Switch Theme:

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?  [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 us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 18:56:28


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 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...

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

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....

17,000 points (Valhallan, Cadian, and Vostroyan)
15,000 points
4,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 4 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 5 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





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).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 19:23:15


 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




 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.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 19:40:52


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 19:45:47


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:04:55


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:06:22


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:10:09


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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?

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:13:29


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:13:55


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 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.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 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?
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





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?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:38:11


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 20:44:06


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in de
Rough Rider with Boomstick






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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 21:02:51


~3100 build and painted 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 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.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/09/10 21:21:13


 
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






 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.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 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.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/09/11 07:11:50


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

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.
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

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.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




 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.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: