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.

 Ishagu wrote:
Of course it's more elegant. You remove the extr,a layer of rules that break it, whilst not banning the model.

People spend money and time buying/building/painting their models. None should be banned.

but people bought them exactly because of the doctrin, chapter tactics and IH interaction. Without at least the first two, it is a rather overcosted tank, that get wrecked by eldar flyer lists.

Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....

It seems to be a repeating itself thing. Now I don't have an expiriance spaning mulitiple editions, but I do play 8th for some time now. And a year plus ago, people advice to stuff being bad was "GW is going to fix it next something", now it is "get a new army" or "wait for next edition" mostly.
eldar flyer lists are a thing for how long a year and a half? castellans were wrecking stuff up for a year, Inari were special for almost 2 years too. It seems to me that if GW makes something bad, or rather made something bad, and their future books are based on the old bad ones, then bad stuff stay bad for a very long time. they can only fix stuff, by either rewriting stuff from ground up, which they don't seem to do often, a new edition making an army or unit awesome all of the sudden, or they go ham and undercost something heavily and throw a ton of extra rules on it.

Karol wrote:

Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....

It seems to be a repeating itself thing. Now I don't have an expiriance spaning mulitiple editions, but I do play 8th for some time now. And a year plus ago, people advice to stuff being bad was "GW is going to fix it next something", now it is "get a new army" or "wait for next edition" mostly.
eldar flyer lists are a thing for how long a year and a half? castellans were wrecking stuff up for a year, Inari were special for almost 2 years too. It seems to me that if GW makes something bad, or rather made something bad, and their future books are based on the old bad ones, then bad stuff stay bad for a very long time. they can only fix stuff, by either rewriting stuff from ground up, which they don't seem to do often, a new edition making an army or unit awesome all of the sudden, or they go ham and undercost something heavily and throw a ton of extra rules on it.

Absolutely nowhere in the response you just quoted was he replying to anyone saying anything even resembling all that stuff you just went on about it.

He was quite clearly responding to me saying "hey, let's see if it's broken in application rather than theory before banning it". Nothing about "op units should never be fixed! buy a new army! wait for next edition!", that's just a rant you chose to go on here, completely unrelated to the context of the statement you just quoted, and I would never say any one of those things.

Gadzilla666 780931 10586985 wrote:
The chaos and sm versions don't even have the same stats. Sm leviathan has a flat 4+ invul while chaos has 5+ for shooting and 4+ for cc. The sm levi can also take hk missiles while the csm version can't take any kind of equivalent. Another example of different costs for the same thing is that thunder hammer cost more for characters than basic troops because the characters superior stats make it a more powerful option on them so this isn't a new concept.

yeah, but units are different. A jump pack captin is different from a sgt. What seems to be the problem here, is that this the BA/RG situation, where everyone can take a TH/SS captin or chapters master, but the BA/RG are going to out perform other codex options for no extra point cost . And then GW to counter the BA/RG captins efficiency rises the price of the TH, which hurts armies that don't even have jump pack HQs.
GK had the problems all the time. Razorbacks and Stormravens are great with Gulliman, points hike to everyone, not just to ultramarine armies. First turn deepstriking BA captins are soloing knights and tyrants are shoting off armies after coming froom deep strike, the whole deep strike gets changed. Not the offending unit costs, not their rules, no they just regulary nerf everyone, which always hurts the armies with least options the most.

Yes, but honestly I think the better solution is to just say that you can't use the half damage strat on a Leviathan. People can still use their models that way.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Absolutely nowhere in the response you just quoted was he replying to anyone saying anything even resembling all that stuff you just went on about it.

He was quite clearly responding to me saying "hey, let's see if it's broken in application rather than theory before banning it". Nothing about "op units should never be fixed! buy a new army! wait for next edition!", that's just a rant you chose to go on here, completely unrelated to the context of the statement you just quoted, and I would never say any one of those things.

And I am said that this is the reaction people always give about the OP stuff. They tell to wait, first for people to play and learn the army. Then they say to wait for CA/FAQ. Then what ever was closer the FAQ or CA, then the advice given is to learn to play, because the stuff isn't that OP. And finaly when after a year or so, the really OP stuff is really OP, the advice given are either soup it up or change army. The wait for X argument is a stupid one, specially when most people play the game for around a year or two. There is good chance that if someone had a really bad match up with let say flyer eldar or Inari, by the time GW nerfed one and maybe will nerf the other, the person with the bad match up may no longer be playing.

This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.

So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.

 WisdomLS wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.

Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.

The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .

Even if you take them away or increase the cost the model is still invulnerable. Even a 6k Warlord Titan is not guaranteed to kill a Leviathan in one turn.

The issue is not the model's stats or weapons, it's the rule stacking from relics, starts, chapter traits, etc. That is what needs to be limited.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.

This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.

True. The only list I can find came 16th at the Iron Halo GT:

spearhead detachment
Captain
x2 - four man servitor squads
Leviathan with dual stormcannons
x3 Repulsor Executioners with laser cannons
x2 Repulsors with twin hvy Bs, hvy onslaught, and onslaught.

But that was ran without the IH Supplement - just the new Codex.

Has anyone seen many IH lists that are using it with other nonsense?

what would seem quite logical is that new units are not allowed to be fielded until they have at least had the 2 week FAQ and people have had a bit of time to "break them".

All they had to do, imo, was say "Duty Eternal" can not be used on "Relic Dreadnoughts" as this is probably at least one change GW will implement seeing how they changed Relic Whirlwind Scorpius.

 Mr Morden wrote:
what would seem quite logical is that new units are not allowed to be fielded until they have at least had the 2 week FAQ and people have had a bit of time to "break them".

I know a lot of the tournaments I have been to have a one month restriction on using a new codex or supplement for just that reason.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Has anyone seen many IH lists that are using it with other nonsense?

Your aware the IH supplement only just came out right?
Not a lot of data for a week old supplement.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.

It's been a while since I've rolled my eyes this hard.

If I was an IH player I would be pissing myself laughing at the knee jerking going on in relation to the Levi as someone said all this waa waa waa over yet more theory crafted bollocks when the real issues are going to go under the radar for now.

The only actual game related experience I remember reading in the other thread was someone upset because his elder flier spam list got its arse ripped out by a IH list with a Levi in it. Which I think is the main reason your seeing resistance as I guess there’s a lot of meta chases just finished building elder fliers

Jacksmiles wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
So allow something to potentially ruin a tournament instead of ensuring nothing can ruin it? And before you said the iron hands players day I’d already ruined, he bought a Levi, he has no opinion.

It's been a while since I've rolled my eyes this hard.

Glad I could help. What I said is facts, iron hands have enough decent things so take those. Sorry if you’re a marine player but.. maybe you shouldn’t be?

ccs wrote:Can't vote. Your poll is missing "No Opinion".

Then ignore the poll.

Tibs Ironblood wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the ban. The tournament has the right to house rule whatever they want. Don't like it don't go.

Its not a question of right, of course they have the right, they have the right to make a leviathan only tournament if they want. It's a question of the Leviathan being so good that it needs to be banned for balance reasons. Is it a pre-nerf Castellan, one of several manifestations of a broken supplement, or a just chance for a neglected army to win for once?

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

Well there would be no reason to take it in a tournament setting then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Can anyone point to a winning Iron Hands list that had a Leviathan in it? The list that won Galaxy GT was a triple Thunderfire Cannon list with no dreadnoughts, for example.

This is the WH40k community. We fear what is theorycrafted and lose to real lists with real balance problems later.

True. The only list I can find came 16th at the Iron Halo GT:

spearhead detachment
Captain
x2 - four man servitor squads
Leviathan with dual stormcannons
x3 Repulsor Executioners with laser cannons
x2 Repulsors with twin hvy Bs, hvy onslaught, and onslaught.

But that was ran without the IH Supplement - just the new Codex.

Yes this list would be really suboptimal now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.

Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.

The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .

Even if you take them away or increase the cost the model is still invulnerable. Even a 6k Warlord Titan is not guaranteed to kill a Leviathan in one turn.

The issue is not the model's stats or weapons, it's the rule stacking from relics, starts, chapter traits, etc. That is what needs to be limited.

I actually kind of agree with the storm cannons being the primary issue. They are so auto include because they are so good. It would be cool to see some grav flux bombards...Switch their point costs that would be interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SeanDrake wrote:
If I was an IH player I would be pissing myself laughing at the knee jerking going on in relation to the Levi as someone said all this waa waa waa over yet more theory crafted bollocks when the real issues are going to go under the radar for now.

The only actual game related experience I remember reading in the other thread was someone upset because his elder flier spam list got its arse ripped out by a IH list with a Levi in it. Which I think is the main reason your seeing resistance as I guess there’s a lot of meta chases just finished building elder fliers

Levi dread could easily kill 2 eldar flyers in 1 turn with a little luck and auras. Hemlocks return damage is pathetic...they deal flat 2 damage so are effectively worthless vs ironhands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.

Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.

Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.

(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.

Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.

If you think math is easy, you don't understand math.

He clearly didn’t mean that math as an academic field is easy, no need to be purposely obtuse just because his tone was aggressive

Banhammers almost always suck. If you want to overcorrect, ban the use of stratagems on the Leviathan. If you want good balance, just don't let it become a character or use the half-damage stratagem.

No, with the caveat that I really don't care. Bringing the most broken list possible seems to be the name of the game. If that beats someone else's most broken list possible, too bad.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
This slippery slope fallacy is absurd. Wanting to wait to see how good something is before nerfing it is not irrational. Telling people to buy a new army and defending poor balance and acting like GW shouldn't fix it, is a bit less rational. There is no connection between these two statements, and acting as though the irrational ones means you should ignore the rational response of, you know, just being sure that something is going to ruin tournaments before banning it, is just as irrational as those people you complain about.

Im sorry but some things are just obvious...kind of like it was obvious that -2 to hit stacking was going to be busted but some mongloids put it into the game just to "test it out" and nothing was done about it even though it's been busted all edition. The game is math. It very easy to tell if things are to good. -1 damage aura is pretty dang close to 50% damage reduction vs the majority of weapons in the game.

If you think math is easy, you don't understand math.

-1 damage when most damage doesn't go higher then 6 and is mostly centered around 2-3 is a huge increase is survivability. And they gave it away for 'free' in an aura.
Its not hard to see that might be broken.

And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?

Bharring wrote:
Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.

(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)

But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?

Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.

(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)

But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?

Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.

Context, -2/-3 are broken in a d6 system, strong in d10 and okay in d20.

I voted no BUT if we banned ALL forgeworld and ALL index then I think it would be fine.

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.

(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)

But some stuff is just math. If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong. Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons. this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And you didn't stop to think MAYBE the Relic is the actual issue?

Or being able to make a leviathan your warlord.

It doesn't get a whole lot of benefit from a lot of the Warlord traits and keep in mind you only get to do that with one Levi if you're trying to bring a lot. That's already 2CP too.

Karol wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Edit: Continuity is right, I overreacted to the aggressive tone.

(The intention was to point out that "just math" is overly reductive; math covering sufficiently complex setups is sufficiently complex.)

But some stuff is just math.

Cryptography is just math. I could run some numbers, get your private key, and claim to be you. And we're just talking plug 'n chug - the actual equations are public knowledge and simple. But the numbers I'd need to run are *huge*. Well beyond anything I can reasonably do. So we're safe(-ish) assuming that you're you and not me.

If something is -2 to hit, and can go down to -3, then even someone as stupid as I am as math goes understands that it is rather strong.

Some basic understandings suggest that yes, it is strong. But exactly how strong? Not as simple as it seems.
First, what's firing at it. Is it BS3+ or BS4+? That changes things.
Is it more impacted by heavy weapons or light weapons factors in (because the heavy weapon movement penalty)?
Is it fast or slow?
Does it impact ranged weapons or CC weapons?
Is it always on, or only on some phases?
Is there a range limit / other limitation?
How tough is it?
How frequently will you see it?

Each of these add additional factors. Each of these complicate the matter.

More to the point, we can reason that an aura that gives -1D is going to be really freaking powerful. But mostly from estimations - the actual numbers are more than all those "It's just math" posters have ran.
Sure there's a lot of D2 and Dd3 weapons, but people says it halves them?
It does that to D2 weapons when the target has 2+ W remaining sure. But 1W models? Not so much. But it also doesn't do nothing to 1W models if they have FnP. And models with odd numbers of wounds left? It takes less than double the firepower.
And then we have Dd3 weapons - people thinks it halves them? That's off. It does 4/3D on average instead of 2D on average - that's not half.

So I see a lot of people spout off about how "easy" the math is, then botch the simple stuff. Does not inspire confidence.

Same thing with a healing high W high T vehicles with multiple saves taking max 2-3 wounds from most weapons.

Shows the bias right here. The max is impacted far less than the average. When you roll a 2 or 3 on a d6 it's much more impactful than when you roll a 6.

this clearly goes beyond just annoying or good vs specific armies or even too good when comparing to bad armies.

Certainly an area of concern, but a lot of bad claims are being made.