Switch Theme:

On the Castellan  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta 775130 10447503 wrote:
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.

Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Karol wrote:

Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary

Do you often shoot the guardsmen with AP -2 (or better) weapons?

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Karol wrote:

Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.


You understand that Guard have been able to do that all edition right?

*points at Celestine and Vexillae*
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:
Spoletta 775130 10447503 wrote:
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.

Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.


That's only true if you fire at them with weapons with any AP. I believe Spoletta's point is that a large amount of the time regular infantry get shot by weapons with no AP so turning their regular save into an Invulnerable would not have anywhere near the effect giving a good Invulnerable does to an already tough model. Additionally, IG are T3 with W1 so even when the Invulnerable would matter they'll still die quite quickly to regular anti-infantry fire and basic weapons. Invulnerables on models with good defensive stats are very good because they completely ignore potentially devastating wounds.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Spoletta wrote:
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.

Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.

High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.

This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.

Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.

Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.


Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Fighter Ace





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.

Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.

High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.

This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.

Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.

Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.


Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.


AND MY AXE!!!! No but seriously, this times 1000.

Only in the last 2 years have we come to accept that pay to win models are ok.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


AND MY AXE!!!! No but seriously, this times 1000.

Only in the last 2 years have we come to accept that pay to win models are ok.



Aaaand you ruined it.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Not Online!!! wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Having relics to not cost points was a terrible idea from the get-go, this is just an extreme example of that.


Pretty much, same with warlord traits aswell.


And soup. And terrian rules. The list goes on and on.
   
Made in us
Fighter Ace





Weird question:

First time you ever saw a Knight Model, was your reaction, good or bad? Not on aesthetics, but on how it would improve or hurt the game.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Good. GW purposely has been moving the game to be more models for some time. They haven't fixed some of the hordes issues, Like weapon scaling, but they did introduce the correct top end by adding in Knights/ Other super heavy's.



   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.

Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.

High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.

This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.

Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.

Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.


Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.

What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.

To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/14 14:53:44


 
   
Made in gb
Numberless Necron Warrior





 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Weird question:

First time you ever saw a Knight Model, was your reaction, good or bad? Not on aesthetics, but on how it would improve or hurt the game.


If people are allowed to play 100+ models and laugh at my anti-tank, they have just as much right to play 3-7 models and laugh at my anti-infantry. I'm not going to call it an improvement, but I will say that the concept is as fair and valid as a skew-list horde (and you don't hear nearly as many complaints about them).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/14 14:57:27


 
   
Made in us
Fighter Ace





Ice_can wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.

Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.

High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.

This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.

Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.

Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.


Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.

What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.

To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.


You're, not your. Also, lasguns don't need a rebalance. Player accomodation does. We expect to be able to plop down a hunk of plastic and just throw dice with no impunity. Ala Knights. When did we stop expecting players to be careful, tactical, or methodical? Screening, LoSing, melee lockdowns, etc. Now it's just Here's my knight, I win. Anyone who tampers with that causes immediate ire and wrath of the neck beards who demand to not have to think when playing.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

Just for the sake of knowledge, how do pure Knights place at tournaments?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ice_can wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.

Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.

High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.

This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.

Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.

Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.

An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.

Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.


Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.

What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.

To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.


Increasing the wounds would be a much better mechanic to increase survivability than giving out invul saves. An invul save creates an exotic target, which must be tackled with unconventional weapons, it doesn't make a "though" target. An invul save is a good solution to represent a necron model, a tyrant or a DEldar vehicle. Niche models which are expected to require different weapons (but which are weak to other class of weapons, tipically autocannons).
You cannot simply take a vehicle and say "Here, take an invul save! Now you are though!" NO! That is not a though target, that is an unconventional target.
If you simply give 40 wounds to a knights (random number) without an invul save, THAT is though. It means that it takes a lot of focused fire to go down, but it doesn't punish you for taking the right weapons for the right target. I don't feel like an idiot for using a Melta against your model, which is what i would expect to work.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Ice_can wrote:

What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.

To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.

What? If you think lasguns being effective against tough targets, how do you think that invulnerable saves, a mechanic that doesn't hamper the effectiveness of those lasguns one bit, but greatly reduces the effectiveness of dedicated anti-tough-stuff weapons is a good idea?

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Just for the sake of knowledge, how do pure Knights place at tournaments?


Pretty low. But most of that data was pre nerf. I expect it might go lower.

For me when I play Pure knights at ITC events the scoring is against me. In general I can easily score on Kill 1, Hold 1, And general Kill more. But Hold More is very hard.

Secondary’s are tougher now also. Old school gets screwed over with people conceding early. Engineers, King of the Hill, are disallowed by the rules for Knights. But even choosing right, it’s a tough game to get all the points from them.

And the bonus points from the Missions are generally right out for Knights.

In general, a best effort from a knight force will be around 30 Victory points. A personal best was 32 points in a game, and the reality a clubbing a baby seal scenario.

Winning events with a ceiling of around 30 points from games is pretty tough.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Ice_can wrote:
Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue


Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.

A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




Reemule wrote:
You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.


The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.

The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight.
Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer.
High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.

Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/14 15:49:57


 
   
Made in us
Fighter Ace





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue


Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.

A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.


Buuuht whut about 4ppm? How comes muh knight isn't 125ppm? Guards auh unfurr! NURF!!!

Seriously, if you are playing a Knight and worrying about being taken down by Lasfire, you have to re-think the strategy there. What infantry in the game survives a round of shooting with a castellan?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Reemule wrote:
You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.


The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.

The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight.
Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer.
High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.

Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.


That is a lot of unfounded assertions. You also have expressed your opinion as fact many times.
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control



Ottawa

Reemule wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Reemule wrote:
You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.


The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.

The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight.
Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer.
High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.

Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.


That is a lot of unfounded assertions. You also have expressed your opinion as fact many times.


The state of the game today is the evidence.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The State of what game? You and your squad in John's basement? Why would that be applicable to the game state?

   
Made in us
Fighter Ace





I agree with Lemondish. We are constantly begging for fundamental rules changes to balance an inherently unbalanced game. There are two methods of play, elite small model count armies, or large high model count armies. Everything is a variant of those two.

Knights and Super heavies ruin that, by making apocalypse/titan level play in conjunction with horde style play. This isn't about "Guard are too cheap" this is about there are a few models that were created for people who don't want to think hard (casuals) and they broke the entire style of play.

Imagine, a model that costs as much as your army, that puts out twice the attacks as the entire army, has better movement, range, and melee, and is frankly tougher to kill than the entire army. For the same points. That is a Titan. Now chop that in half, and you have a knight.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




So your fine with hordes, but just don't like the large armored small model count stuff.

Got it.

And it reinforces that Players are terrible at balance.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree with Lemondish. We are constantly begging for fundamental rules changes to balance an inherently unbalanced game. There are two methods of play, elite small model count armies, or large high model count armies. Everything is a variant of those two.

Knights and Super heavies ruin that, by making apocalypse/titan level play in conjunction with horde style play. This isn't about "Guard are too cheap" this is about there are a few models that were created for people who don't want to think hard (casuals) and they broke the entire style of play.

Imagine, a model that costs as much as your army, that puts out twice the attacks as the entire army, has better movement, range, and melee, and is frankly tougher to kill than the entire army. For the same points. That is a Titan. Now chop that in half, and you have a knight.



Firstly, a proper titan is nowhere near that powerful.

Second, your assertion about the kinds of armies being used is not based on any standard. The LVO winner used a Castellan (titan), Bullgryns / Rough Riders / Hell Hounds (elite), and IS (horde). This does not fit your binary perspective.

Third, the game is more balanced than it has ever been and only continues to improve.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




Titans are in no way worth their points value in a standard 40k game. My anecdotal evidence is a dude who brought a chaos warhound(I think, it's the one that, at the time, was right at 1500 points) fairly causal tournament for silliness. He got obliterated by turn 1 or 2 in all 3 games by even casual lists, just by weight of dice. I killed it with mostly fire warriors.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





IG needs a rebalance(either infantry +1ppm, and or units that give orders are upped +20/25 pts to represent that has actual value- orders are better than any aura buffs in other codexes)

The castellan was undercoated compared to other non knight LoW.

The reason we didn't see lots of chaos castellan's is because of lack of house/keyword/stratagem buffs and most importantly chaos lacked a cheap efficient useful faction for CP/CP Regen. Imperium has AM which fills that too well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/14 20:51:50


 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control



Ottawa

Reemule wrote:
So your fine with hordes, but just don't like the large armored small model count stuff.

Got it.

And it reinforces that Players are terrible at balance.


That was not said anywhere. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise.

What was said was that adding an invuln save to try and make something 'tougher' is counter-productive. It results in a skewed valuation in weapon types. This is shown by the frequent use of mid-str weapons and weight of dice as a solution to fighting high toughness invuln save targets. Adding wounds in place of an invuln save would instead shift today's skewed weapon priority situation so that heavy weapons with anti-vehicle properties would once again reign supreme as the solution for those heavier targets. What was said is that adding wounds is how a target should be made tougher, absent any reason to make it a more niche 'exotic' unit.

How you came to those conclusions above is a mystery.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: