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.

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.

Not true at all since Apocalypse wasn't a thing when the FW model & rules came out (early 3e).

The 3rd ed rules were so convoluted and ridiculous that it required your opponents permission to field it. The Baneblade was intended as something special in terms of gameplay and the FW model was more a display piece. Special scenarios or missions or far, far larger games in general. Apocalypse created a natural environment for these special Super Heavy and Gargantuan creatures and managed to simplify their rules down bit by bit. It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.

I'd argue that it really started with 5th Ed turning flyers like the Valkyrie into skimmers. That's when the game started to lose sight of what scale it wants to operate at. Once actual aircraft were hanging around in an ostensibly company-sized engagement, superheavies were inevitable.

Also I don't recall the rules being especially complicated. Something about mass points, that IIRC worked similarly to how hull points would later be added? It didn't require your opponent's permission because the rules were convoluted; it required permission because it was so far beyond the normal scale of the rules that it would break a pick-up 2K game completely.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It's not quite the "2 troops and an HQ" formula that I would expect from a pick-up game. I have no idea how good or bad a Baneblade is but it's still a super-heavy tank that was originally designed for Apocalypse.

Not true at all since Apocalypse wasn't a thing when the FW model & rules came out (early 3e).

The 3rd ed rules were so convoluted and ridiculous that it required your opponents permission to field it.

Removed - rule #1 please
It was because all Super Heavies had this requirement as it was felt that not everyone was familiar with such things. That you should be given the chance to plan for such things. (you know, bring more AT weapons or such).
It was very much a formalized style of the discussions we have today about telling someone you're bringing a Knight etc.

And the 'Blade was very much designed to be played. 3 of them fit quite nicely into 2k pts.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Special scenarios or missions or far, far larger games in general. Apocalypse created a natural environment for these special Super Heavy and Gargantuan creatures and managed to simplify their rules down bit by bit.

LoL. No. APoc was GW seeing if they could sell yet another $50 book (+expensive templates) for people to play what we already could & were. And the rubes gobbled it up....

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.

Yes, because the previous APoc experiment was successful.
At least I needn't ask permission to use my resin toys anymore. Well, unless they also be "Legends". But that's a different debate.

PenitentJake wrote:
...The conclusion that I draw from the premise, based on my own personal experience and preferences is that 40k is the better game precisely BECAUSE it can be played in those three ways. Reconciling them (from my perspective) would actually ruin 40k; it might make a version of 40K that is the best competitive game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that. It might make a version of 40k that is the best narrative game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that...

That's kind of already happened. 40k claims to be written to be all things to all people, and I know you're going to give me the GW Crusade marketing spiel in response to this post, but it's very much a tournament-player's game right now. In my community the casual players have gotten fed up with the amount of bookkeeping/optimization they need to participate in 40k and have splintered off to push minis around with each other, the narrative players have all quit because they're fed up with being shoved into a tournament-meta box, and the tournament players are having a grand old time. The 40k rules have shattered my community better than game stores closing ever did, simply by writing a game for a third of the community and (figuratively) telling the 2/3rds of us that don't want to play a tournament game to go jump in a lake.

Look at Dakka. Proposed Rules is pretty dead, because the people who used to post there have gotten the message that 40k is no longer a space to be creative. 40k General is either long threads complaining about the game, or the occasional newbie asking if they have any freedom to use parts that aren't in the box on their minis, because they're worried about the tournament-legality of their stuff. People who like 9e try and hold up 7e as a boogeyman to scare us all, do we really want to go back to the days of Decurion detachments and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, and I say yes. Absolutely. Give me the Decurions and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, because those came with a community where we could all talk to each other, there was some freedom to be creative, and you could easily eyeball a soft list to play a casual game with someone who wasn't interested in the tournament meta. Sure, you could tell me I'm just being nostalgic here, but I honestly prefer the mad rules to the kind of vitriol and hostility I see in the community today.

 catbarf wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
It wasn't til 6th edition that Super Heavies started to become 'normalised' in the game with the advent of Knights and the Escalation supplement.

I'd argue that it really started with 5th Ed turning flyers like the Valkyrie into skimmers. That's when the game started to lose sight of what scale it wants to operate at. Once actual aircraft were hanging around in an ostensibly company-sized engagement, superheavies were inevitable.

Also I don't recall the rules being especially complicated. Something about mass points, that IIRC worked similarly to how hull points would later be added? It didn't require your opponent's permission because the rules were convoluted; it required permission because it was so far beyond the normal scale of the rules that it would break a pick-up 2K game completely.

The 'Mass Points' was originally a concept in the Vehicle Design rules released during 3rd and 4th ed, which included rules for building Superheavies as well as Void Shields and even rules for making gargantuan Tyranid creatures.

As for Superheated history . . . Well I played against them on occasion in 2nd Ed. Lol. I might even have the old White Dwarf with the templates for building a cardboard Baneblade in the Rogue Trader era.

Get off my lawn and stuff

I have found the weird prevalence of "metagaming" over the last few years to be incredibly destructive to the hobby. Terms like "trash" and "viable" used to describe what is essentially an arts and crafts endeavor for many, is incredibly toxic. You have these endless debates online of meta adjustments from all the usual suspects and they talk about rules and army changes like you are switching options in a computer game. The desperate clamour for more rules and more and adjustments and screams from incredibly vocal aspects of the meta gaming community (I do wonder how many actual real-world games are played by these people using fully painted armies representing all of their different list options) all lead to burn-out. In the last 4 years, between Codex, Campaign books & supplements GW has released over 50, that's 50! books containing rules and that doesn't take into account all of the FAQ ERRATA etc the rules have been reduced to theory-crafting and churn.

So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.

I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...The conclusion that I draw from the premise, based on my own personal experience and preferences is that 40k is the better game precisely BECAUSE it can be played in those three ways. Reconciling them (from my perspective) would actually ruin 40k; it might make a version of 40K that is the best competitive game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that. It might make a version of 40k that is the best narrative game ever... But that would suck for the 2/3 of us that don't want that...

That's kind of already happened. 40k claims to be written to be all things to all people, and I know you're going to give me the GW Crusade marketing spiel in response to this post, but it's very much a tournament-player's game right now. In my community the casual players have gotten fed up with the amount of bookkeeping/optimization they need to participate in 40k and have splintered off to push minis around with each other, the narrative players have all quit because they're fed up with being shoved into a tournament-meta box, and the tournament players are having a grand old time. The 40k rules have shattered my community better than game stores closing ever did, simply by writing a game for a third of the community and (figuratively) telling the 2/3rds of us that don't want to play a tournament game to go jump in a lake.

Look at Dakka. Proposed Rules is pretty dead, because the people who used to post there have gotten the message that 40k is no longer a space to be creative. 40k General is either long threads complaining about the game, or the occasional newbie asking if they have any freedom to use parts that aren't in the box on their minis, because they're worried about the tournament-legality of their stuff. People who like 9e try and hold up 7e as a boogeyman to scare us all, do we really want to go back to the days of Decurion detachments and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, and I say yes. Absolutely. Give me the Decurions and invisible deathstars and D-weapons, because those came with a community where we could all talk to each other, there was some freedom to be creative, and you could easily eyeball a soft list to play a casual game with someone who wasn't interested in the tournament meta. Sure, you could tell me I'm just being nostalgic here, but I honestly prefer the mad rules to the kind of vitriol and hostility I see in the community today.

That can be your experience, and that's fine. My experience is pretty much the opposite - removing the army construction 'mini games' from 7th made my community freer and less competitive in general, and the more intricate mission and terrain rules in 9th are a fantastic thing for me to glom onto as someone who loves custom rules content and designing fun, interesting tables to play on (I paint more terrain than models these days, because painted models just get jammed into my packed shelves of tons and tons of painted models, while terrain I get to bring to a store and someone is playing with it basically every week) 9th beats 7th and 8th for me by far. I have fond memories of 5th, but unlike games of 2nd which are always crazy silly fun every time I've gone back to fifth I get reminded of the color of the glasses I view it through - I find it to be a really frustrating game experience with ultra-bland missions and ultra-bad unit imbalance that's immediately clear the second you sit down to play it.

 Gert wrote:
If your group has loads of players with super-heavies then maybe try dropping the tier of games down to Combat Patrol (500pts) or Incursion (1000pts) games.

Alternatively, since I don't find a problem with is, I could just not do those things and continue playing the way we do. Could you imagine the conversation?
"Hey guys, I know you all really like your super heavies, which honestly aren't super good, but let's try playing games where you don't use those! Well, yes, they're a part of the core game, included in your codex with completely valid ways to field them but... I played back in 5th edition, when they were for Apocalypse. So, you know, by 5th edition rules you shouldn't even be able to use them. Yes, we are playing 9th. But by 5th edition rules..."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.

I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )

I don't think we can honestly blame 40k 9th Edition for that. Even in this thread, it looks like it's from a lot of people who played older editions of the game and have hangups, like "Baneblades belong in Apocalypse, because of 4th edition". In my group when you ask for a 40k game, that's it. That term is shorthand for "40k 9th edition Matched Play using the GT2020 Tournament Pack". The only pregame discussion beyond that is the points level, usually.

I am not blaming 9th. 40k has always been like that.

My point isn't "older 40k" is better. It's that "other games offer a refreshing change from the 40k way of doing things, including all the *side stuff* like having to chat about what kind of game you want."

With an added "you wouldn't have to have this discussion if the game were better balanced - and that is clearly not impossible because other games do it."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.

I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )

People on Dakka not liking the direction that 40K has taken does not detract from 40K Matched Play being a lingua franca. A wargamer can put together a Battle Forged list of 1500 to 2000 points and go to any FLGS/club night and have a successful game without prior coordination if they build to Matched Play. There are edge cases with certain builds in terms of power and player skill of course can make a difference in the quality of the experience. That two players still talk about the game beforehand does not take away from the "common tongue" aspect of Matched Play. That some players are very competitive than others is not restricted to 40K - it was certainly a problem with Flames of War.

I think every major city with a tabletop gaming community has a 40K gaming ecosystem. I move around and travel a lot. I can find 40K wherever I go (well, not right now so much). Matched Play as a name is new, but the concept goes back to 2nd Ed. Two equal points armies meeting up with a generic mission meant to fair to both. This differs from some other miniatures games I have played where you have scenarios etc with fixed orders of battle etc. Those take an enormous amount of prior coordination. Same if you want to have "narrative" 40K with a particular scenario.

Since coming back to 40K in 2017 I just have to say "Matched Play, 2000 points?" to an prospective opponent and we are off. Now I add in "Matched Play, GT2020 Mission Pack,2000 points?" Done. Can you add more? Sure: "This is my first game since 3rd Edition" or "I am practicing for a tourney next month." This is different from "I would like to recreate a battle from a magazine article I read about the Red Corsairs fighting Astra Militarum on a low-gravity world blah blah blah."

Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.

I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.

Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.

I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.

I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.

Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.

I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.

How many games of 9th have you had, and how many games of 8th for that matter? While some tourneys/events have extra restrictions to establish themes, I can honestly say since rejoining the 40K scene in 2017 after a break from 2014 I have not seen an issue with someone bringing Lords of War/Titanic to a game on Saturday at the FLGS. I think your Baneblade issue is a hang-up from darker times. I occasionally bring a Baneblade or Shadowsword and I never even think of warning an opponent ahead of time. In all honesty, if you can't handle three Baneblades that's on you. Because you could face three Knights or three Keepers of Secrets which would be much tougher!

In 3rd Ed FOW you could face an all-US Tank Destroyer list that could alpha-strike you off the map, or one of the armies with universal Spearhead that could be all over you in Turn 1 before you had a chance to do anything. Or a Blood Guts and Glory Patton list with all the wombo-combos.

I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.

I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.

I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.

You just reminded me how utterly ahistorical fow army construction rules are and I'm sad. Units of clumped together scout cars all fielded together as an anti-infantry shooting unit, artillery sitting on the board firing at ultra-close range because gotta sell them models, motorized infantry being the same as on-foot infantry because battlefront doesnt make truck models, whole armies of stuff like King Tigers being commonplace...

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.

I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.

You just reminded me how utterly ahistorical fow army construction rules are and I'm sad. Units of clumped together scout cars all fielded together as an anti-infantry shooting unit, artillery sitting on the board firing at ultra-close range because gotta sell them models, motorized infantry being the same as on-foot infantry because battlefront doesnt make truck models, whole armies of stuff like King Tigers being commonplace...

Yep. That's why I dropped out and swapped to Chain of Command. The Army Building rules are unlike 40k entirely (whilst FOW is basically 40k) and make more historical play imo.

I for one only play Crusade in 40k. I don't touch matched play at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have had loads of games of 9th, and it depends on the player attitude really. The superheavy tanks haven't been a problem like they were in 8th.

I will say with FOW I never encountered any of the things you list except US TDs, which you could still kill the little jeeps to prevent the platoon from deploying (or rather force it to deploy in a bad spot). But that's neither here nor there.

So then there isn't a problem with your Baneblades. Good to go - no need for the pregame discussion.

Hollow wrote:I have found the weird prevalence of "metagaming" over the last few years to be incredibly destructive to the hobby. Terms like "trash" and "viable" used to describe what is essentially an arts and crafts endeavor for many, is incredibly toxic. You have these endless debates online of meta adjustments from all the usual suspects and they talk about rules and army changes like you are switching options in a computer game. The desperate clamour for more rules and more and adjustments and screams from incredibly vocal aspects of the meta gaming community (I do wonder how many actual real-world games are played by these people using fully painted armies representing all of their different list options) all lead to burn-out. In the last 4 years, between Codex, Campaign books & supplements GW has released over 50, that's 50! books containing rules and that doesn't take into account all of the FAQ ERRATA etc the rules have been reduced to theory-crafting and churn.

The funny thing is that is nothing new. A lot of that is the reason why GW shut down their forums. It was so bad that one couldn't make a post on the weather without someone putting a lot of metagaming trash talk about how bad the balance was in the games.

So I guess the only difference is the people doing it have rotated out to another group doing the same thing.

Unit1126PLL wrote:So yeah anyways 40k Matched Play doesn't even work as a 'lingua franca' of gaming very well because it still has heaps of discussion and "pre-game gentlemanly conversation" that actually can make it rather difficult to play.

I haven't had this problem in other games (except WMH )

Even then, most of the time (much like WMH, actually) going outside the Matched Play concept is what needs to be brought up to do anything else from what I've seen locally. Power Level is rarely used, it's almost always listed in points. It could be because of inertia, or it could also be that the point system is perceived to be more finely tuned than Power Level is.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.

You can take most 3rd-5th 40K armies and easily put them in to the current structure. Most often, you'd even have room to add things to them as pricing for a lot of things have gone down (like Grenades). I would have included 6th and 7th armies, too, but Formations can throw that concept out the window in many cases, but a few could still fit.

Also, I think it's not like FoW is going to be adding a whole lot of new units created out of thin air, like Primaris, but rely on verified units. If anything, it is more about going farther back in time (Early War vs first-released Late War) or adding in the units from lesser-known armies as opposed to adding M60s in to the mix.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yep. That's why I dropped out and swapped to Chain of Command. The Army Building rules are unlike 40k entirely (whilst FOW is basically 40k) and make more historical play imo.

Interesting. I've only glanced at FoW's army organization and it looked more organized than what you're saying. But that's one of the issues about not doing research. While most of the LGS carry FoW, the player-base isn't that high when compared to Games Workshop.

The dissonance in this thread is astounding. A page ago there was a discussion (similar to a pregame one) about whether or not 3 Baneblades was okay, and people are now saying "there is no need" when there was a need expressed in this very thread.

That said, I agree that things have improved on that front dramatically since 8th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The dissonance in this thread is astounding. A page ago there was a discussion (similar to a pregame one) about whether or not 3 Baneblades was okay, and people are now saying "there is no need" when there was a need expressed in this very thread.

That said, I agree that things have improved on that front dramatically since 8th.

I think that one person said you should discuss your three Baneblades - hardly dissonance.

There is also a huge difference between a Baneblade of 3rd-7th Edition where there are points where small arms cannot harm Vehicles, and 8th/9th where anything can harm Vehicles.

Now, I'm not arguing how quickly any small arm could kill a Baneblade, just the difference in possibilities.

I'm just jealous of the three Baneblade models. I mean, I'd build them as Shadowswords because they look the nutz, but still.

Well tbf I'd try to magnetize them up so I could run all the variants.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm just jealous of the three Baneblade models. I mean, I'd build them as Shadowswords because they look the nutz, but still.

Well tbf I'd try to magnetize them up so I could run all the variants.

The way the plastic kit's organized you can get Stormlord, Baneblade, Hellhammer, and one other magnetizing them. The main guns share parts for all other variants.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm just jealous of the three Baneblade models. I mean, I'd build them as Shadowswords because they look the nutz, but still.

Well tbf I'd try to magnetize them up so I could run all the variants.

The way the plastic kit's organized you can get Stormlord, Baneblade, Hellhammer, and one other magnetizing them. The main guns share parts for all other variants.

Hmm, good to know. I think that still works for me as the two variants I really like are the Shadowsword and the Stormlord. I do't have an IG army so I haven't commited. The Shadowsword just looks so great.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, which is why I said I'm not talking about Narrative vs. Matched vs. Open.

I'm talking about even within matched - 3 Baneblades is apparently a thing that requires coordination, despite fitting smoothly into 2000 points, GT2020 Pack, Matched Play. And that's just one random example thrown out in this thread that spawned at least a page of discussion about whether it's "normal" or conforms to the "2 troops 1 HQ" thing or whatever.

Clearly there are more standards and discussions that have to happen than "2000 points, GT2020 pack, Matched Play" even when those 3 things have been decided on already.

I will say I played FOW up until the release of the 4th edition book and never really had a problem bringing any old army that I chose to a 'matched play' game, whether 3 Koenigstigers, 15 IS-2s, or an entire platoon of American paratroopers. I've had far more problems bringing Baneblades to 40k than King Tigers to FOW in terms of how comfortable the playgroup is with it.

How many games of 9th have you had, and how many games of 8th for that matter? While some tourneys/events have extra restrictions to establish themes, I can honestly say since rejoining the 40K scene in 2017 after a break from 2014 I have not seen an issue with someone bringing Lords of War/Titanic to a game on Saturday at the FLGS. I think your Baneblade issue is a hang-up from darker times. I occasionally bring a Baneblade or Shadowsword and I never even think of warning an opponent ahead of time. In all honesty, if you can't handle three Baneblades that's on you. Because you could face three Knights or three Keepers of Secrets which would be much tougher!

In 3rd Ed FOW you could face an all-US Tank Destroyer list that could alpha-strike you off the map, or one of the armies with universal Spearhead that could be all over you in Turn 1 before you had a chance to do anything. Or a Blood Guts and Glory Patton list with all the wombo-combos.

I believe there is a thread buried somewhere in 8th edition from Unit complaining about how his local players are not happy if he shows up with 3 baneblades as an army unannounced.
Its a situation for 1 specific poster, and not something the rest of the wider gaming community cares about or has to deal with.

 Ordana wrote:
I believe there is a thread buried somewhere in 8th edition from Unit complaining about how his local players are not happy if he shows up with 3 baneblades as an army announced.
Its a situation for 1 specific poster, and not something the rest of the wider gaming community cares about or has to deal with.

I remember that thread

To be fair, that might be a function of the local meta. If everyone's doing cutthroat tourney lists, triple Baneblades likely won't be an issue, but if most people are doing more generic TAC/fluff/narrative lists, they may not have enough AT to effectively deal with that. Dropping that kind of heavy skew list without warning could certainly result in some badfeels in that sort of environment.

Also there might be residual PTSD from 7e/8e Knights in play.

I guess some wounds, like the Morghul blade into Frodo's shoulder, never truly heal.

As long as the baneblades are stacked on top of each other like a clown tower I don't see what the problem is.