Switch Theme:

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.



Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.

Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
So what's your argument? That GW is just too stupid and incompetent to realize they haven't provided a good way to field a single LoW?

Yes.

That's my take as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/11 21:12:49


 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




yukishiro1 wrote:
Man, and I thought *I* was cynical about GW's competence.



I trust their marketing team, they want to make money. They make money by selling me a wraithknight kit, I'm a filthy casual and don't want 3 but I still want it to feel a part of my army and with armies rules. I can't do that so I buy none.

How much money does GW make in that scenario?

They want people buying singular lords of war, people don't because it's a harsh price to pay. Those kits therefore won't sell as well as they did once.

It's not the mini designers or the marketing team who are on the wrong page here.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.



Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.

Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.
But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Of course they are.

What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
The proof of burden is on you to explain how Knights and KLoS 'works' when taken under SHA and not SH in 2k point army.

My opinion is that it works only as much as any other LoW taken under SHA.

They are more viable because they are more fairly priced based on their stats and abilities. They still suffer from the loss of CP and faction traits (which knights should, as they are soup in these cases), but are not overpriced. Losing CP, faction traits, and paying an inflated price in points is a triple hit other LOWs have trouble overcoming.
Are they actually fairly priced or are they underpriced? KLoS, maybe. I feel like its points were properly ported over from 7th ed, probably due to the fact that it's actually a pretty old model that survived multiple editions - but knights? I'd think their point costs are intentionally deflated to make mono knights list work.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/11 23:36:16


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Blackie wrote:
Fix is simple. Just add 0-1 LoW slots to battallions and brigades.

Give LoWs appropriate points costs so they won't break the game.


That might be a little more free than even. Limit LOW's 0-1 per army without a LOW detach.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.



Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.

Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.

But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over..

You're right. But is three Baneblades and a "loyal 52" really what you consider a balanced army? Wouldn't you rather see a single Baneblade and a more standard mixed force of units?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Of course they are.

What false analogy? That knights aren't dominating the meta, either as a standalone army or as soup? Are you saying that they are?
The proof of burden is on you to explain how Knights and KLoS 'works' when taken under SHA and not SH in 2k point army.

My opinion is that it works only as much as any other LoW taken under SHA.

They are more viable because they are more fairly priced based on their stats and abilities. They still suffer from the loss of CP and faction traits (which knights should, as they are soup in these cases), but are not overpriced. Losing CP, faction traits, and paying an inflated price in points is a triple hit other LOWs have trouble overcoming.
Are they actually fairly priced or are they underpriced? KLoS, maybe. I feel like its points were properly ported over from 7th ed, probably due to the fact that it's actually a pretty old model that survived multiple editions - but knights? I'd think their point costs are intentionally deflated to make mono knights list work.

Perhaps. Maybe knights need to go up, while other LOWs come down. They could meet in the middle.

Breton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Fix is simple. Just add 0-1 LoW slots to battallions and brigades.

Give LoWs appropriate points costs so they won't break the game.


That might be a little more free than even. Limit LOW's 0-1 per army without a LOW detach.

Agreed.
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
He's saying they're encouraging you to buy 3 or more of the big kits because you can't effectively use just one.



Or, you buy 0 in that case. It's a nonsensical argument. GW is not pushing 3 baneblade armies, theyre not recommending 3 lord of skulls. They recommend adding a knight/equivalent to your army.

Exactly. Three standard Baneblades (two sponsons) is 1650 points and costs 6CP, that isn't a viable option. LOWs require infantry for screening, dealing with smaller threats, and taking and holding objectives, a combined arms approach, which is why a single LOW slot was included in the old Combined Arms detachment. That's similar to how heavy armour operates in real life, tanks need infantry.

But you can field a 52 body battalion and still have points left over..

You're right. But is three Baneblades and a "loyal 52" really what you consider a balanced army? Wouldn't you rather see a single Baneblade and a more standard mixed force of units?


I mean it is a more balanced army then say any mono knight list in existence...


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/12 09:39:20


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 gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/12 10:48:53


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


But the wraith knight isn't part of the craftworld rules wise, it might as well be painted neon green.

Better yet, make that more attractive rules wise so the competitive players armies resemble this.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/12 11:06:31


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





I mean atleast it's not knight x fighting along side chapter smashmaster y supported with guardsmen of the standopointususslessicus garrison.


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 de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Jidmah wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.


It needs more than the codices. The change from random/card secondaries to Choose Your Own Skew-ventures was a step back. A codex that benefits a little of everything, and a ruleset that makes a little of almost everything show up almost every game pairs well. Without a need for a little of everything to win the game, a codex that encourages it won't do much. Rules that throw up a little of everything will suck for someone whose codex punishes that. They have to work together. Now that you get to pick your secondary instead of potentially having to deal with anything and everything there's less drive to prepare for everything.

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





Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.
That's a 4,380 pt army before wargear.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


Except it sucks and will lose every time.

Blaming the player for GW not writing the rules to reflect the game they want to see played is idiotic. If they want to make a game where army's look like that, THEY SHOULDN'T MAKE ARMIES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT TERRIBLE. If I make a hockey game where the most effective way to play the game is kick fieldgoals over and over and over, I don't get to be peeved at players for not 'playing the game the right way'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


Well designed codices would drive competitive players to at least field armies that look similar to that picture. Obviously "one of everything" is unlikely to ever be a top competitive choice, but a a well rounded list with multiple different choices making sense isn't completely irrational - especially stratagems and pre-game upgrades reward you for bringing singles of certain units.


It needs more than the codices. The change from random/card secondaries to Choose Your Own Skew-ventures was a step back. A codex that benefits a little of everything, and a ruleset that makes a little of almost everything show up almost every game pairs well. Without a need for a little of everything to win the game, a codex that encourages it won't do much. Rules that throw up a little of everything will suck for someone whose codex punishes that. They have to work together. Now that you get to pick your secondary instead of potentially having to deal with anything and everything there's less drive to prepare for everything.


No one played maelstrom competitively anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/12 16:57:10


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





ERJAK wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This:

Spoiler:


Is what GW wants a balanced army to resemble, not 3 lords of war with 400 points of filler.


Exactly. Unfortunately some players aren't interested in the kind of games GW intends for its playerbase, or at least the biggest part of it. They want competitive gaming, aka skew lists.

Fielding the army shown in the picture is already possible, no fixes needed.


Except it sucks and will lose every time.

Blaming the player for GW not writing the rules to reflect the game they want to see played is idiotic. If they want to make a game where army's look like that, THEY SHOULDN'T MAKE ARMIES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT TERRIBLE. If I make a hockey game where the most effective way to play the game is kick fieldgoals over and over and over, I don't get to be peeved at players for not 'playing the game the right way'.
I'd suspect they're not as terrible as you make it out to be at Onslaught and above games.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: