them get traits in an auxiliary super heavy detachment. That's not an important line to draw. But the fact that the game has never in its history had well-balanced integration of super-heavies should be a clue that there are fundamental problems with them in 40k's basic framework.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:45:32


Post by: the_scotsman


I'm still failing to see the distinction between a list with a superheavy and a list with

1) a large number of flyers
2) a large unit with a very good invuln save and tons of buffs, in a word "Deathstar" unit.
3) A list with a large number of cheap models

The fact that you need to win the game via...the way that you win the game, rather than via tabling your opponent's army I would consider a "pro" rather than a "Con."

If I had my way, it would be exceedingly rare to have "kill my opponent's entire army" as an option to pursue victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.


Right, like how flyers have less firepower for the points than superheav-

...wait no, that's not right.

Hang on.

Flyers generally have WAY MORE firepower for the points than superheavies...AND there are less ways to interact with them in general..


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:51:03


Post by: AnomanderRake


 skchsan wrote:
The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.


How many superheavies actually have good Invulnerable saves? Is your problem superheavies, or just Knights?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:53:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


This is a solved problem in the better other game, where Lords of War are constricted to 2000 point games or larger, and can only be a maximum of 25% of your force. Up to 3000 points, then above 3000 points you can get into apoc (or so the game recommends).

Then, there's a specialist detachment - the Leviathan - that lets you take one Lord of War more than 25% of your force, and opens up the possibility of taking two more Lords of War (but they have to abide the 25% restriction). However, your support is crippled, your access to warlord traits is banned (you get what the detachment gives and no more), and you lack flexibility.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 17:57:58


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ah, sorry.

Well they look great in 8th Legion colors (just make sure to stain those treads bloody, remember, we're the Eighth Legion), and Prey On The Weak is useful against anything L8 or less. Just be prepared to straighten some tread sections and gun barrels (ever work with resin before?).


Don't worry, if/when i do get one, i'll be sure to cover it in skulls/skin/chains/blood to be as spooky as possible (even if it doesnt give -1 to leadership :( ).
Yeah, resin is a pain but i can manage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

Oh, and not to mention that knights have a stratagem that essentially insta-kills any infantry characters <T6 in combat, barring unlucky rolls.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?


so we should ban harlequins by that logic? >


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.

In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.

There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.

Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?

Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?
No, I think you're failing to take into account the fact that LOW can't be balanced out properly precisely because of this outlier.

If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.

So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?



as was said before : make the SuperHeavyAux detachement cost 0cp and give its faction bonuses if it matches your warlord's. that way Wraithknights, Stompas, KLOS, Zarakynel, Fellblades, Scorpions, Baneblades become playable and knights are untouched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.


Thats already possible as the rules stand right now.
Pay 0Cp for your Superheavy detachment then bring in a patrol/battalion of other stuff for 2/3cp.

And again, why would it be bad to have knights with some footsoldiers in the same army?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:09:11


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.

RE: all other counter points & rebuttals - all these suggestions are based around excluding knights - 'we should make a rule that benefits all non-knights and exclude knights only.' This only goes to show that the key factor on why these LOW related rules are skewed so. The 40k design space is currently skewed as to pretend that these units fit in the given design space - 'since our current soft cap on T is 8, we'll give knights T8, but because it should be tougher than say, a land raider, because its a huge effing hellbot of doom, we'll give it invul saves, and then a rule that give it even better invul saves just because its a huge effing hellbot of doom!'. This trends' been spiraling out of control since the day of plastic kit baneblade and IWIN FW. It really needs to stop.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:13:20


Post by: AnomanderRake


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.


Even LOS-blocking area terrain for units with less than 18W?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:14:30


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:20:11


Post by: Gadzilla666


skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.

But you still haven't explained how this would benefit knights. If anything it would hurt them because it would give other factions better access to units that could threaten them.

yukishiro1 wrote:The fact that Knights will almost always lose doesn't make playing against them more entertaining, it makes it even less entertaining. It's bad enough playing against an army you can't kill trying to win by just dying slowly enough, but if you already know ahead of time you're going to be able to, literally what is the point?

The bad interactions with the 9th missions are a sign of why super-heavies in 40k is problematic, not a sign of why we don't have to worry about them. "They suck anyway so it doesn't matter" isn't a great argument.

I mean on the specific question I agree, I see no reason not to let them get traits in an auxiliary super heavy detachment. That's not an important line to draw. But the fact that the game has never in its history had well-balanced integration of super-heavies should be a clue that there are fundamental problems with them in 40k's basic framework.

Not fun to play against? So Tau to Apocalypse too then?

And do you still believe that any unit worth 200+ points should be "more bad than good", just to know what you consider "too big for 40k"? That would include all Land Raiders, Riptides, Swarmlords, Morkanaughts, Gorkanaughts, etc.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:20:30


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:22:32


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that

When people complain about LoW, they complain about either knights or the primarchs (when called OP i mean). The fact that some people feel like a wraithknight is on the same scope as an imperial knight and feel like both need to have consent from the other player feels wrong since a WK is basically a gloryfied heavy support (its got less firepower than a repulsor FFS)


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:26:29


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that
Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.

The sheer act of balancing out non-knight LOW's to match the performance of knights is a really bad way of dealing with the issue IMO.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:30:30


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that
Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.


Both IMO. they are overcosted for their impact of the game and them losing their faction trait because souping a knight warranted a nerf was a result of collaterral damage.

Some LoW are worse than heavy supports in the same codex.

So yeah, they need to rework the numbers on them but making a fellblade give -1 to leadership (when legion traits are inevitably fixed) or giving double wounds for damage charts with an iyanden wraithknight wouldnt break the game and should be doable.

You cant ever give a stompa a kultur right now in a 2000pts...

And again, its not about making all LoW knight-level. Its about making them viable choices in an army instead of being centerpiece models that just die while doing nothing.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:33:05


Post by: vipoid


the_scotsman wrote:
I'm still failing to see the distinction between a list with a superheavy and a list with

1) a large number of flyers
2) a large unit with a very good invuln save and tons of buffs, in a word "Deathstar" unit.
3) A list with a large number of cheap models


I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally:

1) I see no difference and regard fliers as another unit that should be Apocalypse-only. The fact that a flier miles in the air completely blocks a unit from assaulting beneath it is testament to the fact that they do not belong in this game.


2) I regard these as different because (Girlyman et al. notwithstanding) they tend to at least be a more reasonable scale for the game. What's more, these tend to at least be somewhat weak to the weapons that are meant to be effective against them, as opposed to Knights which have an invulnerable save to protect them from weapons with good AP. Because why would an anti-armour weapon be good against armour?

Moreover, because they comprise many individual models, Death Stars can be picked apart. This won't necessarily be easy, depending on the death star in question, but you can at least feel like you're having an impact on it. Meanwhile, all you can do against a Knight is plink away and sigh at how little difference it makes even after you've driven 10 wounds into the thing.

I know some people really hate them (and I can understand why), but I've frequently enjoyed playing against death stars. I tend to use armies that are almost the precise opposite (e.g. infantry-IG), so for me it becomes a fun game of quantity vs. quality.


3) As above, these at least feel like they're on the right scale for the game. And (again as above) you get a much better feeling of actually having an impact on the enemy, as you sweep models off the table. Plus, while high RoF weapons are obviously preferable, hordes rarely have invulnerable saves, good armour or other such defences.

You're free to cal me biased, since I play a horde army myself. However, I'm always happy to play against other horde armies, too. In fact, I can safely say that I have never had a unfun game against a horde army. Meanwhile, I have never had a fun game against, say, Imperial Knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:34:26


Post by: skchsan


IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:37:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that

Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.

The sheer act of balancing out non-knight LOW's to match the performance of knights is a really bad way of dealing with the issue IMO.

Mostly points, but also rules. Even a single knight gets access to all their strategems while few factions strategems apply to their LOW and they don't get faction traits. But mostly points. I mean, 905 PPM for a Stompa? Really gw?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:40:29


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:43:44


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:49:08


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.


Just to be clear : the buff we've been talking about is making the first LoW that matches your warlord's faction cost no CP and get access to its faction bonuses.

I could leave the CP cost as-is but at the very least i want to be able to play a LoW with its faction bonuses active, this has nothing to do with knights apart from the fact that the reason they lost it in the first place was to nerf Knights.

The solution we gave was to leave knights in their nerfed state and give codex LoW access to their own codex.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:49:32


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:50:58


Post by: Quasistellar


the_scotsman wrote:

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.


If these people are being intellectually honest, there is no difference. Skew is skew.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:52:51


Post by: AnomanderRake


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
...Some LoW are worse than heavy supports in the same codex...


They all are, generally because of stratagems. A 415pt Wraithknight has comparable firepower to two Fire Prisms (340pts) and is paying the extra for the T8 and the melee output, which is fair enough, but then you bring in Linked Fire and the ability to use Fire and Fade to hop into/out of line of sight and the Fire Prisms have more firepower and are tougher. A 535pt Baneblade (one pair of sponsons) is sort of balanced against standard Leman Russes (it has about the firepower of 4 and the durability of 2 for the cost of 3), but it is very much not balanced against the huge pile of relic/tank ace traits you can stack onto Tank Commanders that can then use the Tallarn order to walk into and out of LOS.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:53:17


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:56:39


Post by: AnomanderRake


Quasistellar wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.


If these people are being intellectually honest, there is no difference. Skew is skew.


Sort of. The difference in terms of the Golden Age of Broken Knights is that the single Castellan parked in the middle of the Guard army was cheaper than a deathstar unit + support stack, did most of its damage at range instead of in melee so was much harder to avoid, remained at full effectiveness until you'd taken off all 28 wounds because of the fight at top profile stratagem, and was parked in the middle of a huge amount of Guardsmen to force you to engage it at range where it was more cost-effective than you were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
...I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


We know GW's rules team is incompetent and there's no chance of a real fix. We know this is all wishful thinking. Stop trying to pop the bubble of hope that something might get fixed someday instead of just getting replaced with bigger problems.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 18:58:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


Except knights are already better BECAUSE they have their own codex.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:02:13


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


Except knights are already better BECAUSE they have their own codex.


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:05:57


Post by: skchsan


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


Except knights are already better BECAUSE they have their own codex.


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
Well partially you're right, but I'm actually fully recognizing the root of the problem is their standalone codex which provides them the edge over all other non-knight LOW's creating this unrealistic expectations that non-knights can ever fulfill.

No matter how much you buff non-knight LOW's, knights will always be better than non-knights, and there won't be an end to 'making things right' for non-knight LOW's.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:07:31


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.

I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.

But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:08:03


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Not Online!!! wrote:


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.


agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.

A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad.
Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
Well partially you're right, but I'm actually fully recognizing the root of the problem is their standalone codex which provides them the edge over all other non-knight LOW's creating this unrealistic expectations that non-knights can ever fulfill.

No matter how much you buff non-knight LOW's, knights will always be better than non-knights, and there won't be an end to 'making things right' for non-knight LOW's.


Im comparing non knights to heavy supports in their respective codexes more than im comparing them to knights.

Why would i chose to play a wraithknight in a competitive list when for cheaper i can get two Fire prism that have higher damage output, resilence (they can be hidden unlike the WK) and stratagem support?



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:12:10


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.


agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.

A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad.

Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,



unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..

everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:13:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Not Online!!! wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.


agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.

A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad.

Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,



unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..

everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.


im talking in present day 40k. (for the WK)

and yes, everything can be feelbad. Losing a squad of skitarii to a repulsor putting everything in them can be feelbad even if its not the correct move.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:15:02


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoiler:
 skchsan wrote:
[spoiler]
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.

I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.

But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.

The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.

The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:19:46


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:


i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.

that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.


agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.

A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad.

Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,



unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..

everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.


im talking in present day 40k. (for the WK)

and yes, everything can be feelbad. Losing a squad of skitarii to a repulsor putting everything in them can be feelbad even if its not the correct move.

Oh i perfectly agree, it's just an unit type that is so all in that if done badly (either way) and gw has sadly a track record of that.... becomes an inherent issue, is it overpriced, well when 1-2 squads are overpriced who cares, when 25-50% of your list suddendly are overpriced, that is opportunity cost that starts to even make casuals be annoyed. Otoh you have the other exemples, cue castelan (pre nerf that is).. that everyone and their mother want's one.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:22:41


Post by: Azuza001


The reason for excluding knights is simple : knights have their own codex. Knights with their own codex already get a ton of bonuses over all other titanic options. Look at the number of Stratagems you can use in say a stompa, then compare to either chaos or imperial knights. Look at warlord traits and relics. Thats the problem with everything else. The level of "support" one can give the other knights is what makes them so good. If imp knights for example had 0 warlord traits / relics / strata for them then they would be in much the same group as stompa / wraithknight.

But thats not where we are. And as such thats what this post was about.. trying to see if the general community feels the same as I did about lack of good ways to use these things / add them to the army without breaking things again and bringing back the early days of knight codex "I got 3++ and.... i win ".



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:23:17


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.

I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.

Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:32:16


Post by: AdmiralHalsey


This is why I went back to Epic.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:34:09


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoiler:
 skchsan wrote:
[spoiler]
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.

I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.

But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.

The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.

The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.

But that's what we're talking about. I agree that making an entire faction of LOW, a skew list in codex form, was a bad idea, but currently most other LOW are horribly balanced compared to other options available to their armies. We're proposing that nerfs they recieved as collateral damage from knights be removed, and only for them, not knights.

And as for your point about non-knight LOW never being able to compete with knights: give my Fellblade a price of around 650 PPM, or better yet, my Cerberus one of 470 PPM as it was in the index, and I will make knights burn. And it's quite useless against infantry. Unless you think a 470 point unit that can at best kill four infantry models a turn good at that.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:37:12


Post by: nekooni


Not sure how knights are an issue right now,to be honest. Granted,I've only played a single game Vs them this edition so far,but my warrior / carnifex nids list won something like 80:40 while getting almost wiped. Was a fun game, killed two FW knights. Didn't even bring hive guards or the big shooty beasts, just a bunch of (heavy) venom and claws

The game isn't just about killing anymore.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:47:38


Post by: skchsan


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Spoiler:
 skchsan wrote:
[spoiler]
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.

I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.

But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.

The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.

The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.

But that's what we're talking about. I agree that making an entire faction of LOW, a skew list in codex form, was a bad idea, but currently most other LOW are horribly balanced compared to other options available to their armies. We're proposing that nerfs they recieved as collateral damage from knights be removed, and only for them, not knights.

And as for your point about non-knight LOW never being able to compete with knights: give my Fellblade a price of around 650 PPM, or better yet, my Cerberus one of 470 PPM as it was in the index, and I will make knights burn. And it's quite useless against infantry. Unless you think a 470 point unit that can at best kill four infantry models a turn good at that.
And my stance is that it is impossible to fully balance any non-knight titanic units without stepping on knight's toes. Introduction of knights in 40k necessitated introduction of titanic units for other factions. We're already at the bottom of the slippery slope.

Following, introduction of these titanic units in other factions caused severe internal imbalance in each of the factions OTHER THAN knights. By buffing these units that were meant to compete with knights, knights will undoubtedly require additional buffs to 'compensate' for this 'equality'.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:50:13


Post by: VladimirHerzog


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.

I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.

Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.


What if you want a cadian Baneblade?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:51:47


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.

I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.

Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.


What if you want a cadian Baneblade?


You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:53:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:
Not sure how knights are an issue right now,to be honest. Granted,I've only played a single game Vs them this edition so far,but my warrior / carnifex nids list won something like 80:40 while getting almost wiped. Was a fun game, killed two FW knights. Didn't even bring hive guards or the big shooty beasts, just a bunch of (heavy) venom and claws

The game isn't just about killing anymore.


yeah, this is a big one too. At the end of 8th, knights were never taken either. They received their nerfs already, why nerf them further in the new edition while fething up monodex LoWs too


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.

I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.

Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.


What if you want a cadian Baneblade?


You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.


Lucky you, because right now, youre the only non-knight LoW that can do it.
Wouldnt you rather it be free instead? Why is your cadian baneblade not cadian?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:57:52


Post by: LunarSol


I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 19:58:19


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:What if you want a cadian Baneblade?


You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.


Lucky you, because right now, youre the only non-knight LoW that can do it.
Wouldnt you rather it be free instead? Why is your cadian baneblade not cadian?

I just answers your question mate, you asked what you could do if you wanted a Cadian Baneblade and I told you how that works.

I agree that there should be better ways to bring single LoWs to the table properly.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:00:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:01:44


Post by: nekooni


 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


Yeah,that's pretty annoying right now. Some people need to detox badly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?

The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread.

Edit:misread part of that,adjusted my post accordingly


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:10:05


Post by: AnomanderRake


nekooni wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?


That's just a straw man and you know it. The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread ffs.


I think you're confusing the strawman I'm attacking here with a different strawman. I'm on your side here, I'd love to fix things, but it seems like any time anyone tries to ask for better balance we get folks appearing out of the woodwork arguing that balance would make everything boring because the game would magically turn into an expensive chess set.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:10:15


Post by: skchsan


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.

If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:12:41


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.

I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.

Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.


What if you want a cadian Baneblade?


I referenced how you do it in my post. I don't always use Baneblades, but when I do, I make them Catachan (with Tank Aces from TGG).

Anyhoo.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:17:33


Post by: AnomanderRake


 skchsan wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.

If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.


I don't know that that's true. The only superheavy that made any waves at all in the competitive scene through all of 8e was the single buffed-up Castellan sitting in the middle of the Guard army; if large things were inherently broken we'd see a lot more of them. Heck, if Knights were inherently broken we'd see more all-Knights armies. My Cerastus Knights spent all of 8e being garbage even with access to WTs/relics/stratagems/faction traits because of how overpriced/underarmed GW decided they needed to be as punishment for being made of resin.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:18:10


Post by: nekooni


 AnomanderRake wrote:
nekooni wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?


That's just a straw man and you know it. The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread ffs.


I think you're confusing the strawman I'm attacking here with a different strawman. I'm on your side here, I'd love to fix things, but it seems like any time anyone tries to ask for better balance we get folks appearing out of the woodwork arguing that balance would make everything boring because the game would magically turn into an expensive chess set.

Yeah, I totally misread your post,already updated mine - sorry!


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:34:23


Post by: Karol


 skchsan wrote:
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.

If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.


But they did just that. when castellans entered the game, the meta shifted in a such a way that two things happened either you had an army that could deal with a castellan, and this ment every other vehicles was not worth taking, or you had an army which would lose to something a lot of people were taking, because of how powerful it was. Everyone can say that they want something, but with good rules that doesn't break the game, but that is a dream because GW is a company that does not write their rules that way. GW has no issues with anything they sell, no matter how broken it is, they call it meta defining and change it after a few months, after people bought out the unbalanced things.

Also escalation of bigger things isn't always a good way, because not every army gets such options, or the options exist in the form ally, and not everyone wants to ally in outside stuff. It also makes large parts of armies don't really do much.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:34:55


Post by: Platuan4th


the_scotsman wrote:

2) Um...sure. OK. I like that this got listed as though there are psychic knights?


Tzeentchian Pyrothrone gives the Psyker Keyword and lets a Chaos Knight cast Smite and Deny, so yes, there are Psychic Knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:45:23


Post by: skchsan


Karol wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.

If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.


But they did just that. when castellans entered the game, the meta shifted in a such a way that two things happened either you had an army that could deal with a castellan, and this ment every other vehicles was not worth taking, or you had an army which would lose to something a lot of people were taking, because of how powerful it was. Everyone can say that they want something, but with good rules that doesn't break the game, but that is a dream because GW is a company that does not write their rules that way. GW has no issues with anything they sell, no matter how broken it is, they call it meta defining and change it after a few months, after people bought out the unbalanced things.

Also escalation of bigger things isn't always a good way, because not every army gets such options, or the options exist in the form ally, and not everyone wants to ally in outside stuff. It also makes large parts of armies don't really do much.
The whole LOW fiasco happened precisely because GW was trying to find a way to fit something that was tougher than a LR without introducing a more properly scaled stat system. When does this trend stop? When every army gets competitive LOW's and the game turns into Titanicus?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't know that that's true. The only superheavy that made any waves at all in the competitive scene through all of 8e was the single buffed-up Castellan sitting in the middle of the Guard army; if large things were inherently broken we'd see a lot more of them. Heck, if Knights were inherently broken we'd see more all-Knights armies. My Cerastus Knights spent all of 8e being garbage even with access to WTs/relics/stratagems/faction traits because of how overpriced/underarmed GW decided they needed to be as punishment for being made of resin.
It's not that knights are inherently broken - there just isn't enough design space in the given T8 system to depict something of knights' class.

The problem arises when you're trying to justify (at rule writing level) a T8, 3+/5++(3++) Sv, exemption from core rules via abilities, etc within the current limits of statlines.

Buffing LOW's is like reaching for a broken ceiling. There isn't going to be an end.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/08 20:57:35


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:

Buffing LOW's is like reaching for a broken ceiling. There isn't going to be an end.


look, its clear you don't want LoWs in 40k, i get that. We just want our toys to be sensible options. Just as CSM not getting their legion traits on their vehicles, LoWs that are in a monofaction list not getting their traits is stupid


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 00:00:12


Post by: Azuza001


Sigh. I never wanted this to become an argument over these things should even be in the game or not, thats all besides the point. They exsist, they are here, and they are some cool models for sure.

There are 3 schools of thought it seems beyond should they even be here....

1. The rules as they are, while not perfect, would be acceptable if the units were easier to access / fit easier into their army.
2. The rules themselves are the problem, if the units were worth the pt value and cp investment then that part would be fine but at the moment they are not even close.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 lol.


Personally I am in group 1. Sure I wish things were a bit stronger or tougher, but really I would rather them just fit into their army better. If the titanic unit comes inside an armys codex it should be easy to add it in without so many hoops to jump through. If it doesn't (ie your allying a knight in to a marine army) then the current system makes sense to me. Thats 2 different codexes, 2 different armies, it should be that way.

I am not trying to make things harder for people to play with their models with this thread, its supposed to be about finding a way to make it easier...


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 00:29:30


Post by: rbstr


LoWs are cool! They're fun models! They should be something you consider putting in 2kpts army.
The game is flat out better with a larger variety of viable units for all armies.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 00:29:59


Post by: BaconCatBug


rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models! They should be something you consider putting in 2kpts army.
The game is flat out better with a larger variety of viable units for all armies.
A game that has to represent both Grots and Titans can't ever be balanced.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 01:32:52


Post by: Azuza001


Maybe that's the problem here, i am not looking at if they are balanced or not. I dont care that my wraithknight is a joke compared to a imperial knight. I just want an easier way to use said knight. If it dies to grot cannons I am cool with that. Lol


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 02:08:51


Post by: ERJAK


 BaconCatBug wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models! They should be something you consider putting in 2kpts army.
The game is flat out better with a larger variety of viable units for all armies.
A game that has to represent both Grots and Titans can't ever be balanced.


A game made by GW was never going to be balanced anyway.

Might as well shoot for awesome.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 03:41:56


Post by: yukishiro1


As someone firmly in the "these units shouldn't exist in 40k in the first place" camp, I don't see any reason why the auxiliary detachment doesn't give detachment bonuses. That just seems silly. That's not the place to draw the line. The place to draw the line is either totally, or to say "fine, you can use the models, but we'll make them deliberately not very competitive, so you can use them in fun games but they don't become a part of the competitive meta." Which is pretty much the situation now. Letting someone's terribad super heavy get a trait isn't going to change that.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 04:38:09


Post by: FrozenDwarf


 Blackie wrote:
Relegate Superheavies to narrative play only or 5000 points matched games. Problem fixed


I have to agree on that idea: superheavies IMO dont belong in a 2000p game, they belong in apoc games. (heck i think even imp knights dont belong in a 2000p game, armigers are fine tough)


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 05:46:46


Post by: Breton


 skchsan wrote:

The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.

RE: all other counter points & rebuttals - all these suggestions are based around excluding knights - 'we should make a rule that benefits all non-knights and exclude knights only.' This only goes to show that the key factor on why these LOW related rules are skewed so. The 40k design space is currently skewed as to pretend that these units fit in the given design space - 'since our current soft cap on T is 8, we'll give knights T8, but because it should be tougher than say, a land raider, because its a huge effing hellbot of doom, we'll give it invul saves, and then a rule that give it even better invul saves just because its a huge effing hellbot of doom!'. This trends' been spiraling out of control since the day of plastic kit baneblade and IWIN FW. It really needs to stop.


Knights already have special rules to fix their 4x LOW list. The problem is two fold: those special rules don't affect the IG BladeSwords, etc., and many of the one-off LOW's in other armies are slightly to severely mis-costed/powered. Yes, a Generic BRB rule would help knights more -simply because they get to double dip with the BRB and Codex Special rules. A generic rule in the individual codexes would not. A generic but slightly modified each time rule in each codex might even be better. I wouldn't count on it, but it might be.

Fix the cost/power of the LOW's, give each codex their own special DET focused around their LOW options i.e. a BaneSword Superheavy Det in the IG codex itself. -X CP (because I know it's not going away even if it is stupid) with a way to get back X CP if you meet some sort of fluffy requirements. Hell, I'd even give IG a 4 x Super Heavy that gets CP back if all the other units fit inside the Super Heavies, and must start there or some such to be CP free/cheaper and you could see a fluffy Mechanized Super Heavy group being ambushed by some Eldar en route to their duty station.

Another thing that needs "fixing" is equal access to LOW's. They did the Fortification, but must be aligned Det. They're released a bunch of aligned fortifications for equal access. A few factions need a non-Forgeworld LoW. Nids need some sort of Titanic Carnifex style mob, I don't know what to do with GSC (Stolen BladeSword?), SM and CSM of all varieties could see a 30K Superheavy cross over, or bring back the Thunderhawk to the main codex for a reasonable price, Tau have one, Orks have one, CWE have one, but DE don't a simple mirror/cross over might work or a DE Thunderhawk since theyre a little more flighty, Demons need one, preferably not a super demon, but some sort of construct demon engine that spews out demons, warpfire, or whatever- somethign they can all use with different paint/bits. Sisters and Custodes need one.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 06:23:56


Post by: rbstr


Azuza001 wrote:
Maybe that's the problem here, i am not looking at if they are balanced or not. I dont care that my wraithknight is a joke compared to a imperial knight. I just want an easier way to use said knight. If it dies to grot cannons I am cool with that. Lol


Balance isn't the actual issue. You can balance whatever the hell you want - it's all arbitrary rules and parameters. If you want the game to be such that an army of 500 grots has a 50/50 shot at beating a Warlord Titan you can do that. Just takes some imagination.
The issue that many people have very specific conceptions of what 40k is supposed to look like in their minds and those conceptions seem objectively correct to them. In this case it's that 40k isn't supposed to include models that are as strong as a Knight. Anything that doesn't fit within that framework simply cannot be "balanced" because they don't want it to be there to begin with. The aesthetic of the game is really what they want to mandate and it would be so much better for them if you couldn't have a slightly larger big stompy robot than that other one.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 06:51:28


Post by: vict0988


-2CP for Super Heavy Auxiliary, -3 for Super Heavy (an Armiger Detachment should cost the same as a Leman Russ Detachment) -4 for Super Heavy with 1+ Titanic models (A Knight army should not have 6 more CP than a Wraithknight army. -6CP would be equivalent to the Knight army bringing 2 Battalions or 3 Patrols, while the Wraithknight army only gets to bring one for free). Having a list based around a single LOW like the Castellan list or pet Wraithknight/Tesseract Vault is pretty cool if the pts are right and you don't get infinite CP. Castellan were OP as much because Astra Militarum were OP for most of 8th as they were OP on their own. Relics and Stratagems were a major part of Castellans being OP, when those aspects were paid for by AM then it got out of hand. The Castellan list shows why it should cost CP to bring one, but -2CP is enough, especially for the cheaper LOW like the Necron Obelisk. The Necron Obelisk is worth somewhere around 200 pts currently because of the CP cost of bringing one. With an extra CP they'd be worth a tiny bit more at least.
 BaconCatBug wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models! They should be something you consider putting in 2kpts army.
The game is flat out better with a larger variety of viable units for all armies.
A game that has to represent both Grots and Titans can't ever be balanced.

SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 07:07:28


Post by: Pyroalchi


I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade
2. it would allow IG to take one Baneblade etc., Eldar to take one of their Titans, Orks to take a Stompa etc.
3. just looking from a Guard perspective and my personal taste: it would give another reason to put everything into one Brigade instead of taking two Battalions to profit from two sets of regiment traits/WLT/relicts/stratagems/orders


Regarding "there is no place for LoW in WH40k": I wholeheartedly admit that my perspective is IG centric but out Lords of war are really not that problematic I think. The Baneblades are not as durable as their weight in Leman Russ (same toughness/save, less wounds, less advantage from Terrain, less wound healed from "Jury rigged repairs" regimental trait), can't be ordered, can't be commanders, have worse tank ace traits and on the Firepower site I'm not sure if they are really better then their weight in LRs (I did not do the math, but aside from the Stormlord and the Shadowsword firing at their prefered targets I doubt it.).
And those are our best LoWs. The Macharius, Valdor, Minotaur, Gorgon, Preator, Crassus etc. are farther down the "power for points" list.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 07:08:47


Post by: Karol


Azuza001 wrote:
Maybe that's the problem here, i am not looking at if they are balanced or not. I dont care that my wraithknight is a joke compared to a imperial knight. I just want an easier way to use said knight. If it dies to grot cannons I am cool with that. Lol


See, but you are starting from the idea that to have fun the game should have something like imperial or eldar knights in it. Which means that for others to have fun, they either have to have armies that generaly blow vehicles easy, which is bad for the game, because in order to make your knight fun everyone elses fun with their vehicles that aren't knights is made null or close to it, or they have to have some sort of knight of their own to match it. Which as bacon said brings design problems, unbalance and really hurts those armies without such a unit or option to have one. Now I of course understand that knight players do not like the fact that right now their knights aren't good, and that their rules kind of a don't fit the 9th ed core rules. It is ones right to ask for a fix of those rules, but changing of core rules is a big thing. And a minority, because that is what the knight players are, should never have the option to decide what the majority can or can not do, just to have fun.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 09:18:44


Post by: FrozenDwarf


 vict0988 wrote:

SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.


Sc1 is a pure game where balance is alpha and omega due to multiplayer popularity. astat change is just some keystrokes away and can be applied worldwide whitn a few days.

40k will never be anything else then a hobby model that has some use besides static display.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 09:23:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Pyroalchi wrote:
I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade
2. it would allow IG to take one Baneblade etc., Eldar to take one of their Titans, Orks to take a Stompa etc.
3. just looking from a Guard perspective and my personal taste: it would give another reason to put everything into one Brigade instead of taking two Battalions to profit from two sets of regiment traits/WLT/relicts/stratagems/orders


Regarding "there is no place for LoW in WH40k": I wholeheartedly admit that my perspective is IG centric but out Lords of war are really not that problematic I think. The Baneblades are not as durable as their weight in Leman Russ (same toughness/save, less wounds, less advantage from Terrain, less wound healed from "Jury rigged repairs" regimental trait), can't be ordered, can't be commanders, have worse tank ace traits and on the Firepower site I'm not sure if they are really better then their weight in LRs (I did not do the math, but aside from the Stormlord and the Shadowsword firing at their prefered targets I doubt it.).
And those are our best LoWs. The Macharius, Valdor, Minotaur, Gorgon, Preator, Crassus etc. are farther down the "power for points" list.

Yes, that would work for the Guard, but many factions have trouble filling out a brigade in the first place, much less with enough points left for a LOW. Try to fill a csm brigade that is actually functional and still has enough points leftover for a LOW. And no cheating by using spawn for FA.

Add a LOW slot to battalions and it could work, and it would still require more tax units than the old Combined Arms detachment.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 09:33:42


Post by: vipoid


rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 09:40:44


Post by: Dolnikan


Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of things like Lords of War, Flyers, and Death Stars in the game. It's mostly my personal taste, but I like the game more as a company-level skirmish and that means that those big hitters just don't have a place there. Furthermore, they tend to make the whole game about just these things. Just look at how more prevalent Lords of War have shaped the whole game around them and basically increased the necessary level of anti-tank firepower to such a level that a more regular list, bringing a few tanks for instance, won't even get to use them because they get blasted off within moments.

Flyers are a similar thing. Their speed on the very small tables that we play on just makes them feel very odd. Especially more supersonic flyers that somehow manage to circle around a single city block.

Death Stars are a little different, and I see them more as a failure of game design. Currently, the game encourages stacking as many buffs as possible on a single unit because they only strengthen each other. That means that you get large single untouchable units with incredibly damage output, which again leaves more regular units in the dirt. I think that currently the main issue is the amount of stratagems and the general inflation in stats that sets such elites even further apart from the rest of the army.

Edit: I managed to post this before the part about the actual topic. Sorry for that.

However, despite all this, I don't see superheavies, primarchs, flyers, and all those other fun things leaving us any time soon. So, they have to be balanced somehow. My ideal way to do it would be to include a LoW slot in the Brigade detachment, and perhaps to have some extra hoops for Battalions to also gain such a slot (just three Troops and two HQ doesn't really do it). There should be a little more tax. I definitely disagree with making the Super-heavy Auxiliary detachment free. Of course, I'm against detachments having their current prices, but in that system, there should definitely be a price to it. And if one wants to take one, either get a superheavy without army traits, or take one in the enlarged Brigade or boosted Battalion detachment where they would get such a trait.

Now, I want to note that I also think that it would be a good idea to have a souping tax for different factions, or yes, subfactions. But that's another discussion entirely.

And, of course, completely ban them from lower points levels. Knights for instance have no place in Combat Patrol games.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 10:43:41


Post by: vipoid


I think a LoW slot in a Brigade detachment would be reasonable.

At least then you're getting to the scale where a LoW might feasibly be present.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 10:46:04


Post by: Breton


 Pyroalchi wrote:
I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade


Brigade and Batallion? Its hard enough to build a SM Brigade at 2K while still having 800 points left for a LOW. I'd really just say if you don't want to tailor a specific LOW det for each codex to make them fluffy and seperate like the knight one, make the Aux LOW require a Brigade or Batallion and be free or join to anything for X CP.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 11:00:33


Post by: Pyroalchi


@ Bretons post: I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the other codices to know who could build a brigade and still have points for their superheavy and who doesn't.
Nontheless I (personnally) find a batallion too low of a treshhold.

What I could see if lot's of codices struggle would be to say they can proxy one fitting FOC slot with a superheavy within a Brigade. It's just an idea fired from the hip, but let's say either it occupies 3 heavy support slots (the army has heavy support in form of a LoW) or 3 HQ slots (it's an army build to protect and support the LoW).
Both seem to me as reasonable drawbacks of taking a superheavy. But again: my focus is mostly from a guard perspective where this would mean a Baneblade would take the spot of 3 Leman Russ or tank commanders which sounds about right balance wise.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 11:04:38


Post by: vipoid


Breton wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade


Brigade and Batallion? Its hard enough to build a SM Brigade at 2K while still having 800 points left for a LOW. I'd really just say if you don't want to tailor a specific LOW det for each codex to make them fluffy and seperate like the knight one, make the Aux LOW require a Brigade or Batallion and be free or join to anything for X CP.


I would consider this a feature, not a bug.

Those who wish to play a LoW would be free to request a larger game size.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 11:51:12


Post by: skchsan


 vict0988 wrote:
SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.
You're ignoring how vast its design space is.

Armor types, weapon types, hidden bonus damage, backswing, front swing, swing timer, movement speed, framerates, abilities, just to mention a few. Not to mention the amount of user input variables such as real time micro and macro, ability to adapt army mid game, proper counter units, etc.

If 40k had design space that was even remotely close, LOW may be worth considering. But it doesn't.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:13:49


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:29:45


Post by: nekooni


 skchsan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.
You're ignoring how vast its design space is.

Armor types, weapon types, hidden bonus damage, backswing, front swing, swing timer, movement speed, framerates, abilities, just to mention a few. Not to mention the amount of user input variables such as real time micro and macro, ability to adapt army mid game, proper counter units, etc.

If 40k had design space that was even remotely close, LOW may be worth considering. But it doesn't.


BCBs claim was that you can't balance something with that much diversity in units,and they gave a perfectly balanced example that does just that.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:34:10


Post by: Jidmah


People in this thread:

"Oh no, a single stompa is ruining the game, it should be banned and people who field it are horrible!"

Same people:
"Those 6 nauts and 9 battlewagons you brought are no problem whatsoever."


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:35:26


Post by: Dolnikan


 Jidmah wrote:
People in this thread:

"Oh no, a single stompa is ruining the game, it should be banned and people who field it are horrible!"

Same people:
"Those 6 nauts and 9 battlewagons you brought are no problem whatsoever."


Uhm, no? I mean, I would very much be in favour of returning to a normal Force Organisation Chart.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:35:50


Post by: skchsan


the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.
Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.
You're ignoring how vast its design space is.

Armor types, weapon types, hidden bonus damage, backswing, front swing, swing timer, movement speed, framerates, abilities, just to mention a few. Not to mention the amount of user input variables such as real time micro and macro, ability to adapt army mid game, proper counter units, etc.

If 40k had design space that was even remotely close, LOW may be worth considering. But it doesn't.


BCBs claim was that you can't balance something with that much diversity in units,and they gave a perfectly balanced example that does just that.
SC and 40k is not even in the same ball park, let alone same sport.

Only thing they have in common is theme.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:41:40


Post by: nekooni


 skchsan wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.
Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
SC1 has dog-sized Zerglings and sky-scraper sized spacecraft and is considered balanced by most.
You're ignoring how vast its design space is.

Armor types, weapon types, hidden bonus damage, backswing, front swing, swing timer, movement speed, framerates, abilities, just to mention a few. Not to mention the amount of user input variables such as real time micro and macro, ability to adapt army mid game, proper counter units, etc.

If 40k had design space that was even remotely close, LOW may be worth considering. But it doesn't.


BCBs claim was that you can't balance something with that much diversity in units,and they gave a perfectly balanced example that does just that.
SC and 40k is not even in the same ball park, let alone same sport.

Only thing they have in common is theme.


They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

GW isn't even able to balance marines Vs marines properly.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:43:01


Post by: Jidmah


 Dolnikan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
People in this thread:

"Oh no, a single stompa is ruining the game, it should be banned and people who field it are horrible!"

Same people:
"Those 6 nauts and 9 battlewagons you brought are no problem whatsoever."


Uhm, no? I mean, I would very much be in favour of returning to a normal Force Organisation Chart.


Ah ok then:
"Those 3 nauts and 4 battlewagons you brought are no problem whatsoever."


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:44:35


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:45:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.

Exactly. We just want these units to have a fair price. 905 points + 3CP for a Stompa is ridiculous.

vipoid wrote:
Spoiler:
Breton wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade


Brigade and Batallion? Its hard enough to build a SM Brigade at 2K while still having 800 points left for a LOW. I'd really just say if you don't want to tailor a specific LOW det for each codex to make them fluffy and seperate like the knight one, make the Aux LOW require a Brigade or Batallion and be free or join to anything for X CP.


I would consider this a feature, not a bug.

Those who wish to play a LoW would be free to request a larger game size.

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:49:08


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."


No, nearly all single model units that are not knights that cost 350+ are considered useless because they achieve less than other cheaper choices (baneblade vs tank commanders, wraithknight vs fire prism, stompa vs nauts).
We dont want all LoWs to be knight level, we want LoWs to be actual choices you can make without gimping yourself

And anyway Knights suck right now, if i bring one with my admech, i consider it a casual list because i'm picking a suboptimal unit. 400pts of knights do less than 400pts of admech units.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:50:51


Post by: Jidmah


Don't bother. 40k enthusiast will continue to believe that their games is the magical unicorn that is more complex, more difficult to balance and more special than any other game in existence despite evidence clearly showing the opposite.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:50:58


Post by: skchsan


nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:52:50


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.


youre both saying the same thing...


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:53:13


Post by: Jidmah


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020


"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:53:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 skchsan wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.
Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."

No, they are considered useless because they don't perform equal to their cost because they are overpriced. The current prices for most non-knight LOW are too high to begin with, tacking on another 3CP and denying them faction traits is just adding insult to injury. Any Legion super heavy can go toe to toe with a knight, it's their price that's holding them back, not their rules.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:56:00


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020


"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020


"Bringing well balanced, potential choices, into the lists of various factions is awesome." - Not Online!!!


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 12:58:25


Post by: Jidmah


I don't care that much about well balanced, bring the stompa up to the level of squig buggies and I'd field it.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:00:58


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
I don't care that much about well balanced, bring the stompa up to the level of squig buggies and I'd field it.


meh , i did state on page two that i am personally having a bit of issues in regards to superheavies under 2000 pts, however the state in which gw released them (and by extension left other units in a similar state) is personally unaceptable.
I mean if the stompa would turn into a squig buggy trolly option for fun would allready be a massive improvement and step torwards well balanced.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:03:00


Post by: Gadzilla666


skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

Like maybe instead of making them T8, 3+, 5++ they should have made some T9 2+ super heavys that could actually be affected by high AP weapons while still feeling tough because of their high toughness?

Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020


"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020

"Nothing says "Let the galaxy burn" like 300+ tonnes of off 10,000 years old war machine with 13 barrels of hell "-Gadzilla666, 2020.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:03:25


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit


Edit:

I agree with the sentiment that T9+ should be more common and a good way to represent these big vehicles thoughness.

The wraithknight only have t8 when the wraiths whole thing is being a higher toughness than their imperial equivalents (wraithguards vs centurions/gravis, Lords vs dreads) is almost a crime.
Make the land raider T10 even, that way shooting S5 weaponry at it becomes less of an optimal choice.
Expand the chart.
If you don`t want to make stuff T1 then go up, make stuff T12 even. Stop restricting yourself to 7 possible toughnessess, GW!


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:04:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


wow, I didn't know superheavies had such hate still. I thought after 3 editions of being allowed and not breaking anything they'd become more accepted.

As for the "no fun" moments: I have far less fun getting totally trashed by randoms than I have getting totally trashed by a Lord of War. My warlord gets crushed in close combat? You know what, fair enough, it's a giant stompy murderrobot with a sword and I'm just a Keeper of Secrets or whatever. Suitable amounts of FUN!! and AWESOME!!.

It's less fun, for me, to have like, 10 intercessors or 3 aggressors or whatever kill the keeper of secrets. "Alright, now my gigantic murder monster and living incarnation of the art of death got into combat with your line squad of riflemen... silly goon, you charged me... Oh it just got beaten to death by a squad of riflemen thanks to a billion rerolls. Neat. Suitably epic, not."

The unfun moments in 40k come from units behaving on the tabletop due to rules interactions in ways that they would not behave in "real life". Not from giant epic stompy robots.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:04:24


Post by: Not Online!!!


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit



i'd say it was xenomancer that claimed the squigbuggy to be ???
could be wrong though.

edit, yes double checked it indeed was xeno.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never said stompa was overpowered so that is a straight lie. It is pretty clear that the stompa is actually very bad. Squig buggy on the other hand is an insane value at this time. There has not been nearly enough time to see the results from chapter approved I'm not even sure if CA tournaments have been recorded at this time. Plus you gotta give all the ork players time to build and paint all their buggies. Give it a month. If it turns out I am wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Orks are one of the few armies I don't play so I have to wait for others to exploit it.




How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:04:34


Post by: nekooni


 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:07:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


ITT: "You can't design a game where stompy robots and grots coexist"

Also ITT: *a game where stompy robots and zerglings exist*

The first person, goalposts flapping in the wind while they charge off into the distance: "GW, sticking to arbitrary design limits that they self-impose and could easily discard at any time, can't build a game where stompy robots coexist with grots!"


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:08:09


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.


The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:35:28


Post by: Jidmah


Not Online!!! wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit



i'd say it was xenomancer that claimed the squigbuggy to be ???
could be wrong though.

edit, yes double checked it indeed was xeno.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never said stompa was overpowered so that is a straight lie. It is pretty clear that the stompa is actually very bad. Squig buggy on the other hand is an insane value at this time. There has not been nearly enough time to see the results from chapter approved I'm not even sure if CA tournaments have been recorded at this time. Plus you gotta give all the ork players time to build and paint all their buggies. Give it a month. If it turns out I am wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Orks are one of the few armies I don't play so I have to wait for others to exploit it.




Whenever a horrible ork unit is claimed to be OP, there is a decent chance of xeno being the culprit. The reasoning behind it is that, when he gets stomped by an ork player whatsoever, the issue can't possibly be him, so those units must be OP.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:43:53


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.


The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?


Like I just explained,yes.The point is that there's no T8 limit. I just fielded the most extreme example of that, but might of heroes is available to almost all vanilla marines and works with all the T8 units to breach the nonexisting cap of T8.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 13:58:45


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.


The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?


Like I just explained,yes.The point is that there's no T8 limit. I just fielded the most extreme example of that, but might of heroes is available to almost all vanilla marines and works with all the T8 units to breach the nonexisting cap of T8.


We're not saying theres an actual limit. Its just that effectively, GW stops at 8. With 9 being a rare occurence. That is on the datasheet, not accounting for bonuses from spells/traits/relics/strats/etc.
There was one T9 model that made sense but got nerfed : the Porphyrion, which is a big fething chungus and got nerfed to T8 because with the chaos knight, it couldve been T10.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:03:10


Post by: Gadzilla666


All the Legion super heavys except for the Spartan are T9 2+. Forge World got the defensive stat line for super heavy tanks right, unlike gw. There is no T8 cap.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:08:14


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All the Legion super heavys except for the Spartan are T9 2+. Forge World got the defensive stat line for super heavy tanks right, unlike gw. There is no T8 cap.


Yeah i know of these, i don't count them right now since theyre still living on with index stats and if the porphyrion is taken as an example, they could become T8 once the mythical Index 2.0 gets out. (I really hope they don't do that.

And again, there is no limit, it just makes no sense that most big things are T8 with some T9 sprinkled in there.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:11:59


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.


"knights having 3+ 5++ unfairly inhibits anti-tank weapons like lascannons :(((("

"Knights should instead have a 2+ save!"

I love it. Please, continue to dispense your wisdom.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:16:10


Post by: vipoid


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.


And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.


 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020


"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020


Welp, you guys sure showed me. Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:17:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


 vipoid wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.


And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.


Social contract, just as people can't be forced to play SM 2.0 eradicator spam lists or any other such hardcounter and or skew lists.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:22:37


Post by: the_scotsman


 vipoid wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.


And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.


Play that, then.

Other people being allowed to do a different thing than what you want to do, doesn't mean you are suddenly now not allowed to do the thing you want to do.

A whole lot of the modern world appears to have a problem grasping this concept. Are your opponents turning up to games armed, pointing a loaded dreadnought sock at you and threatening to kill you if you don't play their list with a knight in it?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:22:46


Post by: vipoid


Welp, all I can say is that I hope GW starts dumping more and bigger models into Kill Team until that turns into what was once regular 40k.

Then I can just play that and abandon 40k to the Mechwarrior fanboys.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:23:06


Post by: Jidmah


 vipoid wrote:
Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.

Weren't you the one trying to be exactly that?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:23:42


Post by: vipoid


 Jidmah wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.

Weren't you the one trying to be exactly that?


No, that was the exact opposite of what I was saying.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 14:47:45


Post by: Breton



 skchsan wrote:


Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."


To be fair, I think my Repulsor sucks because it dies in a fire on turn 1. I think the Thunderhawk sucks because it's 1500 freaking points. Gman aint bad, but he gets Look Out Sir!. I think. And he's less than 400.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Bretons post: I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the other codices to know who could build a brigade and still have points for their superheavy and who doesn't.
Nontheless I (personnally) find a batallion too low of a treshhold.


So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:24:48


Post by: vipoid


Breton wrote:

So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...


It wasn't my suggestion, so I can't speak for the reasoning behind it.

However, I'm guessing the major difference is the minimum unit requirement. Adding a LoW to a Brigade means that you basically need a full army first (3 HQs, 6 troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS). That's a substantial difference from tying it to a Battalion, where you only needing 2 HQs and 3 troops in order to access a LoW. It seems you might as well not bother with restricting it at all at that point.

That being said, I do think that there's an issue with there not being any middle-ground between a Battalion and a Brigade. So you go straight from 'minimum 2 HQs, 3 Troops' to 'minimum 3 HQs, and 6 Troops, and 3 Elites, and 3 FA, and 3 HS'. I think this can be a pain for armies in general - not just those wishing to field a LoW.

You mentioned SMs, GKs and Custodes. If you don't mind me asking, what sort of numbers can they field at 2000pts if they want to still afford a LoW?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:27:47


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.


There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.


The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?


Like I just explained,yes.The point is that there's no T8 limit. I just fielded the most extreme example of that, but might of heroes is available to almost all vanilla marines and works with all the T8 units to breach the nonexisting cap of T8.


We're not saying theres an actual limit. Its just that effectively, GW stops at 8. With 9 being a rare occurence. That is on the datasheet, not accounting for bonuses from spells/traits/relics/strats/etc.
There was one T9 model that made sense but got nerfed : the Porphyrion, which is a big fething chungus and got nerfed to T8 because with the chaos knight, it couldve been T10.


They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:40:22


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:


They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.


were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:45:46


Post by: nekooni


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:


They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.


were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.

Ok, so the claim isn't "GW has a cap of T8" but "GW doesn't design datasheets for the Citadel Range that have T above 8". That's fine.
Whats the point, though? They still could.

Wasn't the point of this that you can't balance a Titan and a Grot in 40k because ... yeah, why, exactly? Because you think GW has a company policy saying they can't have T9 models?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:48:12


Post by: Breton


 vipoid wrote:
Breton wrote:

So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...


It wasn't my suggestion, so I can't speak for the reasoning behind it.

However, I'm guessing the major difference is the minimum unit requirement. Adding a LoW to a Brigade means that you basically need a full army first (3 HQs, 6 troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS). That's a substantial difference from tying it to a Battalion, where you only needing 2 HQs and 3 troops in order to access a LoW. It seems you might as well not bother with restricting it at all at that point.

That being said, I do think that there's an issue with there not being any middle-ground between a Battalion and a Brigade. So you go straight from 'minimum 2 HQs, 3 Troops' to 'minimum 3 HQs, and 6 Troops, and 3 Elites, and 3 FA, and 3 HS'. I think this can be a pain for armies in general - not just those wishing to field a LoW.

You mentioned SMs, GKs and Custodes. If you don't mind me asking, what sort of numbers can they field at 2000pts if they want to still afford a LoW?


Not counting Gulliman? The cheapest one outside of Legends is a Relic Spartan at roughly 500 depending on load. Its a 20W T8 BladeStormHammer special rules Stretch limo Land Raider with two Quad instead of Twin LC's and one Twin HB that can transport 25 old marines. I mean sure, you could make a list with 12 servitors, 3 Tarantula guns, and 3 TFC's I suppose.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:48:58


Post by: skchsan


the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.
I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.


"knights having 3+ 5++ unfairly inhibits anti-tank weapons like lascannons :(((("

"Knights should instead have a 2+ save!"

I love it. Please, continue to dispense your wisdom.
The whole point is that the T goes up, and Sv improves to compensate for the removal of base invul and bonus strat invul.

If you really want the math:

Lascannon (S9 AP-3 Dd6) @ BS4

vs T8, 5++ = 28% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save
vs T9, 2+ = 22% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save
vs T10, 2+ = 11% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save

6% difference, much sleeker implementation (T9 Sv 2+, instead of T8 Sv 3+/5++) against high S, high AP weapons.

Then maybe you have non-knight titanic LOW, you can assign T9 Sv3+, instead T8 Sv 3+/5++/6+++, -1 to hit, can do this, can do that, ignore this rule, etc. Right now, the durability of titanic units are defined by the defensive gimmicks the units have and not by its stats. It just gets messy too quick, not to mention doesn't leave room for granularity.

We already have the mechanics regarding defensive capability in place already (Toughness, Save & Wounds) - use that instead of giving units specials rules this and special rules that.

Also, I've said raise the cap to T10, not 'GW limits the T to maximum of 8'. Similar, but not quite what I said. As VladimirHerzog explained, this is in reference to most units being designed with T8 assigned.

There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 15:55:41


Post by: VladimirHerzog


nekooni wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
nekooni wrote:


They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.


were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.

Ok, so the claim isn't "GW has a cap of T8" but "GW doesn't design datasheets for the Citadel Range that have T above 8". That's fine.
Whats the point, though? They still could.

Wasn't the point of this that you can't balance a Titan and a Grot in 40k because ... yeah, why, exactly? Because you think GW has a company policy saying they can't have T9 models?


Dude, chill out. Right now theyre not releasing T9+ models so yes, we could assume there is a policy that states that T8 is the maximum.
The whole point of suggesting raising the Toughness was to differentiate better between a T2 grot and a t8 land raider.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:00:24


Post by: yukishiro1


Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.

If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.

Right now because they are "mandatory" parts of the game GW (rightly) errs very much on the side of not making them a competitive choice. If they weren't a mandatory part of the game, there'd be no need to be so cautious and people could have the viable models they want. Some people would no doubt still be angry because they felt slighted by the suggestion that their models aren't a core part of the game, but surely if you want to use super-heavies it'd be better to be able to do so with better rules among like-minded individuals than use the gimped versions against people who don't really want to play them anyway?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:03:42


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yukishiro1 wrote:
Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.

If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.


Fine, make it officially "opt-in" thats not even the point of this whole thread.
Now assuming that its "opt-in" how would you fix the SHA detachment?

As we proposed before : If your SHA shares the same faction as your warlord, its free and lets you benefit from faction bonuses.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:03:57


Post by: LunarSol


I hate to quote myself, but....

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:04:06


Post by: Quasistellar


They have definitely missed a trick in artificially (and unofficially) capping toughness at 8. That’s a lot of super easy to tweak design space that’s not being used, when instead they throw out invulns that negate the efficacy of the very weapons that are designed to kill these models.

Back on the subject, though, I simply think the super heavies should get traits. Paying CP to include them is fine, IMO, as they consolidate a lot of power into a single model.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:26:45


Post by: yukishiro1


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.

If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.


Fine, make it officially "opt-in" thats not even the point of this whole thread.
Now assuming that its "opt-in" how would you fix the SHA detachment?

As we proposed before : If your SHA shares the same faction as your warlord, its free and lets you benefit from faction bonuses.


I've already said twice in the thread that I think the lack of faction bonuses is stupid and not the place to draw the line. I think you're preaching to the choir?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:29:23


Post by: the_scotsman


yukishiro1 wrote:
Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.

If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.

Right now because they are "mandatory" parts of the game GW (rightly) errs very much on the side of not making them a competitive choice. If they weren't a mandatory part of the game, there'd be no need to be so cautious and people could have the viable models they want. Some people would no doubt still be angry because they felt slighted by the suggestion that their models aren't a core part of the game, but surely if you want to use super-heavies it'd be better to be able to do so with better rules among like-minded individuals than use the gimped versions against people who don't really want to play them anyway?


....Everything in the game is opt-in.You have to agree with your opponent on pretty much every detail of the game's setup framework in order to play the game...and that does include their list.

It's only on dakka where this persistent narrative exists of the poor, downtrodden, oppressed #gamer who turns up to the game, their opponent twirls their mustache and reveals the secret Thing That Ruins Everything About 40k and cackles maniacally as the #gamer (#gamersriseup #gamersmostoppressedminority) faints onto a nearby couch, back of his hand to his forehead, powerless to stop the evil game-ravishing he is about to endure.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 16:59:23


Post by: yukishiro1


I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 17:07:16


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.

Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.

Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 17:13:27


Post by: Blndmage


I just want to be able to field my Gauss Pylon.
Also, folks that got the new Sereptek would love to be able to run it


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 19:04:50


Post by: Catulle


 Jidmah wrote:
I don't care that much about well balanced, bring the stompa up to the level of squig buggies and I'd field it.


"The best hundred points in the game"


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 20:42:25


Post by: Dysartes


Took a day away from this thread, then came back to four or five pages to reply to, hence the spoiler of doom.

Spoiler:
 argonak wrote:
Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.


You do realise that your first sentence and the suggestion that makes up the rest of this paragraph are at odds, right?

 skchsan wrote:
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)


1, Not a feature of TITANIC units by default, though certain datasheets may now allow it via errata. Final positioning still curtailed by Engagement Range, however. I would also note that the current CRB errata adds a section into Rare Rules about Moving Through Models, so it can be argued that these units now do obey the core rules document.
2, True, though only benefits CHAOS units, as far as I'm aware - Morty, Magnus, and I think someone mentioned a Tzeentch upgrade for Chaos Knights. Unsure if this is the only case of this rule being bypassed, or if there are alternative options within Codexes.
3, True, though not alone in this. IG have an Order which allows it, for instance.
4, No more so than other units, when we're talking models on a base. If you check "Measuring Distances" (Basic Rules, pg. 11 of the mini-rulebook) you'll note that distances are measured base-to-base unless a model doesn't have a base. As a result, a Knight still measures its Engagement Range from its base, rather than the hull, meaning it still has the same reach as a Guardsman in that regard. A Stompa is likely to see some benefit, however, as they typically don't have a base, and therefore can measure their Engagement Range from anywhere on their hull. (This read is brought to you by the mini-rulebook, Knights FAQ and CRB errata).
5, Not unique to TITANIC units - I direct your attention to most CHARACTER units, for example.

 skchsan wrote:
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.


A - Not true of many LOW. I give you the Baneblade chassis, for example.
B - See A.
C - Don't have enough books to hand to argue this one. I'm aware there is a Knight stratagem to do this, but I can't confirm that other factions don't get something similar.
D - I'd argue that the usual mid-range S, low-to-mid AP, high-volume-of-fire weapons that have become the most common source of anti-tank firepower for some silly reason still work here.

 skchsan wrote:
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.


Point of order - your opinion =/= "purely objective level", chief.

 skchsan wrote:
Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?


GW did a roughly quarter-arsed job of reviewing stats coming into 8th. They removed the caps for S and T, and used the lack of a S cap to address Destroyer weapons, but didn't play around with most stat lines given the freedom.

I would argue - and have done before - that a full review of unit stats needs to take place to get some semblance of sense back into profiles. I'd also consider adding an Evasion stat, and going back to having WS compared to WS and BS compared to E to determine yout chance to hit, probably using a similar guideline to what is seen for S vs. T at present (and probably without the cap of 10 on these stats we had before, either). It makes no sense that a Conscript is as likely to hit a Gretchin in melee as a Bloodthirster, or be as accurate shooting at an oncoming Genestealer as he is a Fortification.

 skchsan wrote:
If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.


If you'd actually bothered to read the proposition being discussed, you'd've realised that:
A, We were discussing the Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment only.
B, The suggestion to potentially allow traits that matched your Warlord would, in any case I can think of, not benefit Knights due to faction mis-alignment. The only oddity might be in using a SHA detachment because you filled your Super-Heavy Detachment with the rest of your Knights, in which case sharing the Warlord trait isn't an unfair benefit.

And it is still not a "fact" that LOW can't be balanced out. GW just haven't proven themselves good at it thus far.

 skchsan wrote:
The fact of the matter is, 40k does not need all-TITANIC army nor can it support it within it's design space.


Again, your opinion =/= "the fact of the matter", bub.

the_scotsman wrote:
And still...knights are only one superheavy unit. You have not demonstrated that ANY of these problems are problems foundationally with any other type of unit, let alone titanic units in particular. Stormsurges, Stompas, Wraithknights, Baneblades, KLOS, not even getting into forgeworld we regularly don't hear a peep out of any of these units all edition long. So it seems to be perfectly possible to balance superheavies in regular scale 40k, its just one of those bugbears that old men will yell at clouds about like "Tau not belonging in 40k" or "Daemons not belonging in 40k" - you know, whatever people can get away with whining about wanting gone.>


In fairness, Tau don't belong in 40k, at least not with the Mecha-obsession the design team currently have. Take it back to how they were with their initial introduction, where anything Riptide size or bigger was seen as a massive waste of resources due to how limited an area it could affect compared to airpower.

Then also increase the number of auxiliaries, and maybe we can get a Tau faction that fits in 40k again.

Maybe.

 skchsan wrote:
If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


Technically, the suggestion has no exclusion for Knights. However, if you're bringing a Knight in a SHA detachment alongside an IG army, for example, it isn't able to benefit from the Warlord trait of the IG, due to being from a different book. It might get a CP reduction, depending on the suggestion, but that's it. Stick a Shadowsword or Baneblade in that slot, though, and they do beenfit, due to being from the same book.

Simple force construction principles, with a dash of logic - you might want to try it sometime.

 vipoid wrote:
1) I see no difference and regard fliers as another unit that should be Apocalypse-only. The fact that a flier miles in the air completely blocks a unit from assaulting beneath it is testament to the fact that they do not belong in this game.


I might be missing something here, but they don't seem to? The only exception seems to be the base footprint, which another model can't end up on top of, but asides from that their Engagement Range doesn't appear to block any movement, as far as I can see in the CRB.

 skchsan wrote:
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.


Definitely in favour of getting rid of the problem - there's the door, don't let it hit you on your way out.

 skchsan wrote:
What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.


What they should be recognising is that the difficulty in using in-faction LOW with their faction means that they're not selling as many of those kits as they could be. Increasing accessibility increases their sales.

Knight armies can be built out of their 'dex simply enough, mostly with a single Super-heavy Detachment, with their bells and whistles still functioning, so don't need further attention at this time.

Your windmill is over there, Don *points off into the distance*

nekooni wrote:
Not sure how knights are an issue right now,to be honest. Granted,I've only played a single game Vs them this edition so far,but my warrior / carnifex nids list won something like 80:40 while getting almost wiped. Was a fun game, killed two FW knights. Didn't even bring hive guards or the big shooty beasts, just a bunch of (heavy) venom and claws

The game isn't just about killing anymore.


You managed a fun game against a Knight army? Surely you jest...

What did the opponent bring, out of interest, and was it Imperial or Chaos?

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.


Seconded - and while I own some Knights, I've not built any of them yet.

 skchsan wrote:
The whole LOW fiasco happened precisely because GW was trying to find a way to fit something that was tougher than a LR without introducing a more properly scaled stat system. When does this trend stop? When every army gets competitive LOW's and the game turns into Titanicus?


I'd be quite happy with every faction getting a usable LoW and Fortification in their Codex, as long as it makes sense with the background of the army - GSC and Harlequins are factions where I don't see a sensible LoW at first glance, but I'm sure there are concepts that would fit.

Note I said usable, not necessarily competitive - they shouldn't be a bad choice, but they don't need to be top-tier, either.

And we do seem to agree that not properly making use of the increased opporunities for S & T was a mistake at the start of 8th, at least. Bad GW *raps them on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the Sunday Times*

Breton wrote:
Another thing that needs "fixing" is equal access to LOW's. They did the Fortification, but must be aligned Det. They're released a bunch of aligned fortifications for equal access. A few factions need a non-Forgeworld LoW. Nids need some sort of Titanic Carnifex style mob, I don't know what to do with GSC (Stolen BladeSword?), SM and CSM of all varieties could see a 30K Superheavy cross over, or bring back the Thunderhawk to the main codex for a reasonable price, Tau have one, Orks have one, CWE have one, but DE don't a simple mirror/cross over might work or a DE Thunderhawk since theyre a little more flighty, Demons need one, preferably not a super demon, but some sort of construct demon engine that spews out demons, warpfire, or whatever- somethign they can all use with different paint/bits. Sisters and Custodes need one.


Arguably, you might want to go to four for Daemons - starting by giving them in-codex access to the KLOS. Add in a Silver Tower or a Fire Lord for Tzeentch, either the Plague Tower or Contagion for Nurgle, and bring back the Slaaneshi Hell Knights, and we're sorted.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:

1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade
2. it would allow IG to take one Baneblade etc., Eldar to take one of their Titans, Orks to take a Stompa etc.
3. just looking from a Guard perspective and my personal taste: it would give another reason to put everything into one Brigade instead of taking two Battalions to profit from two sets of regiment traits/WLT/relicts/stratagems/orders


It's certainly not a bad alternative to tweaking the SHA, for sure.

 vipoid wrote:
rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!


[Citation needed.]


It's an opinion - no citation required.

 vipoid wrote:
I would consider this a feature, not a bug.

Those who wish to play a LoW would be free to request a larger game size.


If you're not going to be constructive, what're you doing in here?

 skchsan wrote:
There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.


Well, Citadel datasheets manage S16, going by the IG 'dex, so...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.


Feth that noise - people can use their words, and opt-out instead.
If they're playing a tournament, they implicitly agreed to the TO's decisions regarding what can and can't be used, so can take their lumps in that environment, too.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 21:59:27


Post by: skchsan


@Dysartes In consideration of your efforts:
Spoiler:
 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)

1, Not a feature of TITANIC units by default, though certain datasheets may now allow it via errata. Final positioning still curtailed by Engagement Range, however. I would also note that the current CRB errata adds a section into Rare Rules about Moving Through Models, so it can be argued that these units now do obey the core rules document.
2, True, though only benefits CHAOS units, as far as I'm aware - Morty, Magnus, and I think someone mentioned a Tzeentch upgrade for Chaos Knights. Unsure if this is the only case of this rule being bypassed, or if there are alternative options within Codexes.
3, True, though not alone in this. IG have an Order which allows it, for instance.
4, No more so than other units, when we're talking models on a base. If you check "Measuring Distances" (Basic Rules, pg. 11 of the mini-rulebook) you'll note that distances are measured base-to-base unless a model doesn't have a base. As a result, a Knight still measures its Engagement Range from its base, rather than the hull, meaning it still has the same reach as a Guardsman in that regard. A Stompa is likely to see some benefit, however, as they typically don't have a base, and therefore can measure their Engagement Range from anywhere on their hull. (This read is brought to you by the mini-rulebook, Knights FAQ and CRB errata).
5, Not unique to TITANIC units - I direct your attention to most CHARACTER units, for example.

 skchsan wrote:
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.

A - Not true of many LOW. I give you the Baneblade chassis, for example.
B - See A.
C - Don't have enough books to hand to argue this one. I'm aware there is a Knight stratagem to do this, but I can't confirm that other factions don't get something similar.
D - I'd argue that the usual mid-range S, low-to-mid AP, high-volume-of-fire weapons that have become the most common source of anti-tank firepower for some silly reason still work here.
Please read the post in full - comment was specific to Knights. This is the beginning point of my assertion that LOW cannot be costed 'fairly' in terms of points or CP because of the unreasonable level of expectation knights create. (Largely due to the new ceiling of T8 Sv 3+/5++[3++] as the big bad boi).

So if non-knight LOW's are supposed to be better than a Landraider with T8/3+Sv but worse than knights, how do we stat it? How do we cost it?
 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.

Point of order - your opinion =/= "purely objective level", chief.
 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The fact of the matter is, 40k does not need all-TITANIC army nor can it support it within it's design space.


Again, your opinion =/= "the fact of the matter", bub.
Oh, okay. I suppose we can just slap on T8 Sv3+ and maybe invul save on anything bigger than a landraider and call it a day.
 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?


GW did a roughly quarter-arsed job of reviewing stats coming into 8th. They removed the caps for S and T, and used the lack of a S cap to address Destroyer weapons, but didn't play around with most stat lines given the freedom.

I would argue - and have done before - that a full review of unit stats needs to take place to get some semblance of sense back into profiles. I'd also consider adding an Evasion stat, and going back to having WS compared to WS and BS compared to E to determine yout chance to hit, probably using a similar guideline to what is seen for S vs. T at present (and probably without the cap of 10 on these stats we had before, either). It makes no sense that a Conscript is as likely to hit a Gretchin in melee as a Bloodthirster, or be as accurate shooting at an oncoming Genestealer as he is a Fortification.
 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
The whole LOW fiasco happened precisely because GW was trying to find a way to fit something that was tougher than a LR without introducing a more properly scaled stat system. When does this trend stop? When every army gets competitive LOW's and the game turns into Titanicus?


I'd be quite happy with every faction getting a usable LoW and Fortification in their Codex, as long as it makes sense with the background of the army - GSC and Harlequins are factions where I don't see a sensible LoW at first glance, but I'm sure there are concepts that would fit.

Note I said usable, not necessarily competitive - they shouldn't be a bad choice, but they don't need to be top-tier, either.

And we do seem to agree that not properly making use of the increased opporunities for S & T was a mistake at the start of 8th, at least. Bad GW *raps them on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the Sunday Times*
Precisely my point. Within the given "soft cap" of T8, we're not going to be able to 'get some semblance of sense back into profiles.'

 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.


If you'd actually bothered to read the proposition being discussed, you'd've realised that:
A, We were discussing the Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment only.
B, The suggestion to potentially allow traits that matched your Warlord would, in any case I can think of, not benefit Knights due to faction mis-alignment. The only oddity might be in using a SHA detachment because you filled your Super-Heavy Detachment with the rest of your Knights, in which case sharing the Warlord trait isn't an unfair benefit.

And it is still not a "fact" that LOW can't be balanced out. GW just haven't proven themselves good at it thus far.

 skchsan wrote:
If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


Technically, the suggestion has no exclusion for Knights. However, if you're bringing a Knight in a SHA detachment alongside an IG army, for example, it isn't able to benefit from the Warlord trait of the IG, due to being from a different book. It might get a CP reduction, depending on the suggestion, but that's it. Stick a Shadowsword or Baneblade in that slot, though, and they do beenfit, due to being from the same book.

Simple force construction principles, with a dash of logic - you might want to try it sometime.
Your referencing a particular suggestion. The post also mentions potential discount for CP cost for taking a SHA and internal balancing via point reduction. If non-knight LOW can take advantage of these special rules, namely the CP reduction, guess which other faction benefits from it?

 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.


What they should be recognising is that the difficulty in using in-faction LOW with their faction means that they're not selling as many of those kits as they could be. Increasing accessibility increases their sales.

Knight armies can be built out of their 'dex simply enough, mostly with a single Super-heavy Detachment, with their bells and whistles still functioning, so don't need further attention at this time.

Your windmill is over there, Don *points off into the distance*
Because no other detachments cost 3 CP's, am I right?

There's nothing 'difficult' in using in-faction LOWs. You just don't think it's worth the point. Non-knight LOW's aren't the only units that are overcosted. In fact, majority of units in the game are now 'overpriced' from the port from 8th ed to 9th ed anyways.

I understand this post is specifically about SHA detachment - but justifying adjustments to both CP AND point reduction simply because it's not point efficient? Now that's double dipping.

 Dysartes wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.
Well, Citadel datasheets manage S16, going by the IG 'dex, so...
You generally exclude outliers when speaking in general.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 22:40:11


Post by: yukishiro1


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.

Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.

Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.


If you prefer that LOWs stay terrible but "official" go for it I guess, it's no skin off my back either way. I would have assumed you'd prefer to have good rules for models for "unofficial" units than bad ones for official ones, since you don't care about competitive play, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 22:46:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.

Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.

Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.


If you prefer that LOWs stay terrible but "official" go for it I guess, it's no skin off my back either way. I would have assumed you'd prefer to have good rules for models for "unofficial" units than bad ones for official ones, since you don't care about competitive play, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

No, I want good rules for "official" LOWs. If you want them out of whatever tournament you're playing in then take it up with the TO, since LOWs with good rules worries you so. Don't go expecting all 40k to bend to the wants of competitive players.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 22:55:27


Post by: yukishiro1


 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, I want good rules for "official" LOWs.


We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:01:33


Post by: generalchaos34


I personally like to think that certain LoW should be allowed within certain factions and be able to use the Chapter traits but still pay the CP penalty. For instance an all Ultramarine Detachment should be able to Take Guilliman and have him use his own damned chapter tactics. Guard armies should be able to take things like Baneblades since with Regiments since thats what they are designed for. A craftworld Wraithknight should be able to benefit from its own craftworld of origin. The only outlier is things like knights....and frankly they should be penalized to not use their House rules unless they are a freeblade.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:03:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, I want good rules for "official" LOWs.


We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).


Magnus is a "good" lord of war right now, is he breaking anything?

We're not asking for Wraithknight and castellan levels of cheese, just make all LoW playable like Magnus and we'd be golden


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:05:01


Post by: warmaster21


what if vehicle toughness and wounds were redesigned with a much broader stat differennce between light, medium, heavy, titanic light, titanic medium, titanic heavy, and AT weapons adjusted to compensate.

Shooting a heavy bolter at something tougher than a buggy or raider should be a bad idea. Shooting an autocannon should shred light vehicles and do ok vs medium targets and do absolutely horrible at heavy or better.

Lascannons should be able to hurt heavy vehicles but should do less damage to light vechiles.

I would love to see a difference in High strength / ap weapons and lower damage, vs something that might struggle to penetrate but does massive damage when it does. or even go so far as something like overpentration which is a thing. for example you shoot a frigate with an armor piercing shell form a battleship congrats you punched a hole right through the ship and caused basically no damage unless you hit something important.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:05:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

No, I want good rules for "official" LOWs.


We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).


In neither of those cases were the units in question "good", they were flat out overpowered. And in the case of the Wraithknight we know it was done intentionally. We're asking for our LOWs to be good, not OP.

And I don't have to accept any "compromise" with you, unless you've just been hired as gw's primary rules writer.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:05:43


Post by: Platuan4th


 vipoid wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.


And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.


Super-heavies in "standard" 40K have been a thing long before Apocalypse even existed.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:19:27


Post by: yukishiro1


Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.

If you want all LoWs to be on the same badish level as Magnus I have no problem with that. I.e. if you want your fellblade to go from 880 to 750ish points instead, go for it I guess?

The other guy doesn't want that though, he wants his LoWs to be good, i.e. competitive choices.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:22:02


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't very good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.

If you want all LoWs to be on the same badish level as Magnus I have no problem with that. I.e. if you want your fellblade to go from 880 to 750ish points instead, go for it I guess?




650ish. I'm sure that would break the game.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:39:05


Post by: yukishiro1


So you want your fellblade to cost the same as a castellan?

I rest my case.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:43:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think he wants things to cost what they're worth...


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:46:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
So you want your fellblade to cost the same as a castellan?

I rest my case.

That's more than a Castellan. And what exactly is your case besides "I don't like LOWs (or any unit over 200 points) and expect everything in the game to conform to my personal preferences"?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/09 23:53:20


Post by: yukishiro1


2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 00:08:22


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.

Shocking! Considering the opinion you have on what the relative usefulness of any 200+ point model should be that you explained in the Land Raider thread I never expected us to find common ground. Yes, we disagree fundamentally.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 06:13:58


Post by: Pyroalchi


Breton wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Bretons post: I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the other codices to know who could build a brigade and still have points for their superheavy and who doesn't.
Nontheless I (personnally) find a batallion too low of a treshhold.


So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...


Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


Edit: Sorry I messed up the citation somehow


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 07:52:16


Post by: Jidmah


yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 08:01:57


Post by: ERJAK


yukishiro1 wrote:
2.5% more than a castellan. But this isn't productive. We obviously disagree fundamentally about what role LoWs should play in the game and we're not going to change each other's minds. I'd have been happy to see you get a 750 point fellblade if you were ok with mediocre but not totally unplayable LoWs, but you aren't interested in that, so my attempt to find common ground has clearly failed.

So if we're choosing between 880 point fellblades and 650 point fellblades, my vote goes for the status quo.


Fundamentally, the decision that makes the most sense in regards to gameplay and balance is to remove everything that isn't a lord of war from the game. It would get rid of most of the unbalanced units, the majority of reroll auras and stratagem shenanigans, it would make spam difficult if not impossible, and with the incredibly reduced number of models on the table at any given moment, it would be much easier to make sensible points adjustments.

If you want to fix the representative scale of the game, as well as the potential balance issues that come from having both a grot and a knight on the same table, it honestly makes much more sense to remove the grot than it does to remove the knight. From a gameplay perspective.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 08:57:03


Post by: Jidmah


 Pyroalchi wrote:
Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


on 1):
1500 points isn't even a "real" game size anymore.
Combat Patrol essentially disallows LoW already by forcing you use a patrol detachment unless you play knights, in which case you have to bring three helverines/warglaives/warhounds (those are LoW, too).
Incursion allows you to bring one LoW in theory, but you would lose most your CP for doing that and the missions screw you over for wasting half or more of your points on one unit.
Strike force and Onslaught are game sizes where LoW should not be a problem.
on 2) and 3): Factions aren't cheap or expensive by default, therefore putting them in categories like this doomed to fail. A unit of custodes guardians is pretty much the same price as a unit of trukk boyz.

In addition some LoW don't share a faction with the army they want to join. When you would bring knight, all units - including the knight - in that imperial brigade lose their detachment trait and all troops would lose objective secured.This is pretty much a strictly worse version of what we have now.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 09:40:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 09:48:55


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.


I mean alot of the vehicle superheavies also share their obsolesence with normal vehicles. Mostly because their pricing is indeed off.
The same issue that plagues a baneblade is the same issue that plagues leman russes, overpriced for what it does.

Klos, without the stacking has the same issue as a predator. (HOWEVER unlike the predator there are ways to make the klos enter the field and be way too mean comparatively thanks to daemon keyword associated and the Invul save, yes that goes back into the whole stacking design issue but i'd still count it.)

And i am sure you could go further, minotaur f.e. which is in essence 2 basilisks firepower wise for the price of three with less durability overall.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 10:11:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.

Agreed, though I would argue that Baneblades are currently overpriced due to the Guard losing its discount on weapons it shares with factions with better BS. This is what we are arguing for, non-knight LOWs shouldn't be so good that they are an auto-include, nor should they be an anchor upon an army due to excessive costs in both points and CP. No unit should be relegated to "mediocrity" simply because some people don't like them or don't like their inclusion in "competitive" 40k, which by its very nature can ban any unit that TOs find is an issue in their particular preferred tournament format.


I mean alot of the vehicle superheavies also share their obsolesence with normal vehicles. Mostly because their pricing is indeed off.
The same issue that plagues a baneblade is the same issue that plagues leman russes, overpriced for what it does.

Klos, without the stacking has the same issue as a predator. (HOWEVER unlike the predator there are ways to make the klos enter the field and be way too mean comparatively thanks to daemon keyword associated and the Invul save, yes that goes back into the whole stacking design issue but i'd still count it.)

And i am sure you could go further, minotaur f.e. which is in essence 2 basilisks firepower wise for the price of three with less durability overall.


Yes, most of the issues non-knight LOWs have can be traced back to gw's prices for them and other vehicles, particularly since CA2020. Though that issue goes back to CA2018 for any resin LOW and the plastic Stompa.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 10:19:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


The stompa is an overpriced do it yourself plastic garden gnome.
It is that since it's inception.
And it's a damn shame..


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 11:55:16


Post by: Pyroalchi


 Jidmah wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:
Responding to that: no, it was not my intention to specifically exclude some armies. My main point for a Battalion being to low of a treshhold is that (in my impression) most armies will build around at least one Battalion anyway (I might be wrong dir highly elite factions). And if almost everyone has a Battalion, adding a LoW slot would be the same as making the superheavy auxiliary free.

So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


on 1):
1500 points isn't even a "real" game size anymore.
Combat Patrol essentially disallows LoW already by forcing you use a patrol detachment unless you play knights, in which case you have to bring three helverines/warglaives/warhounds (those are LoW, too).
Incursion allows you to bring one LoW in theory, but you would lose most your CP for doing that and the missions screw you over for wasting half or more of your points on one unit.
Strike force and Onslaught are game sizes where LoW should not be a problem.
on 2) and 3): Factions aren't cheap or expensive by default, therefore putting them in categories like this doomed to fail. A unit of custodes guardians is pretty much the same price as a unit of trukk boyz.

In addition some LoW don't share a faction with the army they want to join. When you would bring knight, all units - including the knight - in that imperial brigade lose their detachment trait and all troops would lose objective secured.This is pretty much a strictly worse version of what we have now.


I'm not sure if that sufficiently adressed your critics but:
Regarding "factions should not be put into categories" I wasn't trying to do that. Hence the broad " if the detachment has >1500 points your good to go" guard for example can be "cheap" (guardsmen, sentinels, heavy weapons teams) filling a whole brigade until reaching that treshhold or expensive (fully kitted out tank commanders/Leman Russ.) Both would work.

Regarding LoWs not sharing the faction they wanted to join: that's a bit beside the point as my proposition was directed towards LoWs that belong to a faction but are currently difficult to take with that faction (so explicitly no Knights). I would keep the other ways to take superheavies like the SHA just add the option to take lets say a Fellblade into a sufficiently big SM detachment, a Baneblade in an IG detachment etc.
I also think (that's my personal taste and opinion) it would be a good thing if it would be easier for imperial factions to stick to their own superheavy instead of "just taking a knight". Again my view is IG centric but my impression is that when I have to take a Baneblade in a Superheavy Auxiliary anyway I might as well take a Knight which seems more competetive for its point cost. It would be another story if stickig to my own codex would save me some CP.
But of course then it would be fair to give those factions that don't have a superheavy some option. A SoB or Genestealer "Baneblade" for example.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 12:31:20


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Jidmah wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.


IMO Magnus, Mortarion, the Lord of Skulls, Questoris/Abhorrent Knights and Baneblades are at a decent level right now. Not game-breaking but good enough to bring them out from time to time.
Nothing would be lost if all LoW were buffed to their level. There is no need to hit them with a -3CP penalty and take away their detachment traits.


EXACTLY!

Theyre playable and do decent but won't run away with the game by themselves. In other words : picking them over a heavy support of the same army won't make your army worse.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 13:04:35


Post by: a_typical_hero


I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 13:52:18


Post by: VladimirHerzog


a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.


I love the look of the Spartan and i really want to get one for my Night lords eventually. but paying 510 pts + 3cp + losing the legion trait for a gloryfied land raider that eats its payload feels pretty bad.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 14:00:11


Post by: Jidmah


 Pyroalchi wrote:
Regarding LoWs not sharing the faction they wanted to join: that's a bit beside the point as my proposition was directed towards LoWs that belong to a faction but are currently difficult to take with that faction (so explicitly no Knights). I would keep the other ways to take superheavies like the SHA just add the option to take lets say a Fellblade into a sufficiently big SM detachment, a Baneblade in an IG detachment etc.
I also think (that's my personal taste and opinion) it would be a good thing if it would be easier for imperial factions to stick to their own superheavy instead of "just taking a knight". Again my view is IG centric but my impression is that when I have to take a Baneblade in a Superheavy Auxiliary anyway I might as well take a Knight which seems more competetive for its point cost. It would be another story if stickig to my own codex would save me some CP.
But of course then it would be fair to give those factions that don't have a superheavy some option. A SoB or Genestealer "Baneblade" for example.


You do know that the Adeptus Mechanicus LoW *are* Knights, right?

But yes, taking a LoW from another faction should be punished in the same way as taking a spearhead detachment from another faction. I really don't see why an army of marines with a baneblade behind them is any better or worse fluff-wise than an army of marines with 4 LRBT in tow.

My suggestion would probably look very similar to how fortifications work "Command Benefits: +3 Command points if every unit in this Detachment is from the same Faction and that Faction is the same as your WARLORD’s Detachment." and just scratch the "can't have detachment rules" part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see any issue with "mediocre" units, be it Lords of War or regular ones.

If everything you can field would at least be mediocre, that would be a big step up for a lot of unloved and forgotten units / wargear options.


I love the look of the Spartan and i really want to get one for my Night lords eventually. but paying 510 pts + 3cp + losing the legion trait for a gloryfied land raider that eats its payload feels pretty bad.


I think that you two agree, but have different opinion on what "mediocre" means.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:06:18


Post by: skchsan


 Jidmah wrote:
My suggestion would probably look very similar to how fortifications work "Command Benefits: +3 Command points if every unit in this Detachment is from the same Faction and that Faction is the same as your WARLORD’s Detachment." and just scratch the "can't have detachment rules" part.
But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?

If they're not appropriately costed, that's an issue of internal/external balance - why does a global detachment rule need to be changed in order to accommodate the few?

After 9 pages of discussion, I'm still not convinced that this is actually a game wide issue but just a wishlist (just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k).

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:10:10


Post by: Jidmah


Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:22:21


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?


Theyre already special because they are the only type of units that you cannot get 12cp in a 2000pts game if you play one. We're asking to remove that rule that makes them special (the detachment one)


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:25:42


Post by: skchsan


 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits? I thought this was only when you've souped a LOW from different faction.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:27:02


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits?


Well, you know, and every other type of slot.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:29:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?


legion traits? Thats been said countless times in this thread.
Which rule prohibits them from gaining faction traits? I thought this was only when you've souped a LOW from different faction.



ok so youve been arguing all this time without knowing the rules?

Supreme command detachmetns refund your first patrol/batallion/brigade when your warlord is in them
Any detachment that has the "Auxiliary" name doesnt grant legion traits.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:39:26


Post by: skchsan


Ok, I concede my point on that. I did miss the 'Detachment Abilities' blurb.

Even then, my other points still stand - is missing out detachment abilities really that crippling to justify SHA being free if its from the same faction? Why the skew?

If SHA was free under specific circumstances, what happens to a Knight list? Do they pay 3/6 CP's on the SH detachment and rest of their LOW's are free of CP via SHA? Or do you make a special exclusion to the bonus for knights only?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:42:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
Ok, I concede my point on that. I did miss the 'Detachment Abilities' blurb.

Even then, my other points still stand - is missing out detachment abilities really that crippling to justify SHA being free if its from the same faction? Why the skew?

If SHA was free under specific circumstances, what happens to a Knight list? Do they pay 3/6 CP's on the SH detachment and rest of their LOW's are free of CP?


Why not? they can already fit 5 lord of wars in a regular superheavy detachment. The only reason they'd take a SHA would be to soup another house but thats already fixed by only refunding it if its the same faction as the warlord.

Knights already get a FULL REFUND on the SH detachment, so a knights only lists starts with 12cp, Even if the detachment costs them 6cp

I have to repeat myself again : this change isnt targetted at knights and what was proposed does not affect them.

Your constant focus on knights makes you miss the point : We want our Wraithknights/Stompas/Fellblades/etc. to not be penalized for the sins of another army (which was already fixed with nerfs in the past anyway).



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 17:51:56


Post by: skchsan


Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.

If anything, what should be changed is the SH detachment - make it so that it's min 1 max 5 (from min 3 to max 5), costs 3 CP's, must pay 6 CP's to include TITANIC (no more than 1), then either get rid of SHA or fold it into Auxiliary Support detachment with 2/3CP cost.

This way, if you want to take a single LOW, you take the SH detachment @ 3 CP's & doesn't get affected by 'Detachment Abilities' rule. If you want to soup, then you take that LOW via AS detachment. This way, a global rule applies fairly to all factions.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:03:53


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:13:25


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:31:22


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I said before i'd be fine with just having my faction rules. Ideally i wouldnt make it cost CP but i wouldnt ask my opponents to give me this , we've been talking about an ideal world where bringing 2 fire prism vs a wraithknight doesnt cost me more CP either way


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:33:23


Post by: Dudeface


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


The other detachments give you an excess of something you can access for free, if you take them it's to leverage something that's not part of a balanced army.

I want to put it to you the other way round. Why do you think a battalion/brigade shouldn't have a super heavy slot available?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:40:15


Post by: generalchaos34


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I would be happy with either/or for auxillary LoW. Either I lose 3cp, which is acceptable, or I lose the <Regiment> ability. Both is far too much a cost to bear for what often amounts to a mediocre unit. Baneblades are something that a guard army should be able to field without massive cost. Same goes for Primarchs in THEIR OWN LEGION/CHAPTER. Like why wouldn't Magnus or Guilliman be benefiting from their own rules....even if they have a better version! Points are fairly high for those units to begin with.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:51:20


Post by: Breton


yukishiro1 wrote:


If you prefer that LOWs stay terrible but "official" go for it I guess, it's no skin off my back either way. I would have assumed you'd prefer to have good rules for models for "unofficial" units than bad ones for official ones, since you don't care about competitive play, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.


Or good rules for LOW and official. It’s not either or.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:53:43


Post by: the_scotsman


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


Because you still have minimum troops to include the LOW.

A solution I'd personally be more into is including an optional SH slot in the Brigade detachment.

If you want to include some huge, 700-point SH and you're playing a faction that can't build a brigade in a 2000pt game to fit it...then bring a SH aux for 3cp.

In my opinion, including a SH in a smaller game size is as much of a skew as including 3x of a non-troop slot, which you'd spend 3cp to bring as a detachment.

That would be a solution that would allow most of the LOWs that don't break 2000pt standard size games in those size games, wouldn't give more power to knights (because they can't have brigades) and would prevent players from constructing super skew lists because they must have 6 troops 3 fast 3 elite 3 HQ 3 heavy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 generalchaos34 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I would be happy with either/or for auxillary LoW. Either I lose 3cp, which is acceptable, or I lose the <Regiment> ability. Both is far too much a cost to bear for what often amounts to a mediocre unit. Baneblades are something that a guard army should be able to field without massive cost. Same goes for Primarchs in THEIR OWN LEGION/CHAPTER. Like why wouldn't Magnus or Guilliman be benefiting from their own rules....even if they have a better version! Points are fairly high for those units to begin with.


Primarch LOWs are already free and already get to keep their detachment abilities. They can take the Supreme Command detachment.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:58:00


Post by: Breton


 Pyroalchi wrote:


So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


Edit: Sorry I messed up the citation somehow
. Are you repricing LOW’s to under 500? As mentioned the cheapest SM LOW is 500, and extremely overpriced at that. As has been mentioned several times the “prototypical” SM LOW is the What, fellblade? Coming at 850, worth supposedly? 650. I haven’t checked it. A stretch Land Raider with less than double the firepower for almost double the points...


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 18:58:23


Post by: generalchaos34


the_scotsman wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


Because you still have minimum troops to include the LOW.

A solution I'd personally be more into is including an optional SH slot in the Brigade detachment.

If you want to include some huge, 700-point SH and you're playing a faction that can't build a brigade in a 2000pt game to fit it...then bring a SH aux for 3cp.

In my opinion, including a SH in a smaller game size is as much of a skew as including 3x of a non-troop slot, which you'd spend 3cp to bring as a detachment.

That would be a solution that would allow most of the LOWs that don't break 2000pt standard size games in those size games, wouldn't give more power to knights (because they can't have brigades) and would prevent players from constructing super skew lists because they must have 6 troops 3 fast 3 elite 3 HQ 3 heavy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 generalchaos34 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then as I said, it should be solved internally, not globally, because global change affects every army, including knights.

The knights CP refund is a codex specific rule - you can't justify a global change because one army has it differently.


fine, then add a rule in every codex that says "if you add a superheavy auxiliary detachment to your army and it has the same faction as your warlord's, its command benefits are +3 cp"

happy?
I still don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.

Why is it that other specialist detachments (vanguard, outrider & spearhead) need to pay for their detachments but not LOW's? Why can't you just make a rule that exempts 'Detachment Abilities' rule from same faction LOW? Wouldn't that be simpler to implement & discuss with potential opponents?


I would be happy with either/or for auxillary LoW. Either I lose 3cp, which is acceptable, or I lose the <Regiment> ability. Both is far too much a cost to bear for what often amounts to a mediocre unit. Baneblades are something that a guard army should be able to field without massive cost. Same goes for Primarchs in THEIR OWN LEGION/CHAPTER. Like why wouldn't Magnus or Guilliman be benefiting from their own rules....even if they have a better version! Points are fairly high for those units to begin with.


Primarch LOWs are already free and already get to keep their detachment abilities. They can take the Supreme Command detachment.


Ooof, my mistake! See I need to get out there and play more games of 9th outside of my sisters. I'm really just bummed about not being able to take my Baneblades to the party.

The world needs more baneblades. Or Shadowswords. The point is guard needs bigger guns....


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:07:58


Post by: Breton


 skchsan wrote:
Istill don't get why you believe taking a LOW should be free. Why don't we just all start at 12 CP for 2k points game then? Just get rid of all CP costs from all detachments.
. That’s what I think they should do. This is not the right mechanic for punishing soup or whatever else it’s for.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:17:55


Post by: skchsan


Dudeface wrote:
The other detachments give you an excess of something you can access for free, if you take them it's to leverage something that's not part of a balanced army.

I want to put it to you the other way round. Why do you think a battalion/brigade shouldn't have a super heavy slot available?
1. They're not free, but more of a combo package IMO. It's making the most of your CP expenditure, not spending CP to get things for free. Getting something for free and putting your money to work is two different things.
2. Because they're called 'LORD of war'. They're not just some grunts - they're LORDS. They are hyper-specialized units that carry really freaking huge guns.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I would be happy with either/or for auxillary LoW. Either I lose 3cp, which is acceptable, or I lose the <Regiment> ability. Both is far too much a cost to bear for what often amounts to a mediocre unit. Baneblades are something that a guard army should be able to field without massive cost. Same goes for Primarchs in THEIR OWN LEGION/CHAPTER. Like why wouldn't Magnus or Guilliman be benefiting from their own rules....even if they have a better version! Points are fairly high for those units to begin with.
I do agree it's double taxation, but I personally don't think it amounts to "massive cost".

In practice, the amount of fire a single LOW draws upon itself is so huge that it leaves rest of your army rather unscathed. I think that's the true value of LOW's - they're the best distraction carnifex you can ask for because they can insta-delete a lot of stuff as dice allows if left to its own devices. Note, there are plenty other distraction carnifex that cannot cause proportional amount of damage as a LOW.

The way I see it, you're paying the CP's to protect your other units - just like how you'd use 'Prepared Positions' to shroud your army first turn in 8th ed.

Do note I'm not saying certain LOW's are not way overpriced in terms of points. I just don't think CP or rule based 'buffs' are the right solution. But when we delve into discussion on points, it's difficult to properly cost them because of how knights are priced (but this is another discussion I suppose).


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:24:36


Post by: Dudeface


 skchsan wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The other detachments give you an excess of something you can access for free, if you take them it's to leverage something that's not part of a balanced army.

I want to put it to you the other way round. Why do you think a battalion/brigade shouldn't have a super heavy slot available?
1. They're not free, but more of a combo package IMO. It's making the most of your CP expenditure, not spending CP to get things for free. Getting something for free and putting your money to work is two different things.
2. Because they're called 'LORD of war'. They're not just some grunts - they're LORDS. They are hyper-specialized units that carry really freaking huge guns.


If I have a single battalion, it therefore contains my warlord and is free as a reward for having a balanced army. If I want only elites I have to pay, because I'm not rounding my force out with troops etc. I understand what you're saying but if you pay to leverage an advantage that's why they have an associated cost.

Lords of War will often be accompanied by supporting forces, i.e. a battallion of infantry to stop it being bogged down etc. It makes more sense for one to appear in a combined arms force than just as/when they feel like it. A basilisk is a hyper specialised unit carrying a large gun, but that doesnt count. A repulsor executioner also fits your example.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:38:16


Post by: skchsan


Dudeface wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The other detachments give you an excess of something you can access for free, if you take them it's to leverage something that's not part of a balanced army.

I want to put it to you the other way round. Why do you think a battalion/brigade shouldn't have a super heavy slot available?
1. They're not free, but more of a combo package IMO. It's making the most of your CP expenditure, not spending CP to get things for free. Getting something for free and putting your money to work is two different things.
2. Because they're called 'LORD of war'. They're not just some grunts - they're LORDS. They are hyper-specialized units that carry really freaking huge guns.


If I have a single battalion, it therefore contains my warlord and is free as a reward for having a balanced army. If I want only elites I have to pay, because I'm not rounding my force out with troops etc. I understand what you're saying but if you pay to leverage an advantage that's why they have an associated cost.

Lords of War will often be accompanied by supporting forces, i.e. a battallion of infantry to stop it being bogged down etc. It makes more sense for one to appear in a combined arms force than just as/when they feel like it. A basilisk is a hyper specialised unit carrying a large gun, but that doesnt count. A repulsor executioner also fits your example.
Nothing in the game is free. There are always associated costs and benefits (which sometimes allow you to break even). It makes no sense to get a LOW as a free reward. Might as well make them cost 0 points then.

If by extension of your second point, then why do we not have a detachment that is 1 mandatory LOW with 0~n HQ/Troop/Elite/FA/HS/Flyer? Can basilisks and repulsors carry a S14 AP-5 D 3d3 gun? Along with sidearms that have S10 AP-4 D d6? The game design recognizes that LOW's are the cherry on top, not something you always need.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:41:10


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:

2. Because they're called 'LORD of war'. They're not just some grunts - they're LORDS. They are hyper-specialized units that carry really freaking huge guns.



sigh... so what is scarier, one stompa or 9 smasha guns?

Guess which one costs no CP and doesnt have a detachment based special rule that removes their kulturs? (i know smashas don't get kulturs, but its a codex rule, not an edition rule)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:


If by extension of your second point, then why do we not have a detachment that is 1 mandatory LOW with 0~n HQ/Troop/Elite/FA/HS/Flyer? Can basilisks and repulsors carry a S14 AP-5 D 3d3 gun? Along with sidearms that have S10 AP-4 D d6? The game design recognizes that LOW's are the cherry on top, not something you always need.


A spartan tank has 8 lascannon shots and is a LoW, you know what else has 8 lascannon shots? 2 contemptors dreadnoughts. Oh and the dreads have bs 2+. Not all lords of war have these big guns youre talking about.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 19:59:32


Post by: skchsan


I'm still only getting "well, if so and so is, why shouldn't this?" type of responses rather than compelling argument on why CP/rule revision is necessary.

Going back to OP, I think it's fine where SHA is, but would remove the no detachment abilities rule. I just can't seem to be convinced with the suggestions listed.

If your LOW blows up the moment your opponent looks at it, I'd think that's just bad play on the player's part and not because its point inefficient. There are plenty other ways to protect your LOW than lowering their cost in points and in CP.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:04:09


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
I'm still only getting "well, if so and so is, why shouldn't this?" type of responses rather than convincing argument on why CP/rule revision is necessary.

Going back to OP, I think it's fine where SHA is, but would remove the no detachment abilities rule. I just can't seem to find an argument that deems this buff.


The argument is simple but you refuse to acknowledge it as valid. An Iyanden Wraithlord should fight the same way the rest of the Iyanden army does. Want to know something fun? If you decide you don't want Magnus to be your warlord and pay the 3CP to have him in a SHA, he loses the bonus range on his smite, even if youre playing a mono faction army.

This makes no sense and its clearly collateral damage from souping knights getting nerfed. We can't answer any better than that because anything we bring up your dislike of LoW just makes you wish they stayed the same as they are now, unplayable.

You've pointed out multiple times that a change to the SHA would automatically mean a buff to Knights and we've shown you multiple times it wouldnt affect them at all since they already have they special "ignore the detachments" rule. You keep complaining that LoW would become OP so we show you examples of existing heavy supports / elites that perform better than most LoW and a deemed acceptable by some imaginary standards.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:06:27


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
I'm still only getting "well, if so and so is, why shouldn't this?" type of responses rather than convincing argument on why CP/rule revision is necessary.

Going back to OP, I think it's fine where SHA is, but would remove the no detachment abilities rule. I just can't seem to find an argument that deems this buff.


The argument is simple but you refuse to acknowledge it as valid. An Iyanden Wraithlord should fight the same way the rest of the Iyanden army does. Want to know something fun? If you decide you don't want Magnus to be your warlord and pay the 3CP to have him in a SHA, he loses the bonus range on his smite, even if youre playing a mono faction army.

This makes no sense and its clearly collateral damage from souping knights getting nerfed. We can't answer any better than that because anything we bring up your dislike of LoW just makes you wish they stayed the same as they are now, unplayable.

You've pointed out multiple times that a change to the SHA would automatically mean a buff to Knights and we've shown you multiple times it wouldnt affect them at all since they already have they special "ignore the detachments" rule. You keep complaining that LoW would become OP so we show you examples of existing heavy supports / elites that perform better than most LoW and a deemed acceptable by some imaginary standards.

Have you ever thought it might be a design feature and not an oversight? Maybe GW didn't want multiplicative bonuses on these units?

All I'm saying is LOW doesn't deserve special treatment on the basis that it IS a LOW. Point inefficiency is completely different matter.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:07:55


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:

If your LOW blows up the moment your opponent looks at it, I'd think that's just bad play on the player's part and not because its point inefficient. There are plenty other ways to protect your LOW than lowering their cost in points and in CP.


Really? tell me how i'm supposed to play a Spartan then? Hide it behind obscuring terrain , woops it can't be hidden. Outflank it? Then whats the point of it having transport capacity? Leave it out of range? Then how am i supposed to carry its payload anywhere?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:09:24


Post by: Breton


 skchsan wrote:
I'm still only getting "well, if so and so is, why shouldn't this?" type of responses rather than compelling argument on why CP/rule revision is necessary.


I’m pretty sure I’ve said because linking CP to list building beyond stratagem expenditures is stupid?

I can think of at least five fluffy army lists worth of variety punished a second time by tying CP to list building.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:11:39


Post by: skchsan


Breton wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
I'm still only getting "well, if so and so is, why shouldn't this?" type of responses rather than compelling argument on why CP/rule revision is necessary.


I’m pretty sure I’ve said because linking CP to list building beyond stratagem expenditures is stupid?

I can think of at least five fluffy army lists worth of variety punished a second time by tying CP to list building.
Well I'd like my bike army to start with 12 CP's too, but I accept it as a design feature and not flaw in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:

If your LOW blows up the moment your opponent looks at it, I'd think that's just bad play on the player's part and not because its point inefficient. There are plenty other ways to protect your LOW than lowering their cost in points and in CP.


Really? tell me how i'm supposed to play a Spartan then? Hide it behind obscuring terrain , woops it can't be hidden. Outflank it? Then whats the point of it having transport capacity? Leave it out of range? Then how am i supposed to carry its payload anywhere?
Place other immediate threats that can punish the enemy just as hard if not dealt with. Redundancies and threat overload.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:13:09


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
Have you ever thought it might be a design feature and not an oversight? Maybe GW didn't want multiplicative bonuses on these units?

All I'm saying is LOW doesn't deserve special treatment on the basis that it IS a LOW. Point inefficiency is completely different matter.


On your first point: yeah, maybe it is by design, doesn't matter, the purpose of this thread WAS to find a way to make it less punishing to take LoWs, we're allowed to criticise the design.

On the bolded part: Except as it is, they DO get a special treatment. Its the only detachment that loses its mono faction bonus if used this way. The auxiliary support detachment makes sense that it loses its bonus because its made exactly for the purpose of souping. Bringing a mono Iyanden wraithhost with a wraithknight shouldnt be penalized, bringing a blood angels smash captain with a sisters of battle army should be penalised.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
Place other immediate threats that can punish the enemy just as hard if not dealt with.


Hard to do when it costs 1/4th of my army and carries another 1/4th in it.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:15:51


Post by: Breton


 skchsan wrote:
Well I'd like my bike army to start with 12 CP's too, but I accept it as a design feature and not flaw in the rules.
. Punishing a fluffy army for being fluffy is a flaw not a feature.

Ravenwing, Deathwing, combi-wing, wildrider, multi-chapter crusader army, these are all armies already wrongly punished by the basic rules, topping them off with CP penalties isn’t a feature.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:16:21


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Place other immediate threats that can punish the enemy just as hard if not dealt with.


Hard to do when it costs 1/4th of my army and carries another 1/4th in it.
What's the other half of your army doing then?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:17:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Place other immediate threats that can punish the enemy just as hard if not dealt with.


Hard to do when it costs 1/4th of my army and carries another 1/4th in it.
What's the other half of your army doing then?


Being a less juicy target than the model that has half my army in it.



How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:17:59


Post by: skchsan


Breton wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Well I'd like my bike army to start with 12 CP's too, but I accept it as a design feature and not flaw in the rules.
. Punishing a fluffy army for being fluffy is a flaw not a feature.

Ravenwing, Deathwing, combi-wing, wildrider, multi-chapter crusader army, these are all armies already wrongly punished by the basic rules, topping them off with CP penalties isn’t a feature.
The way I see it, I'm paying CP's instead of paying troops tax in points because I want my points spent elsewhere. It's simply one of the two 'currencies' used in list building.

I can get some CP's along the way with base +1 CP/turn and Brilliant Strategist. Points, I cannot.

Forcing a tight game play is not the same thing as playing with a handicap. You just have to be more mindful when you spend your CP's in game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Place other immediate threats that can punish the enemy just as hard if not dealt with.


Hard to do when it costs 1/4th of my army and carries another 1/4th in it.
What's the other half of your army doing then?


Being a less juicy target than the model that has half my army in it.

Ok, so do you think your list that includes the spartan would be better if, say, you had 3000 points to work with?


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:37:02


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:


Ok, so do you think your list that includes the spartan would be better if, say, you had 3000 points to work with?


yes, but my hobby schedule wouldnt let me play 3000pts games.

And thats still not the point of this thread.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:40:52


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:


Ok, so do you think your list that includes the spartan would be better if, say, you had 3000 points to work with?


yes, but my hobby schedule wouldnt let me play 3000pts games.

And thats still not the point of this thread.
But it kind of is. You're forcing your inclusion of a LOW in a 2k point game and saying it's too expensive in points and CP when it doesn't even get detachment abilities.

Maybe 2k games can't comfortably accommodate LOW's unless you're playing knights, which are designed specifically to be able to function at 2k games via special rules they have? I don't know.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:43:46


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:


Ok, so do you think your list that includes the spartan would be better if, say, you had 3000 points to work with?


yes, but my hobby schedule wouldnt let me play 3000pts games.

And thats still not the point of this thread.
But it kind of is. You're forcing your inclusion of a LOW in a 2k point game and saying it's too expensive in points and CP when it doesn't even get detachment abilities.


If my opponent doesn't want to play against a LoW, i'll respect his choice, same as if my opponent doesn't feel like playing a competitive game. Thats the core of 40k, having core rules that feth this up just means that we'll get in arguments like we have been instead of just playing the fething game.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 20:58:58


Post by: Pyroalchi


Breton wrote:
 Pyroalchi wrote:


So as a modification for " add a LoW slot to the brigade" while still keeping that the detachment taken should be reasonable big,how about:
"A single LoW can be added to a detachment, if their collective points are >1500 points"
This way you would:
1. Limit it to >1500 points games
2. For cheap factions like IG this should mostly come down to a really big Battalion or a Brigade
3. For very expensive factions like Custodes a smaller detachment would suffice
4. You would still have 500 points for a second detachment to found up your army
5. There might be some possibilities like IG spearheads with tank Commanders, Leman Russ and a single Baneblade that at least for me sound fluffy and funny


Edit: Sorry I messed up the citation somehow
. Are you repricing LOW’s to under 500? As mentioned the cheapest SM LOW is 500, and extremely overpriced at that. As has been mentioned several times the “prototypical” SM LOW is the What, fellblade? Coming at 850, worth supposedly? 650. I haven’t checked it. A stretch Land Raider with less than double the firepower for almost double the points...


No, I explicitly said "collective points" see bold part. So your LoW +whatever detachment >1500 points. I meant that this would leave 500 to add anything else beside the LoW and the detachment suppprting him

Edit:just to make my point clear: to run a 750 point LoW you would need a 750 point detachment of the same codex


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 21:07:37


Post by: skchsan


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
On the bolded part: Except as it is, they DO get a special treatment. Its the only detachment that loses its mono faction bonus if used this way. The auxiliary support detachment makes sense that it loses its bonus because its made exactly for the purpose of souping. Bringing a mono Iyanden wraithhost with a wraithknight shouldnt be penalized, bringing a blood angels smash captain with a sisters of battle army should be penalised.
But ALL auxiliary detachments loses mono faction bonus, not just SHA.

Maybe GW designed it so that if you want to take a LOW with all the benefits, it has to come in a pack of 3, just like how you don't qualify for a battalion if you don't include at least 1 HQ and 3 troops as minimum?

Why should LOW brought into the army via SHA get special treatment when units brought into the army via auxiliary support detachment don't? Because LOW are pricy? Come on.

If you're pushing for SHA to have CP refund, then I'd like to make a 2k army with single patrol detachment and fill the rest of the points with units taken via auxiliary support detachment with CP refund, thank you.

You say it's not all about points, but it is actually ALL ABOUT points at the root of it. Which is why I went on that tirade about how they can't be costed fairly in this given system because of knights.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/10 21:28:23


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
On the bolded part: Except as it is, they DO get a special treatment. Its the only detachment that loses its mono faction bonus if used this way. The auxiliary support detachment makes sense that it loses its bonus because its made exactly for the purpose of souping. Bringing a mono Iyanden wraithhost with a wraithknight shouldnt be penalized, bringing a blood angels smash captain with a sisters of battle army should be penalised.
But ALL auxiliary detachments loses mono faction bonus, not just SHA.

Maybe GW designed it so that if you want to take a LOW with all the benefits, it has to come in a pack of 3, just like how you don't qualify for a battalion if you don't include at least 1 HQ and 3 troops as minimum?

Why should LOW brought into the army via SHA get special treatment when units brought into the army via auxiliary support detachment don't? Because LOW are pricy? Come on.

If you're pushing for SHA to have CP refund, then I'd like to make a 2k army with single patrol detachment and fill the rest of the points with units taken via auxiliary support detachment with CP refund, thank you.


It refunds if you're not souping and go ahead if you need 2 more slots in your army, use some auxiliary support detachments to fill it out, i'd even argue that as long as you stay monofaction, ALL auxiliary detachments should give their faction bonuses.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/11 06:54:26


Post by: Jidmah


 skchsan wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Because every other unit, including fortifications, flyers and primarchs both get army benefits and are free of CP charge as well, as long as they have the same faction as your warlord.

What we have currently is pretty much the same as removing heavy support units from battalions, brigades and patrols and putting a 3CP tax on a heavy support detachment and removing army traits from them.

Yeah but:
1. fortifications - ok, but LOW =! frotifications. What justifies providing same treatment as fortifications to LOWs?
2. flyers - but we don't have airwing detachments anymore. If you want more than 2 flyers, you have to continue to pay CP's to take more.
3. primarchs - supreme command detachment forces you to declare the WL on the unit taken in this detachment, which means you don't get the CP refund from patrol, batt or brigade.

Aside from fortification network, nothing is free - they all come at a compromise.

2. is no compromise because you can just bring two without any drawback, no CP cost and full access to legion traits.
3. is wrong because the command benefits of the supreme command detachment allow you to take one battalion, patrol or brigade free of charge. Forcing them to be the warlord also isn't much of a drawback because all three factions that have a primarch can get additional warlord traits with a stratagem, effectively making the detachment cost 1 CP, assuming you want a second warlord trait in the first place.

So, the burden on proof actually is on you. Why should the LoW slot have such huge drawbacks while no other slot has any, and some LoW already have a way around it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
Maybe GW designed it so that if you want to take a LOW with all the benefits, it has to come in a pack of 3, just like how you don't qualify for a battalion if you don't include at least 1 HQ and 3 troops as minimum?

I can assure you that GW did not "design" the game around bringing three stompas minimum. For many armies the SHA is the only way to field their LoW.

Why should LOW brought into the army via SHA get special treatment when units brought into the army via auxiliary support detachment don't? Because LOW are pricy? Come on.

Because every other slot can be fielded free of charge and gains the legion trait.

If you're pushing for SHA to have CP refund, then I'd like to make a 2k army with single patrol detachment and fill the rest of the points with units taken via auxiliary support detachment with CP refund, thank you.

You do not seem to be aware about the hard cap of 3 detachments at 2000. That limit is no longer optional.
As long as LoW cannot be taken as part of a patrol, battalion or brigade, that comparison also is a false analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
All I'm saying is LOW doesn't deserve special treatment on the basis that it IS a LOW. Point inefficiency is completely different matter.

Actually all your posts can be summed up as "LOW must get a special treatment on the basis that it is a LOW!". Most of the people your are arguing with are in favor of removing the special treatment.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/11 14:18:26


Post by: Gadzilla666


Still going I see. *sigh*

skchsan wrote:But WHY? What makes them so special that they should be free (of CP cost)?

Nothing makes them special, that's the whole point. Non-knight LOWs are literally the only units in the game that can't be taken without spending CP, that makes them "special". We want them to stop being special.



After 9 pages of discussion, I'm still not convinced that this is actually a game wide issue but just a wishlist (just as much as I wish LOW shouldn't be allowed in 40k)

Let's be honest, this is your whole issue right here.

Exactly what are the LOW's missing out on when taken as same faction and not souped?

Faction traits and 3CP. Please, pay attention.

skchsan wrote:In practice, the amount of fire a single LOW draws upon itself is so huge that it leaves rest of your army rather unscathed. I think that's the true value of LOW's - they're the best distraction carnifex you can ask for because they can insta-delete a lot of stuff as dice allows if left to its own devices. Note, there are plenty other distraction carnifex that cannot cause proportional amount of damage as a LOW.

A distraction Carnifex is, by definition a threatening but relatively cheap unit that your fine with losing, no LOW fits that description, nobody is ok when 25% to 50% of their army is deleted. Any unit as expensive as a LOW has to do something other than soak up fire in order to justify itself in an army.

Do note I'm not saying certain LOW's are not way overpriced in terms of points. I just don't think CP or rule based 'buffs' are the right solution. But when we delve into discussion on points, it's difficult to properly cost them because of how knights are priced (but this is another discussion I suppose).

No, please explain why the existence of knights requires that all non-knight LOWs be overpriced. This should be good. Let me sit down and buckle up.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/11 14:32:04


Post by: Blackie


Fix is simple. Just add 0-1 LoW slots to battallions and brigades.

Give LoWs appropriate points costs so they won't break the game.


How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments? @ 2020/09/11 14:34:01


Post by: Dudeface


 Blackie wrote:
Fix is simple. Just add 0-1 LoW slots to battallions and brigades.

Give LoWs appropriate points costs so they won't break the game.


Cookies all round, quickest, easiest fix and would be the only required change.