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 gb
Fixture of Dakka







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

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

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

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

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

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

^^^THIS! Excellent Dysartes. Exalted.
   
Made in gb
Instigating Incubi




The dark behind the eyes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wouldn't.

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


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

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


Apple fox wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"



 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





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

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

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

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

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





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


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

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


So you have problem with people gimping their army?

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 09:12:22


12 factions for Lord of The Rings
4663
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

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

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 10:41:27


   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 Dysartes wrote:

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


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





 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

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


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


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

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

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

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


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

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





sorry, wrong thread

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 10:59:15


 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





By removing them.



https://mobile.twitter.com/SewerWatch 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
By removing them.


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
4663
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





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


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

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

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

"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 gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

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


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

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


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

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

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





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


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed


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



https://mobile.twitter.com/SewerWatch 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





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

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

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


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


Sure. When whatever faction you play gets removed


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


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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 11:28:50


"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
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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


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

   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

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





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

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

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

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


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



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

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


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


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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 12:32:44


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

You mean like the current stat degradation chart for the Stompa? No thanks. That's one of the reasons the Stompa is as bad as it is.
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 13:43:16


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





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

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 14:00:15


Guard gaurd gAAAARDity Gaurd gaurd.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

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

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

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

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





the_scotsman wrote:


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




God I hope not. Most vehicles now lost a lot of durability that way.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

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

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

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

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

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

You think 3CP+550 points (650 for 4 sponsons) is bad for a Baneblade? Try 3CP+880 points for a Fellblade. Damn it gw.
   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






@Gadzilla

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 14:28:08


Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





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


That tends to happen here, I'm finding.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
@Gadzilla

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

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

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


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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 14:38:47


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

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

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




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

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

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

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: