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.
2020/12/14 21:48:09
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
The Bloody Sails
2020/12/14 21:57:07
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Denegaar wrote: Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
Yeah, true. Iona wins on the spot, unlike Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle. You are absolutely right.
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 22:02:28
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
selfishness?
Sarcasm, yes.
Selfishness, mostly yes.I do know a lot of people that share my opinions on super-heavies, but I know more people that either don't mind them, or even like them.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 22:14:20
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
I'm focusing on damage output and how balanced a unit is because that's all that matters when suggesting that large numbers of units be outright banned or rendered unplayable via points increases. Not its physical size.
You said that Spartans were ok, so I guess Typhons and my Cerberus get a pass as well. Very arbitrary. What about the Macharius?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Denegaar wrote: Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
Yeah, true. Iona wins on the spot, unlike Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle. You are absolutely right.
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
Not playing against something you don't find fun is the best way to deal with that sort of problem. Hoping that they'll get priced out of the game so that those of us that find playing with and against them fun can't isn't.
2020/12/14 22:16:49
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I'm not even answering you about Iona, I'm pretty sure you are just trolling right now. That, or you have no idea what are you talking about.
On topic.
About 40k, I'm feeling like playing Crusade more and more lately. Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be necessary to have 4-5 books to play the format in a year or so.
That much bookeeping is scary.
The Bloody Sails
2020/12/14 22:20:03
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
I'm focusing on damage output and how balanced a unit is because that's all that matters when suggesting that large numbers of units be outright banned or rendered unplayable via points increases. Not its physical size.
You said that Spartans were ok, so I guess Typhons and my Cerberus get a pass as well. Very arbitrary. What about the Macharius?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Denegaar wrote: Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
Yeah, true. Iona wins on the spot, unlike Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle. You are absolutely right.
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
Not playing against something you don't find fun is the best way to deal with that sort of problem. Hoping that they'll get priced out of the game so that those of us that find playing with and against them fun can't isn't.
Yes, the powerlevel is all that matters. Not the feel or fun of it.
Macharius looks too big. And yes, it IS very arbitrary.
I agree that it's the best way to deal with it.
No, I haven't claimed that hoping for a points increase is the best way to deal with the problem. but I can still hope and wish for it so we who hates them doesn't have to deal with them at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Denegaar wrote: I'm not even answering you about Iona, I'm pretty sure you are just trolling right now. That, or you have no idea what are you talking about.
On topic.
About 40k, I'm feeling like playing Crusade more and more lately. Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be necessary to have 4-5 books to play the format in a year or so.
That much bookeeping is scary.
And I hope you know what Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle does, and why they are vastly more powerful than Iona.There's a reason why Iona isn't played in cEDH when they play without a ban list.
Yeah, the book bloat is a real bummer. And that's why I've stopped buying codexes, supplements and rulebooks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 22:23:45
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 22:25:29
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Was hoping we could use the thread to talk about our 9th Ed game, based on our real world gaming.
Harlies do well for a number of reasons. I have fought them as Dark Angels, AM and Necrons. Their Troops are mobile, killy, reasonably priced, and are durable despite being T3. Their Fusion pistols let them melt vehicles and elite infantry from safely inside their transports. Those transports greatly increase their mobility and durability. They can quickly get to objectives. Their bikes also deal with armour and can thin hordes. I am not faint for a nerf, just pointing out that they do really well in 9th.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/12/14 22:29:20
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
I'm focusing on damage output and how balanced a unit is because that's all that matters when suggesting that large numbers of units be outright banned or rendered unplayable via points increases. Not its physical size.
You said that Spartans were ok, so I guess Typhons and my Cerberus get a pass as well. Very arbitrary. What about the Macharius?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Denegaar wrote: Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
Yeah, true. Iona wins on the spot, unlike Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle. You are absolutely right.
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
Not playing against something you don't find fun is the best way to deal with that sort of problem. Hoping that they'll get priced out of the game so that those of us that find playing with and against them fun can't isn't.
Yes, the powerlevel is all that matters. Not the feel or fun of it.
Macharius looks too big. And yes, it IS very arbitrary.
I agree that it's the best way to deal with it.
No, I haven't claimed that hoping for a points increase is the best way to deal with the problem. but I can still hope and wish for it so we who hates them doesn't have to deal with them at all.
But many people feel they're quite fun to both play and play against, as you yourself say:
Kall3m0n wrote:Selfishness, mostly yes.I do know a lot of people that share my opinions on super-heavies, but I know more people that either don't mind them, or even like them.
Many found Death Guard with their 5+++ were unfun to play against (I wasn't one of them, for the record). Everything can't be equally fun for everyone. You can't go asking for bans based on subjective opinions.
2020/12/14 22:35:04
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
I'm focusing on damage output and how balanced a unit is because that's all that matters when suggesting that large numbers of units be outright banned or rendered unplayable via points increases. Not its physical size.
You said that Spartans were ok, so I guess Typhons and my Cerberus get a pass as well. Very arbitrary. What about the Macharius?
Kall3m0n wrote:
Denegaar wrote: Barring fringe types of cards, EDH bans are because of power level. There's still strong interactions, but not even remotely comparable to the actual banlist.
40k doesn't need bans, rules and points can be changed from year to year, and the game feels allright even if playing vs a superheavy. Your feels are yours, not a real problem for the vast majority of the playerbase, just deal with it.
My Scourges are Glass Cannons, your Haulers are not.
Yeah, true. Iona wins on the spot, unlike Dramatic Scepter and Demonic Oracle. You are absolutely right.
Then I wish they increased the super heavies' points by 100%
I am dealing with it. By not playing against them.
Not playing against something you don't find fun is the best way to deal with that sort of problem. Hoping that they'll get priced out of the game so that those of us that find playing with and against them fun can't isn't.
Yes, the powerlevel is all that matters. Not the feel or fun of it.
Macharius looks too big. And yes, it IS very arbitrary.
I agree that it's the best way to deal with it.
No, I haven't claimed that hoping for a points increase is the best way to deal with the problem. but I can still hope and wish for it so we who hates them doesn't have to deal with them at all.
But many people feel they're quite fun to both play and play against, as you yourself say:
Kall3m0n wrote:Selfishness, mostly yes.I do know a lot of people that share my opinions on super-heavies, but I know more people that either don't mind them, or even like them.
Many found Death Guard with their 5+++ were unfun to play against (I wasn't one of them, for the record). Everything can't be equally fun for everyone. You can't go asking for bans based on subjective opinions.
No, and they never will be.
Ofc I can. And that's what I'm (we're) doing. Is it selfish? Yes. Will it ever bear fruit? No. Sure, it effects individual games that would be had, but that's it. Our wish for bannings, or make them too expensive to ever play will never convince Games Workshop to actually do that.
Why are you so flabbergasted that some people want units they hate gone from the game?
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 22:36:40
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I'm happy to be anti Super Heavies. The problem is that they they become *the game*.
9th is finally an interesting objective focused game all about movement. That goes out the window if you turn up and your army is essentially 4~ big models. (Or 2 big models and some guys, whatever) We are back to "I'm gonna roll some dice and your gonna roll some dice and we'll see who is luckier". Which I know some people remain convinced is all that 40k is and ever could be - but I just don't think its true.
Certainly I found the 9~ months of "do you Castellan bro" to be the worst period of 8th.
2020/12/14 23:05:30
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Tyel wrote: I'm happy to be anti Super Heavies. The problem is that they they become *the game*.
9th is finally an interesting objective focused game all about movement. That goes out the window if you turn up and your army is essentially 4~ big models. (Or 2 big models and some guys, whatever) We are back to "I'm gonna roll some dice and your gonna roll some dice and we'll see who is luckier". Which I know some people remain convinced is all that 40k is and ever could be - but I just don't think its true.
Certainly I found the 9~ months of "do you Castellan bro" to be the worst period of 8th.
I agree, but for me, that's not because the Castellan "are big" but because they were overpowered and unbalanced.
Same happened with Eldar Scatterbikes or Necron Decurion. Broken lists existed in the past and always felt bad to play against, because of it's overwhelming power.
For me, it's not the size of the models but the rules that follow them.
I can understand that some people like to play vs some armies more than others, but that opinion can't be the basis of some kind of "banlist".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 23:05:57
The Bloody Sails
2020/12/14 23:14:52
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
For me, it's not the size of the models but the rules that follow them.
I can understand that some people like to play vs some armies more than others, but that opinion can't be the basis of some kind of "banlist".
I don't think there is a big chance that if GW were ever to make a unit like a castellan, they would not give it a similar set of rules.
As Tyel said,the way GW writes their rules, one of two thing happens. Either such a unit becomes a hard meta skew. Or it gets nerfed real hard and people are now owners of heavy paper weight in a strange shape.
That doesn't mean, that I think GW won't be making more of them. I would just rather not see everyone forced in buying units that you have to have, because otherwise you ain't using the core mechanics of your army.
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.
2020/12/14 23:44:32
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Denegaar wrote: I agree, but for me, that's not because the Castellan "are big" but because they were overpowered and unbalanced.
Same happened with Eldar Scatterbikes or Necron Decurion. Broken lists existed in the past and always felt bad to play against, because of it's overwhelming power.
For me, it's not the size of the models but the rules that follow them.
I can understand that some people like to play vs some armies more than others, but that opinion can't be the basis of some kind of "banlist".
Well, I can't ban anything. I can just advocate that GW don't allow these sort of lists to take up a gate keeping position - which Knights have often done since their release (and when not in that position, its usually because they are awful). Which I guess sucks for those who've collected those models - but its my preference.
I think my dislike is a two-fold thing.
Yes, things are obviously *worse* if they are overpowered/undercosted/imbalanced. Because people like winning. There can also be a novelty in playing a different list that you don't see all the time - because it generally isn't considered that great.
But to a degree - by definition, lists with multiple super heavies become hard skews.
To an extent you can avoid this. A single Baneblade for instance is arguably just 3 Leman Russ tanks glued together - and I think (although not really an expert) its worse for it. Some of the other variants might be a bit different, but if someone brought 3 Leman Russ and an otherwise varied IG army, I wouldn't think it was an especially hard skew.
But once you have say 3 Baneblades, the game just turns into "can you handle Baneblades y/n". Right now the answer for most top lists is "yes, no problem" - so its not really a meta relevant feature, but I'm also not convinced it can make for an especially good game, because there are few choices for either player. Its similar to showing up with 9 Leman Russ - but even then there's still more in the movement, due to having more models.
To go another way, ye olde Magnus/Mortarion lists. They could be good/bad/indifferent from their points - but the list is so different to how *I* think 40k lists should look. Which is obviously personal bias - but so's everything.
Its finding that fine line on things. It was interesting perhaps to watch some of the discussion on the Silent King, and the divide between "10/10, more or less must take" and "trash, should be 100 points cheaper". Now I don't want to question that analysis, but I think finding that line is the problem for every unit - but it seems to loom especially large when you have these 450-550 point monsters.
Its like Eldar Flyer Spam was a lame skew. Do I want every flyer (Eldar or otherwise) banned from the game? Not really - but I don't want them to be the strongest choice, so spamming them is a regular thing. Which unfortunately, in the duality of competitive 40k, and forum exaggeration, means they must be awful, because there is no middle ground.
2020/12/15 06:37:36
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
No, Apoc was made for them. Sort of. (it's real function is to suck $ out of people by making them think they need yet another whole rule set to play ____) Warhounds & Reavers were in the game editions before any version of Apoc was written. And guess what? When GW discontinues the current version of Apoc? (and they will) These things & more will still be here.
And my shiny new FW Compendium, complete with the new 40k logo? Has nothing at all about Apoc rules in it.
2020/12/15 06:45:34
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Denegaar wrote: I agree, but for me, that's not because the Castellan "are big" but because they were overpowered and unbalanced.
Same happened with Eldar Scatterbikes or Necron Decurion. Broken lists existed in the past and always felt bad to play against, because of it's overwhelming power.
For me, it's not the size of the models but the rules that follow them.
I can understand that some people like to play vs some armies more than others, but that opinion can't be the basis of some kind of "banlist".
Well, I can't ban anything. I can just advocate that GW don't allow these sort of lists to take up a gate keeping position - which Knights have often done since their release (and when not in that position, its usually because they are awful). Which I guess sucks for those who've collected those models - but its my preference.
I think my dislike is a two-fold thing.
Yes, things are obviously *worse* if they are overpowered/undercosted/imbalanced. Because people like winning. There can also be a novelty in playing a different list that you don't see all the time - because it generally isn't considered that great.
But to a degree - by definition, lists with multiple super heavies become hard skews.
To an extent you can avoid this. A single Baneblade for instance is arguably just 3 Leman Russ tanks glued together - and I think (although not really an expert) its worse for it. Some of the other variants might be a bit different, but if someone brought 3 Leman Russ and an otherwise varied IG army, I wouldn't think it was an especially hard skew.
But once you have say 3 Baneblades, the game just turns into "can you handle Baneblades y/n". Right now the answer for most top lists is "yes, no problem" - so its not really a meta relevant feature, but I'm also not convinced it can make for an especially good game, because there are few choices for either player. Its similar to showing up with 9 Leman Russ - but even then there's still more in the movement, due to having more models.
To go another way, ye olde Magnus/Mortarion lists. They could be good/bad/indifferent from their points - but the list is so different to how *I* think 40k lists should look. Which is obviously personal bias - but so's everything.
Its finding that fine line on things. It was interesting perhaps to watch some of the discussion on the Silent King, and the divide between "10/10, more or less must take" and "trash, should be 100 points cheaper". Now I don't want to question that analysis, but I think finding that line is the problem for every unit - but it seems to loom especially large when you have these 450-550 point monsters.
Its like Eldar Flyer Spam was a lame skew. Do I want every flyer (Eldar or otherwise) banned from the game? Not really - but I don't want them to be the strongest choice, so spamming them is a regular thing. Which unfortunately, in the duality of competitive 40k, and forum exaggeration, means they must be awful, because there is no middle ground.
And for me it's the opposite. I don't care about the rules (to an extent). If I see a super-heavy on the table, I know it's gonna be a boring game for either me or my opponent. And if my opponent isn't having fun, then to and extent, neither am I.
In your examples of Leman Russ's, I'd much rather fight 3 Russes (in a regular game of 40k), 100% of the time. No exceptions. And that's because TO ME, they FEEL like a part of the game. They don't feel "imported" from another system or "format". And to the same extent, I'd much rather fight 3-4 Baneblades than one Warhound. TO ME, they have no place in the game what so ever. Unless we're talking about Apoc. Then yes.
I will never stop proclaiming that huge models are for huge games, and large models are for large games. Is it subjective? Yes. I have never stated otherwise!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 12:03:34
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/15 12:20:59
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
There's a distinct difference between saying you personally don't like fighting against the likes of a Baneblade, and starting that you want all "big things" banned.
I don't like facing cheesy tournaments lists, but I don't think my arbitrary definition of "cheesy tournament list" should be *banned*, I just avoid playing cheesy tournament lists.
Personal preferences warrant personal action, not fundamental rules changes.
2020/12/15 12:52:32
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
kirotheavenger wrote: There's a distinct difference between saying you personally don't like fighting against the likes of a Baneblade, and starting that you want all "big things" banned.
I don't like facing cheesy tournaments lists, but I don't think my arbitrary definition of "cheesy tournament list" should be *banned*, I just avoid playing cheesy tournament lists.
Personal preferences warrant personal action, not fundamental rules changes.
If you're unhappy with something, do you want it changed or do you just want to avoid it?
I don'¨t think huge things have a place in the game, and therefor I want them gone. I do refuse to play against them, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist in the game.
Neither do I, and GW has actually banned cheese and exploits before. Now, super-heavies are neither cheesy or exploits, but there are things that are banworthy/grossly overprice them beyond usefulness even in narrative play.
Banning super-heavies would not change the game fundamentally.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/15 13:40:41
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
BlackoCatto wrote: As a Guard player it feels like I am playing an entirely different game from whomever I am playing and usually not for the better.
As a GK player I feel as if I play a totaly different army and game, when ever I go first and second. And according people smarter then me, this happens to be true, as far as tournament win/lose ratios goes related to when ever a GK player goes first or second.
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.
2020/12/15 15:22:44
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
BlackoCatto wrote: As a Guard player it feels like I am playing an entirely different game from whomever I am playing and usually not for the better.
As a GK player I feel as if I play a totaly different army and game, when ever I go first and second. And according people smarter then me, this happens to be true, as far as tournament win/lose ratios goes related to when ever a GK player goes first or second.
Yeah, GK are in a bad spot. And have been for quite a while.
The Bloody Sails 
.
