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.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

Yes, because why to analyse which LoW/ forts are actually really imbalanced and which can be played?

Because it's more "fair" than just banning the revenant and letting everyone besides Eldar bring their LoW's.

Revenant isn't any more point and click win than some of the other superheavies that the Forgeworld Lords of War PDF allows. There's been dozens of these threads about this already and mostly always the question comes down to strength D and not the superheavies themselves. So just like Screamers of Tzeentch or Farseers and Warlocks aren't the problem (but 2+ re-rollables are), the Revenant or Reaver titan aren't the problem (but strength D is). It's not exactly rocket science. You didn't ban Seer Councils or Heldrakes or <insert random complained about unit here>, so why would you ban the superheavies? Address the actual problem by doing some micro fixes. Atleast give it a try.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

Yes, because why to analyse which LoW/ forts are actually really imbalanced and which can be played?

Because it's more "fair" than just banning the revenant and letting everyone besides Eldar bring their LoW's.

1) The Eldar have other superheavies that aren't the Revenant that are lords of war.

2) The Revenant itself has other weapon options that are not Str D.

Come summer of 2014 this will all be moot. 7th edition 40k will hit, maybe 6.5 edition really, and include all the Stronghold Assault and Escalation rules in the main rulebook.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Come summer of 2014 this will all be moot. 7th edition 40k will hit, maybe 6.5 edition really, and include all the Stronghold Assault and Escalation rules in the main rulebook.

I think the new Fantasy edition comes 2014 and 40K has to wait untill the following year. I do however completely agree with your sentiment. GW is merging/will merge/has merged 40K with Apocalypse. I wouldn't even be completely surprised if a 2014 codex had a strength D weapon or two.

I'm fine with larger battles but I think the battlefield has to become bigger. The old kitchen table size is hopelessly outdated if we are to use flyers and titans in all our games.

Speaking of Fantasy I'm sure 2014 will bring changes. Expect allies, fortifications and larger battles. The resistance to change will be huge in that game as well when mono book armies go the way of the dodo.

 Therion wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Come summer of 2014 this will all be moot. 7th edition 40k will hit, maybe 6.5 edition really, and include all the Stronghold Assault and Escalation rules in the main rulebook.

I think the new Fantasy edition comes 2014 and 40K has to wait untill the following year. I do however completely agree with your sentiment. GW is merging/will merge/has merged 40K with Apocalypse. I wouldn't even be completely surprised if a 2014 codex had a strength D weapon or two.

I'm fine with larger battles but I think the battlefield has to become bigger. The old kitchen table size is hopelessly outdated if we are to use flyers and titans in all our games.

Speaking of Fantasy I'm sure 2014 will bring changes. Expect allies, fortifications and larger battles. The resistance to change will be huge in that game as well when mono book armies go the way of the dodo.

Except that Fantasy won't be getting 9th edition until 2015 as H&H have been saying for ages... (or at least were saying until the vocal donkey-caves pissed them off to the point they told the internet community in general to go **** themselves.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

Yes, because why to analyse which LoW/ forts are actually really imbalanced and which can be played?

Because it's more "fair" than just banning the revenant and letting everyone besides Eldar bring their LoW's.

1) The Eldar have other superheavies that aren't the Revenant that are lords of war.

2) The Revenant itself has other weapon options that are not Str D.

^^ This.

Come summer of 2014 this will all be moot.

Well we will most certainly have a host of different issues to deal with ; )

Notice how I said 'Starting Point'?
You have to begin somewhere!
I agree, Stronghold Assault isn't too powerful, but imagine if you wanted to bring your Aquilla Strongpoint, but couldn't while you opponent could take a Void Shield Generator, you'd be a bit pissed that the allowed all the other fortifications from the same book to be used!

I'm not saying I agree or disagree but I'm really curious why you (and some others) feel it's a better approach to ban rules and army list supplements completely rather than making a few micro fixes on the actual rules that are causing you headache? Strength D, AV15, re-rollable 2+, allied special abilities and skills giving bonuses to battle brothers, etc? To me your approach stinks of stagnation and preventing the game from going to forward (or any direction GW intends it to go to) as it's all about "I like the game as it stands, can deal with some of its inconsistencies and imbalances, and don't want anything new added to it".

The reason I support large scale macro fixes is because it is simpler. When TOs start going in to change individual unit rules, where does it end? The Tau Buffmander breaks a ton of rules and is way too good--should we tweak it? What about Serpent shields? The list goes on.

Furthermore, what one person finds broken is perfectly fair to others. For instance, I've seen players who only played the same group of 5-6 guys and all believed Vindicators were OP. In their minds, those need tweaking. Now, you can make the claim that the top players and TOs "know better" (and in my opinion, they do), but that doesn't mean that there will be a clear line of what to change and what not to change.

I think as the game gets bigger there will be those that opt for smaller, like kill team. The idea of putting all the rules together is a clearly sign that GW does not want the game to go the tournament scene. I have read accounts of the GW people saying whatever they can do to get away from the rules lawyers the better. I tend to agree. The banning of units and rules is a weak way to play. I personally choose the way I like to play and then have a blast. TOs need to try some of these adds and decided for themselves.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Come summer of 2014 this will all be moot. 7th edition 40k will hit, maybe 6.5 edition really, and include all the Stronghold Assault and Escalation rules in the main rulebook.

2016 is the end of the 4 year cycle.