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.

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

I don't know. I'm not sure either - I think its because people see the AV15 fortifications with D-weapons and they think its all like that. But the rules changes themselves are quite valuable (and make more sense and are clearer than the main rulebook), and the non-Massive Fortifications seem fairly well balanced. The only other questionable thing may be the fortification units, but I think the points costs will make those non-viable competitively.

Basically, I think people are just scared to say, "we should include part of Stronghold Assault."

Just like they are afraid to say "we should include part of the superheavy units", and just like people in Europe used to ban all named characters for years and years (both 40K and FB) while Americans used all of them, because truth be told most of them sucked. If someone lazy has a problem with a Revenant, he bans all superheavies. If someone has a problem with a macro cannon, he bans the whole stronghold assault book. If someone has a problem with Mephiston or whatever, he bans all named characters.

Just go further back in history where many tournament organisers released detailed comp packs about what was allowed and what wasn't (and some still do). Don't blanket ban anything. Invest a bit more time and effort in the job. The goal shouldn't be balance, but better balance, and it won't take a committee of 5 experienced tournament players more than a day to come up with an army restrictions draft that will make the game playable.

Personally I'm getting the feeling that most of the (premature) panic is actually just about the strength D and how it removes Screamerstars in one hit. I wonder if people would consider a 900 point Revenant still horribly overpowered if all strength D was just comped to be S10 AP1 (or AP2). It has the same survivability as a bunch of Wave Serpents, but costs an absurd amount of points, so clearly only the firepower is a problem. The more that I think of it, 4 S10 AP1 ordnance large blasts for 900 points sounds about right (225 points per blast) considering the mobility. I'm sure someone out there would already call the Revenant garbage after that simple change, as opposed to horribly overpowered. Now those who like the model a lot and the playstyle it brings get to play with it, and those that have to go against it have a chance. Everyone's happy?

Sidstyle wrote:So apparently they don't see any distinction between "expansions" and "supplements" like we do.

Truth be told, even before expansions, supplements, dataslates, formations, digital releases and legal forgeworld documents of any kind existed at all GW, Jervis at the forefront, told the community that if we have a problem with a rule we should change it and play it the way we like it to be played. That's always been GW's policy and in the same time excuse for making poorly balanced or badly thought out rules.