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.

What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

I really think all units should be played with first to see if they even are a problem, the meta a lot of times will short itself out too (unless it is a completely broken unit). This is a sad knee jerk reaction. Give it some time at least.

For 300 points, I can bring more than 2 Wraithlords!

Or maybe a pair of falcons! Imagine a pair of hits-on-3s (unless they moved, otherwise 4+s) with a 3+ instead of that weak 4++ at their super-sturdy T7! And with BLs, it's 3x S8 Ap-4 shots with D3 or Dd6 damage each! Sure it's only about 6 shots vs the 16 shots you get, but it does half again the damage for each hit!

300 points is cheap for that kinda dakka *or* that kinda defensive profile.

As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. edit: just reread sorry.

I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"

 Stevefamine wrote:
As an IH player that doesnt even have his first one painted up - they're land raider point prices and yet extremely common already locally. Is the event at 2000-2500 points? Then I can see it being an issue.

I'd say banning them from events is over the top - but they should 100% get a nerf in the future to make them not an "auto take 2-3" "why aren't you taking them?"

How do you nerf them is the question, if you raise costs then it hurts none iron hands, you amend iron hands in any way and all it does is punish the rest of the range to get at the leviathan.

To be honest, saying it can't benefit from 1 or 2 parts of the iron hands combo might be the fairest way to bring it in line.

I'm laughing at y'all. A counter meta will develop, this is just a large stone thrown into a small pound. Haywire is a fine counter to this, because it can't negate mortal wounds. Weight of Fire will be a fine counter, because it's all damage 1. Mortarion with a couple buff powers still kills him dead (along with everything else nearby). Locking it in combat still works.

Pretty much; the game still works. It only doesn't work if you play a standard "fire optimization" method of playing, which is at risk whenever new stuff comes out, because it may no longer be optimal (something else might be).

even for non iron hands they're considered one of the best units out there. That said it';d be easy eneugh to ammend the stratigium to only apply to codex dreads.

or simply ammend the strat to cost 1 CP for dreads with 9< wounds and 2 CPs for dreads with 10+ wounds

 Horst wrote:


Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.

Why? The broken stuff comes from GW codex. Like here the issue isn't leviathan itself. It wasn't broken before marine codex 8.5 came. It's broken because 8.5 codex gave up so much ridiculous amount of free rules and buffs without any concern.

Issue isn't leviathan. Issue is marine codex.

tneva82 wrote:

 Horst wrote:


Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.

Why? The broken stuff comes from GW codex. Like here the issue isn't leviathan itself. It wasn't broken before marine codex 8.5 came. It's broken because 8.5 codex gave up so much ridiculous amount of free rules and buffs without any concern.

Issue isn't leviathan. Issue is marine codex.

Issue is iron hands specificly.

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.

Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily

for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool


then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker

So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.




And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.

Love how folks decry the house rule...

...while ITC is the most played tournament standard.

ITC are just glorified house rules, and gakky ones at that.

Lemondish wrote:
Love how folks decry the house rule...

...while ITC is the most played tournament standard.

ITC are just glorified house rules, and gakky ones at that.

Quite true.

 Horst wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Anytime a tournament starts house-ruling, its a sign of decline. No player is going to want to manage/list adjust for 5 different sets of house rules all developed by people whose goal was to nerf everything but they and their friend's faction. Its why I didn't get into this hobby until 8th ed dropped:

*Approaches FLGS desk during 5th-7th: How can I play in the tournament?

*Employee Thunks down a 20 page document. This is the official list of everything that is banned, restricted, etc. If you want to play squats, there's another packet I can give you.

During 8th ed: How can I play in the tournament?

*Employee: This is one page summary of the ITC format. Its the same used by every store in 20 miles.

*Me, looking over the list: There's no ban section...

*Employee: If you bring a titan we'll rough you up in the parking lot

*Me: Fair enough

Meh, a flat forgeworld ban isn't that uncommon. Sadly, while I like forgeworld, I think banning them from comp play altogether might be needed.

It wasn't a flat forgeworld ban. It was basically a list of everything that the forums had complained about but wasn't a blood angel model. I don't know many places that have such a ban in effect any more. The worst you can accuse forgeworld of these days is the Xiphon Interceptor and a bunch of outdated rules keywords.

Even with a forgeworld ban, you are enabling the situation where a new player gets excited about a model, checks out the local scene, and is told that they aren't going to be allowed to play if that model is present. They don't have a commitment to the hobby yet, so its much easier for such players to turn to other games while your player meta dies via attrition.

They're not even that good in an IH list because they cost so much, have the relic tax and don't want to be touched in CQC.

Throw in the fact that they do junk damage against anything t8 and they have supper limited range most competitive lists I've seen will maybe have one (vs the 2-3 executioners which seem even more auto-take).

Not the rush out and spam 6 flyrants level of broken. Yep they are hard to kill and synergize really well with the rest of the tools IH bring to the table (t8 flying screens) but that is an IH problem and not a levi dread problem (say it loud for the people in the back).

That being said I had 3 and now am selling at least 1 because of the inevitable nerf coming due to casual and mid-table warriors screaming about how OP they are and GWs complete lack of understanding what makes a unit good and how to balance anything this edition.

I've run 2 in a SW list or one as DW and they are just okay in those armies (negs to hit after moving, no half damage strat, no -1 to damage relic, old style re-rolls, no extra -1 ap, no native re-roll 1s but yet I'll be expected to pay points like it's IH, Bobby G problem all over again...).

 Togusa wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
Some friends shared this with me. I think that it's extreme, however necessary. I've played the new IH stuff with my knights. It's not even close to fun. I killed almost nothing.

When is forgeworld going to fix that model? It's beyond broken, straight unfun to play against.

Hit on 2+ reroll 1s, 4++ @T8 with 16 S8 AP-2 2 DMG shots.

Seriously.

It has 20 shots lol. at 16 it would be much more fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
They're not even that good in an IH list because they cost so much, have the relic tax and don't want to be touched in CQC.

Throw in the fact that they do junk damage against anything t8 and they have supper limited range most competitive lists I've seen will maybe have one (vs the 2-3 executioners which seem even more auto-take).

Not the rush out and spam 6 flyrants level of broken. Yep they are hard to kill and synergize really well with the rest of the tools IH bring to the table (t8 flying screens) but that is an IH problem and not a levi dread problem (say it loud for the people in the back).

That being said I had 3 and now am selling at least 1 because of the inevitable nerf coming due to casual and mid-table warriors screaming about how OP they are and GWs complete lack of understanding what makes a unit good and how to balance anything this edition.

I've run 2 in a SW list or one as DW and they are just okay in those armies (negs to hit after moving, no half damage strat, no -1 to damage relic, old style re-rolls, no extra -1 ap, no native re-roll 1s but yet I'll be expected to pay points like it's IH, Bobby G problem all over again...).

300 points not very expensive...

TO specifically banned IH levi not everyone elses. Which IH is in fact broken...It is damn near impossible to destroy. In fact - IH are broken in general. IH are basically auto win right now.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

A 300 point model SHOULD be good.

Laughs in G/Morkanaut

It's a bit like the alaitoc flyer spam problem, taking crimson hunters in anything other than alaitoc and they're still good but they become more balanced.
Leviathans in non iron hand armies are good, it's the iron hand buffs that push it over the edge.

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

A 300 point model SHOULD be good.

Laughs in G/Morkanaut

**Laughes harder in GK Paladin Squad**

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

no the game isn't just about killing. GW balanced the game around objective based play and when you change the objective, GEE SUDDENLY BALANCE ISSUES CROP UP!

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.

Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily

for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool


then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker

So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.




And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.

Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

That's just silly.

The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.

I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.

Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

no the game isn't just about killing. GW balanced the game around objective based play and when you change the objective, GEE SUDDENLY BALANCE ISSUES CROP UP!

Dude...do you understand that when you get blown off an objective you no longer have that objective...the game is about killing and controlling objectives...With damage being as absurd as it is in this edition. What GW mission doesn't reward killing ether?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

So the problem with this mentality is that GW has created an IGOUGO game, which with broken units like the Levi, can totally ruin a game for the play that didn't roll well to decide who goes first. I'm fine with this thing wiping out my stupidly placed unit. My problem is that this prevents a fair match, in any respect. I play an army that mostly punches it's problems, custodes. It's very difficult to take out three Levis if half your force is dead on your first turn.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

That's just silly.

The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.

I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.

Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.

Sounds to me like the bloke you were playing was just trying to have fun while ignoring free objectives that he easily could have controlled because you had no units left...Not saying you can't win a game in the manner you are saying but complaining about ITC objectives is just lame - they reward the same kind of play that GW missions do for the most part. They are just a little different.

 Xenomancers wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.

Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily

for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool


then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker

So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.




And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.

Gman tax is an imagined explaination. No such tax existed the marine codex was just one of the first out the gate...or I suppose GK were paying the Gman tax too? Like seriously - you could take unnerfed gman and insert him into current UM rules and current ironhands would still obliterate them. They have an absurd chapter tactic (it's 3 competitive armies tactic in 1 (tau sept/ulthwe/hawshroud). Their relic for -1 damage is absurd. Their super doctrine in absurd (ignore penalties for heavies and rr 1's because effectively +1 to hit to your whole force when moving wasn't good enough). Plus they have a 5++ aura with character protections...basically a marines dream (this isn't exactly OP but another unique durability buff that Ironhands should not have exclusive access too) When you throw this on top of the already over the top levi (not really a huge problem because every army has a unit this good or close to this good probably) and you have a recipe for disaster...

"Gman tax" may or may not have been an intentional thing (probably not). But it was *absolutely* a thing.

See, armies without Gman were nowhere close to competitive. Armies with Gman were competitive. So you have units - Tacs, Razorbacks, whatever - that were simultaneously competitive and noncompetitive at the same time. Depending on whether you took Gman. Thus, the units were fine(-ish) played with him, but clearly needed a points cut without him. As such, there was a clear difference between their value with Gman vs without Gman.

So, given the rules, the points of these units themselves could do one of several things:
a) Make these units competitive without Gman (and thus be OP with Gman)
b) Make these units competitive with Gman (and thus trash without him)
c) Make these units unfair (either way) whether Gman was included or not

Given that, there is a construct where there is a points value each such unit is worth in scenario (a), and a points value in scenario (b). The difference between them is the "tax". The unit either pays the "tax" (and thus is trash without Gman) or doesn't pay the "tax" (and thus is OP with Gman). The "Tax" was real, even if it wasn't intentional. It was a very useful construct for discussing the situation (and relative options).

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

So the problem with this mentality is that GW has created an IGOUGO game, which with broken units like the Levi, can totally ruin a game for the play that didn't roll well to decide who goes first. I'm fine with this thing wiping out my stupidly placed unit. My problem is that this prevents a fair match, in any respect. I play an army that mostly punches it's problems, custodes. It's very difficult to take out three Levis if half your force is dead on your first turn.

Totally - Igougo is a much bigger problem than mission objectives in ITC or chapter approved missions. The counter deploy for going second fixes that quite a bit but with STI still existing deployment is still pretty screwed for 1 player...it's just random which player that is. I would love to see the appoc way of things make it into 40k in regards to unit activation...I don't like anything else about apoc though.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

look at the primaries/secondaries and most of them are centered around killing stuff. meaning that a leviathan loves that ruleset.

Kill, kill more : self explanatory
hold more : if you kill the enemy units, you get kill more easily

for secondaries you get :
Headhunter
Kingslayer
Marked for death
Titan slayers
Gang busters
Big game hunter
Pick your poison
Butcher's bill
The reaper
2/3 of oldschool


then you get the non kill-centric missions
Hold
Recon
Behind enemy lines
Ground control
king of the hill (technically could be favored by killing stuff so they can contest the midfield)
engineers
Linebreaker

So what happens when youve got so many different options for killing stuff? You park yourself in the center of the map and shoot at everything.




And yes, the issue is iron hands, levis are Ok when ran as other chapters. Not having chapter-specific pts cost is a huge mistake from GW, they shouldve learned from the old space marine codex where everything had "the guilliman tax" on it which made other chapters not competitive.

You know the LARGE majority of the kill based secondaries DO NOT stack with each other yea?

They are still about killing.

Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.

The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.

It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.

Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.

Tactics employed will be worlds apart.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

People that complain about that are the same kind of people that think they should win a game they got tabled in because they had a 30 point unit sitting out of LOS on an objective all game...Just ignore...the game is about killing. GW has some games that aren't about killing...like shadespire. You can literally play shadespire and ignore killing all together.

That's just silly.

The last game I played was 2k, and I had just some HQs and two Spiders in one unit left on the board. I had only eliminated one entire unit - which was a 10man chaff 7ppm unit. Couldn't outgun him, so I outplayed him.

I've tied up a 3k vs 3k game where I had a single Dire Avenger *model* on the board, and was still facing over 2k points remaining.

Many games do come down to killing. And killing is a large part of objective play, most of the time. But it's not 100% of the game 100% of the time.

Sounds to me like the bloke you were playing was just trying to have fun while ignoring free objectives that he easily could have controlled because you had no units left...Not saying you can't win a game in the manner you are saying but complaining about ITC objectives is just lame - they reward the same kind of play that GW missions do for the most part. They are just a little different.

The first game was actually a prep game for tourny play (for my opponent). So clearly the guy was trying to "win" more than just kill me. He just got overly invested in killing me when he saw how badly the dice hated me, and didn't notice how I painted him into a corner. The second game, yeah, my opponent was just trying to kill me.

Killing better makes the objectives game easier, but only caring about killing makes it really easy to lose on objectives.