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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
My sisters are unable to deal with land raiders may I borrow your hysteria fueled brick?

No, because it's not real. I was being fairly sarcastic and a little angry more than hysterical. And Sisters can deal with -a- Land Raider or two reasonably well (Dominons with 4 Meltas, possible in a TL-Multi Melta Immolator for good measure) it's usually what's inside the Land Raiders that causes me the most issues, especially since GW basically nerfed Repentia back to the stone age.

I thought Repentia had always been disappointing, shame because I would have enjoyed fielding them. However, I enjoy using flamers in every unit and exorcists, should I have to give up my enjoyment in the game just to deal with landraiders?

A full knight army I would agree with you on, I've been considering starting one up myself but I first made sure to ask everyone in the group I play with to check if they'd be alright with it first. So they easily have a lot of prior knowledge for it, though quite a few of the lists would have given the knights a run for their money to begin with so they were all alright with it some even looking forward to the challenge or being fairly confident they would have no trouble with them.

My point is a couple of them are fairly within the capabilities of almost all the armies, a full army however I agree on as some have no way to deal with that amount of armour at first glance. The knights have their own glaring weaknesses, such as being large targets unable to really hide. Their invulnerables are also direction based chosen at the start of the enemy shooting phase, make it hard for them to pick which to your example from before you could add a second squad (because you'd have two anyway for redundancy) or you could spread out the unit enough that it could hit two facings. Flyers, like the sisters they have little to no way to deal with these; in fact they have less answers to fliers than a pure sisters list would have due to the lack of massed fire and the fact that they basically just have 2 heavy stubbers each to shoot at them. A lot of the flyers against a pure knight list would likely get free runs around the board taking shots at them. Their size is also a weakness, for example say you get into a ruin they're outside of. It's multiple floors but has windows on the base, you can see and shoot at its legs but if you position right under the upper floor TLOS the knight cannot see you back. Faster MCs (Like the Wraithknight) if they can catch them could also be good I think, I'm not so sure on that. I'd probably be more worried about the Lancer but that's going to be FW anyways.

They're tough, but they are not the invincible death machines people have been making them out to be. I'd be more worried about some of the other super heavies coming into standard. They likely will and I can see the eventual solution to it being simply to get your own super heavies, there may perhaps be something for infantry but the bottom line is they'd want to see the other supers more.

Escalation was not implemented well.

A Revenant Titan easily invalidates 90% of all lists possible in this game if not more.

This is not good design.

The current problem with superheavies is that some armies have endless options for them, many of them quite good, while others have very few, which may all just suck.

The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.

What FW and GW need to do is try and make it so that every faction has about as many choices as Imperial armies do with regards to lords of war/knights (with the same applying to out of codex units/mini-lists from slates, FW, and supplements) and do more to fix the imbalance between GCs and SHVs.

I mean, a generic Iron hands/Clan Chapter master can be easily built to take on and destroy a Heirodule bio-titan for less than half the points while a Revenant may take an entire army to beat down.

 Kain wrote:
The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.

Though it should be noted that most of the Imperial "options" suck and you'll never take them unless you just want a cool model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kain wrote:
The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.

Though it should be noted that most of the Imperial "options" suck and you'll never take them unless you just want a cool model.

Oh yes, for every Shadow sword or Grey Knight Thunderhawk there's a Malcador which will serve you best by getting itself killed close to something important of import to the enemy or a Marauder that can't really kill anything of importance.

LoW becoming mainstream

Totally called it. This is no different from flyers or anything else.

Give players a chance to put cheesy gak on the table and watch them lap it up. I'm as guilty of that as any though, but hey, this game isn't competitive whatsoever so why pretend otherwise

 Peregrine wrote:

 Reanimator wrote:
You say a reluctance to hand someone veto power over your list. They ultimately have that anyway.

Yes, in theory. But in practice it's considered TFG behavior to refuse to play against a list without a really good reason (as in the game is a complete mismatch, not just that you don't like something in your opponent's list), and even then you're expected to be reluctant to refuse to play. That's why people who want to ban FW/superheavies/etc always invent some justification for how the unit they don't like isn't part of "real 40k", instead of just saying "no thanks".

Player A wants to bring a super competitive list and have a really challenging tactical game. His list is legal but aimed at giving the opponent a very tough tactical challenge.

Player B has brought his "softer" list that represents his desire to tell a story of a lost band of marines denied equipment support so has deliberately omitted certain units.

But what does this have to do with superheavies? Player A could be a Tau Riptide spam player with nothing but codex units, while player B could be my fluffy DKoK with a Malcador.

Not that this kind of situation is going to happen in a pickup game. If you have a list where you've deliberately made weak choices to reduce your chances of winning then pretty much any pickup game is going to be a one-sided slaughter. A list like player B's only works if you're playing against a regular opponent and made special arrangements (preferably in the context of an ongoing story-based campaign) far in advance.

I disagree with all 3 points.

1. You've stigmatised someone not wanting to play someone else's version of the game. If that keeps happening people will continue to get heated about being made to feel obliged to go along with the other players desires ahead of their own. If people feel like they can't walk away without playing how the other person wants then they will develop the expectation that someone else needs to play their game I order to not be tfg. That's unfair. If you don't want to play a certain way then why should you have to? (Exception regarding player availability not withstanding).

2. The examples I have we're just that. Examples. They could be as you described. Or any other combo. The point is not that super heavies deserve this sort of treatment more than any other. Just that no one play style, competitive, LoW, narrative etc deserves to be held as the standard to which the other player should be expected to conform. Doing so effectively puts one person in control when it comes to setting the social contract. Which is again unfair.

3. Pick up games can have a narrative element if that's what you want to play. You don't need a campaign or an overarching story in order to tell your own story with the game. Yes, you will need to discuss what that story is with your opponent before the game. But that's what I'm getting at. That discussion about how you both want to play the game is what people some to be shying away from. No one person in that discussion should feel compelled to play the way the other person wants if they have a different idea.

I can't imagine Revenant Titan vs fluffy Kroot list to be fun for either side. At all.

I'm not opposed to Superheavies in a game, but the problem (surprise) is Escalation and the lack of balance. In the same way Triptide or Taudar are a problem.

At least we all have a Void shield generator ri- oh...

 liquidjoshi wrote:
I can't imagine Revenant Titan vs fluffy Kroot list to be fun for either side. At all.

I'm not opposed to Superheavies in a game, but the problem (surprise) is Escalation and the lack of balance. In the same way Triptide or Taudar are a problem.

At least we all have a Void shield generator ri- oh...

I kind of wish there was a Kroot codex, mini-list or supplement.

Yeah. If only Kroot were an army beyond a hypothetical matchup for the sake of argument. Oh well.

The should have made that into a supplement book instead of the farsight enclave since that could have just fit into the standard book well enough.

Man... it feels wierd agreeing with Peregrine.. but yeah.

Escalation is a Supplement, meaning it's part of the game, and in random PUG games should be expected.

In a standard Pickup game of Warhammer 40,000, you should really expect to see anything in the following list:Note, the above list is currently out of date. Not included are: Codex: Militarum Tempestus, Altar of War and Dataslate: Rising Leviathan III)

You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:From some 37-38 Army Lists.

That is the game, and if just going into a store and shouting 'anyone want a game X points', that's what you are asking to play.

Furthermore, for Escalation I honestly think it's fine, with one condition. - No ranged StrD weapons.

Melee StrD isn't that bad, and of course is on a 'regular' army list anyway, it ranged D that causes problems and wrecks what vague illusion of balance there is in the game.

in my local meta im going to say.. yes and no. will they become a standard. this i dont doubt, everyone and their mum either has a knight or a wraith or even a few ascended ctan are out n there (and at least three big stompas). howerver unless your playing the local escalation league you dont see them take the field. flyers are now a lot more standard in high point games with lots of ravenwings and vendettas and nightscythes. and as a result i think its only a matter of time before we see it, but it wont be soon. its just "waiting for its moment"

Superheavies are becoming increasingly "standard". But at this point, I think in most gaming groups the gentlemanly thing to do is tell your opponent you'd like to use units from a supplement beyond the rulebook and codices.

Regardless of what a "standard" game is to GW, I think enough gamers consider a "standard" game to be rulebook + codex that it's just the better thing to do to tell your opponent that. I'm sure a lot of gamers don't even know what all the FW IA books contain, I sure as hell don't know the rules for the majority of FW's models. If it happens to be a tournament, then it's up to the organisers to either ban or not ban the supplements.

We can go around throwing around terms like "TFG" all day and night and it doesn't do anything beneficial, at the end of the day the gentlemanly thing to do is to ensure the game is fun for both parties and if that means, in your local meta, that you tell your opponent you are using a non-standard unit and perhaps work around it to make the battle more interesting.

Hell, if you see your opponent plonk down an army that is totally ill suited to taking on your army and it's not a competitive game, I don't think it should be out of the ordinary to say before the game starts "oh, hey, you're really ill equipped for this, perhaps we'll count those dudes with flamers as meltas, or maybe I'll swap this unit out for something else since you have little means of killing it (or whatever)". "List tailoring" doesn't always have to be a bad thing, you can also use it to make sure armies are properly matched.

If somebody has brought a riptide heavy tau list or a revenant just to stomp the other person through unfair advantage then they are highly likely to be a poor person to play against even with a fluffy list. I'm not saying everybody who uses that sort of list or plays that sort of super heavy is a douche, just the sort who take actual pleasure in stomping over much weaker codexes rather than earning their victory through tactics and list building.

Denying a game because you have no counter to a particular unit, be it riptides or revenants or anything in between is one thing, refusing to play because it makes the job harder (rather than unachievable) is completely different.

 Ovion wrote:
That is the game, and if just going into a store and shouting 'anyone want a game X points', that's what you are asking to play.

Furthermore, for Escalation I honestly think it's fine, with one condition. - No ranged StrD weapons.

Most of us have the lines we've drawn (I think people like Peregrine who say EVERYTHING is fine are probably the rarity).

You just said "you should expect anything from anything.... oh, except ranged D". So you just drew your own line of what you think is balanced and what you think is not. That's why, IMO, you should just talk it out with your opponent instead of EXPECTING people to want to play the way you want to play. Hell, if your opponent is apprehensive about playing against your army, explain why the unit you want to take isn't actually that powerful (unless what you took was a Revenant, then you're just an arse ).

No, I said you should expect everything if shouting 'anyone want a game'.
If I go to a store and say 'Anyone want a 1500pt game' and my opponent plonks down Eldar with a Rev Titan that has the Pulsars, I'll still play him, just to see if I can actually do anything against that list - but I won't expect it to go well.


I then added that I think that even with all of the insanity in the above images I posted, overall it's mostly fine and remains pretty fun.
Apart from Ranged StrD, which takes the fun away a bit in non-apoc games, because it's lethality is greater than its cost.

So in our local gaming group, with have that singular house rule of no ranged StrD in non-apoc games. (And even before Escalation, we had a house rule of 0-1 Apoc units - max 50% of army w/ no ranged StrD anyway)
But if I go to the local store (or for some reason I go to my local GW) and ask for a random game I understand it's a possibility, and am prepared for and accept that risk.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Spoiler:

Superheavies are becoming increasingly "standard". But at this point, I think in most gaming groups the gentlemanly thing to do is tell your opponent you'd like to use units from a supplement beyond the rulebook and codices.

Regardless of what a "standard" game is to GW, I think enough gamers consider a "standard" game to be rulebook + codex that it's just the better thing to do to tell your opponent that. I'm sure a lot of gamers don't even know what all the FW IA books contain, I sure as hell don't know the rules for the majority of FW's models. If it happens to be a tournament, then it's up to the organisers to either ban or not ban the supplements.

We can go around throwing around terms like "TFG" all day and night and it doesn't do anything beneficial, at the end of the day the gentlemanly thing to do is to ensure the game is fun for both parties and if that means, in your local meta, that you tell your opponent you are using a non-standard unit and perhaps work around it to make the battle more interesting.

Hell, if you see your opponent plonk down an army that is totally ill suited to taking on your army and it's not a competitive game, I don't think it should be out of the ordinary to say before the game starts "oh, hey, you're really ill equipped for this, perhaps we'll count those dudes with flamers as meltas, or maybe I'll swap this unit out for something else since you have little means of killing it (or whatever)". "List tailoring" doesn't always have to be a bad thing, you can also use it to make sure armies are properly matched.

I agree you should try and ensure that the game is fun for everyone, but people not knowing all the rules or armies in a PUG match isn't an argument for not using it.

I don't really know what's in the Dark Angels book or most of their rules (they have termis and plasma and stuff right?), I'm also not really familiar with Legion of the Damned, or 90% of the Space Marine Chapter Tactics.
And even though I play an army out of the Grey Knights Codex, I'm only familiar with 3 models in there (Coteaz, Jokaero and Dreadknights), which is really my own fault, but I don't really like Grey Knights... soo that's that.
And that's just from 'standard' books, let alone the IA stuff.

But that doesn't mean I won't play against those armies, and it doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't either.
Someone not knowing what an army or model(s) are shouldn't prohibit anyone from playing the game.

 Ovion wrote:
No, I said you should expect everything if shouting 'anyone want a game'.
If I go to a store and say 'Anyone want a 1500pt game' and my opponent plonks down Eldar with a Rev Titan that has the Pulsars, I'll still play him, just to see if I can actually do anything against that list - but I won't expect it to go well.


I then added that I think that even with all of the insanity in the above images I posted, overall it's mostly fine and remains pretty fun.
Apart from Ranged StrD, which takes the fun away a bit in non-apoc games, because it's lethality is greater than its cost.

So in our local gaming group, with have that singular house rule of no ranged StrD in non-apoc games. (And even before Escalation, we had a house rule of 0-1 Apoc units - max 50% of army w/ no ranged StrD anyway)
But if I go to the local store (or for some reason I go to my local GW) and ask for a random game I understand it's a possibility, and am prepared for and accept that risk.

So you should expect anything... but you agree that StrD line over which things are bit much (beyond "fine")?

I mean, I pretty much agree that if you walk in to a store and don't know the local meta, you should expect to face anything given GW (IMO, stupidly) don't place limits on things. But I also think it's equally fair that if you walk in to a store toting a bunch of super-heavies to expect to occasionally be told "no thanks"... hence the part about actually discussing and compromising.

but people not knowing all the rules or armies in a PUG match isn't an argument for not using it.

I think you kind of grabbed the bull by the tail with my 1 sentence. I didn't mean to say ignorance is the only argument for not wanting to play against it, just pointing out that before we start calling people TFG for being apprehensive it's worth noting some people don't know what a Malcador or a Lifta Dropper or a Vampire Hunter is other than it's something big you just plonked down on the table.

Yes, Ranged StrD is just not balanced at all.
Even with the poor balance inherent to Warhammer 40,000.

Melee D is limited by needing to get to melee, and partially mitigated by how few targets it can hit with it at a time (rarely more than 1-2).

Ranged D is indiscrimate and brutal, usually templates (often large templates), and ignores all saves, and generally cheaper than it deserves to be.
Even in Apoc I think it's a little OTT.

Though I honestly think, if it allowed Invun Saves and had a straight AP value instead of ignore-all-armour (being it's almost all AP1/2 anyway), then it would be alright.


As to getting a bit irritable at the ignorance of armies argument... I see it a lot, and it's one of the worst arguments I see for no Forgeworld, or no this/that/other.

 Ovion wrote:
You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:

Spoiler:

I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.

Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.

Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.

Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.

 Kain wrote:
The current problem with superheavies is that some armies have endless options for them, many of them quite good, while others have very few, which may all just suck.

The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.

What FW and GW need to do is try and make it so that every faction has about as many choices as Imperial armies do with regards to lords of war/knights (with the same applying to out of codex units/mini-lists from slates, FW, and supplements) and do more to fix the imbalance between GCs and SHVs.

I mean, a generic Iron hands/Clan Chapter master can be easily built to take on and destroy a Heirodule bio-titan for less than half the points while a Revenant may take an entire army to beat down.

GW's plan clearly will introduce Super Heavies (and aircraft, and forts) for all armies as they go along, though it may take time.

Yes, the IK was GW's way to ease up the presumed future inclusion by default of Escalation/LoW so you can turn up for a regular game and your opponent can play a superheavy "just because".

Sadly it's as Peregrine states, but it shouldn't be. The fact this game demands you to hash out with your opponent what is and isn't allowed/wanted for a game is bad enough but I could certainly see somebody demanding to be allowed a superheavy because "it's in the rules".

 ashcroft wrote:

 Ovion wrote:
You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:

Spoiler:

I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.

Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.

Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.

Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.

I'm just worried this latest Codex Tempestus thing (which seems to be seperate to guard?), and whatever they plan to bring out over the next 3 months doesn't change the FoC any further.

I'm having enough trouble trying to update the allies matrix, let alone having to redo the FoC yet again

 ashcroft wrote:

 Ovion wrote:
You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:

Spoiler:

I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.

Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.

Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.

Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.

Yeah, the funny thing is, 2nd edition was really just a few tweaks away from a pretty decent rule set. What we have now is totally out of control and would take a mammoth effort to balance and turn from a convoluted mess in to a clear and concise game, far more so than 2nd edition.

Wait a sec, isnt the answer for most MC FMC Hvy wehicles SHV etc etc, fists melta and plenty of it?, sure MC and FMC you can poison to death, but the same still applies hit them hard and often....

now you may not like the notion but nids can wreck a superheavy, they use a MC and Smash attack it... orks have lots of power klaws its not like the older dexes cant deal with them... sure a reaver titan is a bit of a dick dropping what 8 lrg blast str D shots a turn (at 3 targets) but thats a nice 1500 something points in 1 model.....

decrying SHV is pointless... people did it over flyers at the begining of 6th, now people are EXPECTING them... i dont say it often but time to get over it and realise you may get lucky and only wear a baneblade

The problem is that it's getting way out of hand and GW is constantly pushing the goals backward to promote larger and larger armies, bigger and bigger toys and in general everything to push more product, and the laundry list of what is and isn't allowed in a game gets bigger because they think its reasonable to expect to discuss beforehand everything about the game before you play it.

This game has transformed so much its barely recognizable.

The thing is Wayne there is no allowed/dis-allowed list of models, unless your gaming group/house-rule it... you should be able to walk into a gaming club as a new person and say 1500 pts game whos up. and go for it... your list should be prepared for anything,

also use plenty of LoS blocking terrain... the titans cant see you cant shoot you, play cat and mouse. if he wants to leave it static just avoid it... you want to play an open parking lot for terrain, you are getting exactly what you wanted... to be shot to ribbons... lots of terrain and tighten things up, dont own fancy terrain, grab cerial boxes tuppawere whatever really... block that table up... and after the novelty of the titan wears off and they realise its a 1500 pt sink itll appear less...

above is just 1 way to deal with the problem of these big baddies.... my list of the chunky stuff is a warhound, a thunderhawk. baneblade, glaive, fellblad. im not short on anything to field... i also will happily lend any of them to an opponent who wants to borrow one... not a problem, hell you want to proxy 1 as something else go ahead i do not mind...
what i do mind is blind hatred of the damn things... for no reason other than it looks big and bad... total money spent on them thousands they are nice andpretty and rather amusing to field... the BaneBlade gets more use than the others... it goes pew pew with the cultists manning the guns... combat effectiveness... pretty low damn bad shooting haha... but all people see is a super heavy and cry...

Things i think do need a change would be stuff like StrD becoming Str10 AP1 Melta fleshbane so no more instagibbing vehicles. maybe a varation on melta so that armored ceramite still gets the extra dice... maybe toss instant death in as well... so you still get invluns so it carries lots of the damage but without the ridiculous StrD rules...and this could go for ALL StrD weapons not just the ranged ones...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
The thing is Wayne there is no allowed/dis-allowed list of models, unless your gaming group/house-rule it... you should be able to walk into a gaming club as a new person and say 1500 pts game whos up. and go for it... your list should be prepared for anything

Yet GW (well, Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace and another guy I forget the name of) has said in White Dwarf that they don't like the idea of "being ready for anything", and things like the IK are "an interesting tactical puzzle" that needs "solving".

I'm getting mixed messages here. The game wants to be everything to everyone, and fails miserably at everything as a result. You can't reasonably be prepared to take on flyers, superheavies, MCs and everything in between in a single army without severely hampering it, and then you end up playing to the army and not to the game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ashcroft wrote:

 Ovion wrote:
You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:

Spoiler:

I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.

Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.

Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.

Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.

Yeah, the funny thing is, 2nd edition was really just a few tweaks away from a pretty decent rule set. What we have now is totally out of control and would take a mammoth effort to balance and turn from a convoluted mess in to a clear and concise game, far more so than 2nd edition.

Actually you could do it by moving fortifications, flyers, super heavies and formations out from the core rules into optional expansion rulebooks like Apocalypse, Planetfall, Cities of Death and so on.

Unfortunately for GW's plans, I don't think those supplements were nearly as well received as the core game, so they have decided to try and make them non-optional.

The problem obviously arises that a lot of players really don't want to play those extras, for various reasons, some of which are perfectly valid.

To say, "Oh but I paid for my Baneblade so you have to let me use it", doesn't work, because I can just as easily say, "I paid for 40K and deliberately didn't buy Apocalypse, because I don't want to play with Baneblades". Neither of us can force each other to play.

The solution is to do as various members have said above -- discuss possible match-ups with possible opponents and try to compromise.

Kilkrazy

i understand that, but that comes back to the at the end of the day you can say no to anything for anyreason.... and yes talking about it before hand is great as well.. but well i dunno i like a challenge and no prior knowledge can be interesting....

really though, flyers you take an adl and that about covers that... or jsut ignore them as best you can.. all the MC SH etc etc... melta LC pfists etc, if your not taking them.... well... what happens when you come up against a landraider, hive tyrant, riptide or a wraithknight? play to your armies strengths. iv come up against 3 wraithknights know what i did... i ignored them and wiped the rest off the table... then he couldnt score... again terrain and objectives make most of the big things irrelivant

DE i think is one of the better armies for dealing with the big stuff lots of poison lots of lance haywire....