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.

 Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

Always with an opinion, and never with facts.

C'mon, P, got any evidence? GT ruling? Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

I don't care to argue opinions. They are like orifices. Everybody has several and what comes out of them isn't always pleasant.

I care to see facts and data and draw conclusions from those. Aristotle sat and thought, and was wrong about a great deal and once his opinions were taken for gospel, accurate astronomy was set back centuries.

Tell ya what, I'll be helpful, by *giving* you one piece of evidence for your opinion that ImpKs ought to have been banned; army with a ImpKnight winning something big. A guy named Sisk won last year's BAO with one. An ImpK, a Drop Pod or two and grav bikes. It wasn't Ad-lance, though.

Got any evidence to add to that?

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
However, common sense prevailed and tourneys allowed them.

No, common sense didn't prevail, because knights got their special snowflake exemption from the "no superheavies" rule while other superheavies (most of which are weaker than knights) were banned. You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea, but the premise here was that we're talking about events that ban/limit non-knight superheavies. And there is no credible argument for allowing knights but banning all the other stuff.

Always with an opinion, and never with facts.

C'mon, P, got any evidence? GT ruling? Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

I don't care to argue opinions. They are like orifices. Everybody has several and what comes out of them isn't always pleasant.

I care to see facts and data and draw conclusions from those. Aristotle sat and thought, and was wrong about a great deal and once his opinions were taken for gospel, accurate astronomy was set back centuries.

Tell ya what, I'll be helpful, by *giving* you one piece of evidence for your opinion that ImpKs ought to have been banned; army with a ImpKnight winning something big. A guy named Sisk won last year's BAO with one. An ImpK, a Drop Pod or two and grav bikes. It wasn't Ad-lance, though.

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

And they did get their special snowflake exception, the only unrestricted SHVs in many tournaments, even those that banned SH and GC LoWs.

 Zagman wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

From MVBrandt, huh? I *just* read that, while you were replying.

Even had it ready to copy/paste:

MVBrandt wrote:
I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

Well ninja'd, sir. Well done.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

Got any evidence to add to that?

How about the 65%+ Torrent of Fire win rate for IK Primary armies? Makes then significantly more winning than any other primary army.

From MVBrandt, huh? I *just* read that, while you were replying.

Even had it ready to copy/paste:

MVBrandt wrote:
I take a longer look at the overall % of success of certain builds and lists, in terms of curiosity. Ad lance and Knight primaries in general win about 65%+ of their games, which is dramatically higher than any other primary selection. Important to know it's rarely - at least from a TO perspective - about what's winning events; it's far more about what's beating people across the span of the tournament, and how reliably. Whatever anyone says about how balanced or not 40K is, most primary faction choices fall in the 45-55% win rate area ... the exceptions are the bigger problems.

Well ninja'd, sir. Well done.

He does reference it, but it's been there on ToF for quite a while. IK armies simply win far more than everything other army we've seen. Maybe they aren't more dominant on the top tables, but everything on the way up they certainly are. I remember how vocal and disgusted opponents of Adlance and Pacific Rim were at NOVA.

Lone Knights aren't an issue, but they are SHVs, just like that game I refused to play called Apocalypse...

 Brothererekose wrote:
Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

Malcador vs. battlecannon knight.

Knight has double the main gun firepower (two shots vs. one, same stats otherwise), the Malcador gets up to three BS 3 ACs/LCs/HBs.

Knight has AV 13/12/12 with 6 HP, Malcador has 13/12/11 with 6 HP.

Knight has an invulnerable save on one facing, Malcador has no save.

Knight has a D-weapon and stomps in melee, Malcador can't fight in melee at all.

If you upgrade the Malcador to have LCs (pretty much mandatory) you're paying 305 points vs. 370 points for the knight. The Malcador is completely outclassed in every way and would never be taken over a knight in a competitive list. But under common tournament rules you are allowed to take an army of nothing but knights, while the Malcador is banned entirely. Please tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Got any evidence to add to that?

No, because you're demanding evidence for a straw man. My position is not that knights need to be banned/restricted, it's that they should be allowed/banned/restricted just like other superheavies. They should not get a special snowflake exemption to the "no superheavies" rule.

 Zagman wrote:
He does reference it, but it's been there on ToF for quite a while. IK armies simply win far more than everything other army we've seen. Maybe they aren't more dominant on the top tables, but everything on the way up they certainly are. I remember how vocal and disgusted opponents of Adlance and Pacific Rim were at NOVA.

Lone Knights aren't an issue, but they are SHVs, just like that game I refused to play called Apocalypse...

Here, I will voice my opinion: Playing against it does suck. I haven't beaten it yet, and have played against it ... a few times, against different players. And tooling a buncha Crisis Suits with all Fusion, and XV88s with Railguns, sounds un-fun, just to beat that guy/army.

Thanks for the ToF reference though. I'd forgotten it. RealLife takes up brain power that I'd rather devote to 40k.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
Comparative data on how ImpKs are stronger than other SuperHeavies?

Malcador vs. battlecannon knight.

Knight has double the main gun firepower (two shots vs. one, same stats otherwise), the Malcador gets up to three BS 3 ACs/LCs/HBs.

Knight has AV 13/12/12 with 6 HP, Malcador has 13/12/11 with 6 HP.

Knight has an invulnerable save on one facing, Malcador has no save.

Knight has a D-weapon and stomps in melee, Malcador can't fight in melee at all.

If you upgrade the Malcador to have LCs (pretty much mandatory) you're paying 305 points vs. 370 points for the knight. The Malcador is completely outclassed in every way and would never be taken over a knight in a competitive list. But under common tournament rules you are allowed to take an army of nothing but knights, while the Malcador is banned entirely. Please tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Assuming all that is correct, you're right. Makes no sense.

So, why do TOs ban Mal?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because you're demanding evidence for a straw man.

You grab at that Strawman a lot. Alas, you misunderstood, I make no demands here. I 'ask' politely.

 Peregrine wrote:

My position is not that knights need to be banned/restricted, it's that they should be allowed/banned/restricted just like other superheavies. They should not get a special snowflake exemption to the "no superheavies" rule.

As stated previously, I don't care about your opinion. I care about what is actually happening in 40k. And the best evidence comes from tournament data ... not well expressed, or poorly expressed opinions.


Now that Zagman (and MVBrandt) have pointed out the 65% win rate of Ad-Lance (via ToF) I am modifying my opinion (which is prolly worthless to everyone else anyway).

 Brothererekose wrote:
So, why do TOs ban Mal?

Because a lot of players don't want superheavies in "normal" games, regardless of their power level. And that's a legitimate preference to have. The issue is not whether or not LoW are allowed in "normal" games, it's the trend of banning all superheavies but then having a special snowflake exception for the knight.

Alas, you misunderstood, I make no demands here. I 'ask' politely.

Whether you demand or ask politely, you're still asking politely for evidence of something I never claimed. I never argued that knights are too powerful and need to be banned, I said that they need to be banned/restricted if there's a general ban/limit on superheavies. It's about consistency and applying the "no superheavies" rule to all players without making a special snowflake exception to the rule for some people, not about their power level.

MVBrandt wrote:
The "iKnights is a Codex!" argument is ultra shaky.

It's not like people would be totally OK with banning Craftworlds if GW had randomly decided to change their naming structure to Army Book: Craftworlds instead of Codex: Craftworlds.

Further, if they didn't put the word "codex" on iKnights, it's not as if people who now want to use it would be like YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S NOT A CODEX ANYMORE BAN IT!

Weakest, least impactful argument made about whether or not to use iKnights.

It might seem weird to the many of us who have been playing for a decade or more, but with 7th being out for a year now and 6th for 2 years before that, some of the new players are approaching army construction completely differently to old-timers.

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?


I think that TO's need to stop trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about what needs to be banned. GW seems to be actively subverting every line that TO's try to make. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about being a GMC or a SH (see the Malcador). The thing that is wrong with the Wraithknight is its points cost - if it were 400pts then it would be much more palatable. So why not target them individually, rather than their whole class?
The fixes need to be targeted to the problem units, rather than entire classes of models or rules.

Trasvi wrote:

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?

Here's the thing. Your Highlander Tournament example falls apart rather quickly with your reference to double Wraithknights at the end. Outside of fielding a double CAD the only way to get it on a single detachment is through the Craftworld Detachment.

A detachment which has a mandatory 2 HQs, 3 Troops, 1 Fast Attack prior to spammed Wraithknights coming about. I also get the impression you're perhaps focused more heavily on the Wraithknight here than anything else.

Let's set this straight.

The problem isn't the fact that Eldar got spammed Destroyer weapons, cheap fire platform jetbikes, cheap gargantuan creatures, incredible bonuses on their formations (such as +1 BS) or point cuts across the board.

The problem is that they got all of the above. It's a compound problem with the Eldar. Units that didn't need to become cheaper or stronger became cheaper and stronger. Then they got formation options that made them even stronger. Their weapons were upgraded even more and on top of that the other buffs in the army (scatbikes, cheap GCs, D-weapons) will serve to artificially shift the meta to an environment where the old, non-buffed version of a unit would be considered strong. So a buffed version is somewhat insane.

With regards to Imperial Knights? Surely that's best suited for another thread altogether? Knights are their own problem really and should probably be kept seperate from Eldar.

The fact the new iKnight book lists them as Lords of War will help a lot as it means the exist in a specific slot, rather than being a free floating oddity as they were before. And to be frank, most things I see have a general blanket ban on Lords of War - though it is moving slowly toward Gargantuan or Superheavy Lords of War due to the amount of characters shifting across to that slot.

Also - with regards to nothing being inherently imbalanced with GCs and Superheavies? In a sense yes, in a sense no. Some armies deal with those unit types exceedingly well. Others, which are traditionally weaker to armour or MCs suffer even more without being able to bring out their own big guns.

And yes, points costs. That's the real devil. To be frank, they need shifting across the board. Not just for one or two units.

If a Wraithknight needs to be 400 points then Tyranid Hierodules need to be 350ish points in comparison (as WS4, I5 on a D wielding superheavy is huge - the allows characters in different armies to be splatted with ease) and Malcadors honestly should be sat at the lower end of the new scale being glorified Leman Russes with more HP.

And to be honest, people may have started in 6th and spammed Wraithknights. But to be fair, given GW's history...and what happened to Blood Angels? Being forced to either buy some extra models and field the Craftworld detachment or to use only 1 WK is a small price to being told you now have a Troops tax as half your Troops choices have spontaneously become elites.

Trasvi wrote:


It might seem weird to the many of us who have been playing for a decade or more, but with 7th being out for a year now and 6th for 2 years before that, some of the new players are approaching army construction completely differently to old-timers.

As an example: our club held a mini tournament event a few weeks ago, and one of the veteran organisers was pushing to have a 'Highlander' style event. One Troops, one HQ, One FA, one Heavy, one elites, before you start filling out your other slots. But one of the new players had to say "But I don't own any troops for my army." He'd been playing with purely formations (Dark Eldar iirc?) and literally couldn't play in the event with those restrictions.

It's not inconceivable that some players have their army primarily composed of Imperial Knights. They are allowed to do that: the Knights book has its own force org chart, it doesn't say anywhere that it is 'opponents permission' or anything else. You're probably right that it's not good for the game: but in rules terms, and in the eyes of some players, the codex really is no different to the Space Marines codex. How were they supposed to know?

Perhaps there might have been an argument that they should have known that it was previously impossible to play at most points levels with Knight armies due to having only 370-375pt models with no upgrades but now with a variety of upgrades, relics and different point levels Knights can get pretty close to the points limit anywhere from 750 to 2000pts.

Now we're seeing another extension of that with Eldar. You have players who have only known 7th edition eldar; they bought the codex and the wraighknights with every reason to believe they would be allowed to play with those models. Its not uncommon to see armies with 2 wraithknights already. Yet you're talking about preventing them from using models that they bought with no ill intention. Can you imagine if the same thing gets done to Tau and suddenly competitive Tau players need to replace 3 GMC Riptides?


I think that TO's need to stop trying to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about what needs to be banned. GW seems to be actively subverting every line that TO's try to make. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about being a GMC or a SH (see the Malcador). The thing that is wrong with the Wraithknight is its points cost - if it were 400pts then it would be much more palatable. So why not target them individually, rather than their whole class?
The fixes need to be targeted to the problem units, rather than entire classes of models or rules.

From a TO perspecitve I tend to see people prefer wide scale bans to targeted ones, because targeted comes across as picking and choosing. Why ban this one strong model (wraithknights) and not ban say Centurions (just picking something)? Furthermore, the answer to what do they do is simply they don't attend if they cannot field a legal army (this would be the case if say they did not own enough points, or hadn't painted their models.) This is more of an issue in a small local group than at a larger GT. I agree that it seems GW is actively subverting every line, why wouldn't they it makes them more money. That does not mean it is healthy for tournaments, or the game in general (I rarely play anymore and the 7th ed game structure, addition of superheavies etc is a large reason.) To some extent disallowing superheavies making someones army invalid is no different than someone purchasing an army and then having GW release a hard counter to said army or at least large portions of it. You end up needing to buy new units if you want to participate in a meaningful way.

 Brothererekose wrote:
*Did* anybody win a GT with Ad-Lance? An RTT?

Renegade open (November, 2014) was won by: AdLance + Imperial Guard (2 fearless conscript blobs, etc.) + Void Shield Generator.

That's the only one I know of.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

I agree, in fact I would loe it if all the crazy crap was indexed to high point brackets, everyone's happy. The people that like 2000-3000pts can keep all the crazy, those that prefer more of a 5th ed 1500pts level vibe are happy too. I would argue that's what I like a lot about 30k, far less politics just to get a game in, I don't have express my lack of interest in playing with or against lords of war, I can just agree to play at a points level where they're not an option.



People can make all the points they want in this thread about not being able to play with their toys at one event or the other, but lets not kid ourselves, just making players have the same amount of points is modifying the game.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You could certainly argue that general bans on superheavies were a bad idea

Or a fantastic idea, depending on if you prefer playing 40k or apoc, you know, those two different games some now pretend were always one entity. That or we've always been at war with eastasia.

One could also argue that anything over 1500pts. Is no longer 40k.

Second edition was firmly a 1500pt. Standard. Now with the 2000-2500 games everyone wants to play you have more room to spam cheese units and include silly Alliance combos.

Flyers are not 40k either.

40k should be 1500pts max with no flyers, no allies, no super heavies, no formations and no fortifications.

I agree, in fact I would loe it if all the crazy crap was indexed to high point brackets, everyone's happy. The people that like 2000-3000pts can keep all the crazy, those that prefer more of a 5th ed 1500pts level vibe are happy too. I would argue that's what I like a lot about 30k, far less politics just to get a game in, I don't have express my lack of interest in playing with or against lords of war, I can just agree to play at a points level where they're not an option.



People can make all the points they want in this thread about not being able to play with their toys at one event or the other, but lets not kid ourselves, just making players have the same amount of points is modifying the game.

Agreed.

Large point games do just as much to damage game balance and kill fun as LOW themselves do.

At 1500pts you have to make tough choices about what you bring. You can't spam as much, you have to try to build a more balanced force that covers all bases.


Instead of trying to make a bunch of convoluted and potentially biased house/event rules about what can and can't be fielded simy cap the games at a more reasonable and challenging point value. This one switch will solve many of the issues discussed here and elsewhere in one fell swoop...

Not to mention that smaller games will play much quicker allowing people to perhaps :gasp: play more than three turns, maybe even finishing games in other ways besides his timing out.

Anytime someone asks me what points I want to play I say 1500. 99.9% of the time they gasp and stutter in disbelief that I would want to play such a "small" game. Yet when we play the game size they want they are then Miffed at some aspect of what I have brought. Don't force me to have to spend 1000 additional points and not expect to see some high point models...

You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points. Balance is no where near better.

gungo wrote:
You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points.

Maybe you missed the part where I said no super heavies, flyers, formations, allies or fortifications should be allowed period because they "aren't 40k". This was in response to another poster claiming LOW "aren't 40k" and are better suited for formats like apocalypse. The same arguement can be made about all of these. They are all new additions to the game that have greatly impacted the complexity of the game and led to balance issues and claims of "lost fun".

In addition to removing those gameplay can also be greatly improved by choosing a more challenging/limiting point value such as 1500pts. Other things ruin the game besides these problamatic unit types (spamming, etc). And less points to work with limits spamming and makes you have to chose between all the toys you would like to bring.

In addition games would play faster which is always a plus.

 CT GAMER wrote:

gungo wrote:
You are 100% wrong a superheavy in a low point game is even worse.
Take a look at the battlereports section below and you will find plenty of examples of why it doesn't work. Here I'll start you off with one.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/646400.page

Final table was an undefeated ad lance vs an undefeated thunderhawk. And completed tabling by those lists, games weren't even close when you add in superheavies at low points.

Maybe you missed the part where I said no super heavies, flyers, formations, allies or fortifications should be allowed period because they "aren't 40k".

In addition to removing those gameplay can also be greatly improved by choosing a more challenging/limiting point value such as 1500pts. Other things ruin the game besides these problamatic unit types (spamming, etc). And less points to work with limits spamming and makes you have to chose between all the toys you would like to bring.

In addition games would play faster which is always a plus.

My bad thought you meant instead of banniing/restricting superheavies thought you tried to say 1500 or games made them more balanced.
And I was like no way!!!

The game actually gets MORE balanced as you reach into the stratosphere of points. A lot of people don't know this, because they think apocalypse is actually what internet hyperbole says it is: random str D flying all over the place and entire tables being cleared in a turn. People get scared off by that and never even try it.

The reasons apocalypse is more balanced are:

1. People just don't own the models needed to keep the same percentage of their list "tournament quality." IE if you scaled up an eldar 1850 list that was 30 scatbikes, a WK, a Jetseer, some d scythe WG, and a wwp dark eldar ally with 5 warriors to...let's say 6000 points, they would need almost 100 scatbikes, 3 wk's, 3 jetseers, 15 WG, 3 dark eldar hq's, 15 warriors. That's quite a number of models to keep tournament consistency in his list!

2. Balance issues start becoming too small to notice. A significant amount of people seem to agree that the new 7e wraithknight is about 100 points undercosted. If you assume that that is true, then every time you take a WK, you're effectively taking 100 free points. In a 500 point game, that's a massive amount. You would effectively have 20% more points than your opponent, assuming he took things that actually are in line with point costs. In large point games, these single unit imbalances get smaller and smaller the higher the points go. No one cares that a WK is 100 points undercosted when your point totals are reaching into the 5 digit range.

3. More and more dice start drawing out the law of averages. Strategy becomes more important than ever, moving your units to where you get cover, or in other ways get to roll more dice against the opponent than he gets to roll against you wins the day. You would have to have unprecedented terrible luck to cause a winning strategy to turn into a losing one in a big apocalypse game.

4. You CAN actually fit multiple redundant answers to everything in your list, making a TAC list. Many tourney lists at 1850 or less are "gambit" lists instead of trying to be a TAC list (for good reasons.) Eg: they gamble on spamming units with a particular edge, such as flyers or all high armor, hoping not to run into an opponent that has a ton of good anti air or anti armor.

Also as a side note, most titans aren't worth their points unless they can stay alive and stay shooting for at least 3-4 rounds. There are two easy ways to deal with them: focus them down early, or ignore them save for a token force to tie them up in combat.

Anyway, the silliness we have at the 1850 range isn't apocalypse being stuffed into 40k, it's unbalanced and gambit lists being stuffed into a low point limit.

Just a little attempt to inform and educate!

Also not forgetting you can bring units and entire formations back via stratigery points.

Ahh apoc such fun....for the first hour. then it gets daunting

 Desubot wrote:
Also not forgetting you can bring units and entire formations back via stratigery points.

Ahh apoc such fun....for the first hour. then it gets daunting

Yeah that is the one downside. I wish there was a way to fit apoc games into tourney time limits. Maybe someday they'll finally have a true video game version of the game where you can cut out a lot of the model-moving and dice filtering time.

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

 CT GAMER wrote:

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

*Sarcasm*
First of all, non-tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes too-but that is besides the point-seriously. Second of all, the game being unbalanced and sort of silly is just, like, your opinion-which in my opinion is sort of silly. Third, you can turn a fish into a dog very easily with the cunning use of a bun and some fixins. Finally, last I checked, fish and dogs never come with directions on what their intended uses are and as far as what we can tell about Warhammer's intended use-it is to have fun-which is exactly what some people like to do in tournaments. Indeed, the very core concept of Warhammer is competing with your opponent to do things like claim objectives and stuff.
*/Sarcasm*

So ultimately (1) Warhammer CAN be balanced and played in a balanced environment whereby (2) a healthy competition between players can be had so that (3) the winner of said competition can be determined in a meaningful way. Coming on here and saying "warhammer isn't balanced and it was never meant to be played competitively" is just your opinion that can't be supported by anything objective.

Now this thread is about how Eldar will affect tournaments, not why people think Warhammer isn't balanced or why tournaments are not how 40k was meant to be played.

Overall, as per the ITC survey results, Eldar's most immediate effect on tournaments is to determine how D weapons should be incorporated into regular competitive 40k. This shows us that the community and TOs can come together and make changes/alterations where there appears to be a need in order to foster (1) good will and (2) balance.

 mortetvie wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

I seem to have boundless energy when it comes to apocalypse games though. I have never once felt like calling an apoc game early.

Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes. The game is by nature unbalanced and sort of silly. You can try to turn a fish into a dog as you want but it will always be a fish. When you try to use something in a way it wasn't intended to be used you have to expect/accept a flawed result...

*Sarcasm*
First of all, non-tourney play takes itself way too seriously sometimes too-but that is besides the point-seriously. Second of all, the game being unbalanced and sort of silly is just, like, your opinion-which in my opinion is sort of silly. Third, you can turn a fish into a dog very easily with the cunning use of a bun and some fixins. Finally, last I checked, fish and dogs never come with directions on what their intended uses are and as far as what we can tell about Warhammer's intended use-it is to have fun-which is exactly what some people like to do in tournaments. Indeed, the very core concept of Warhammer is competing with your opponent to do things like claim objectives and stuff.
*/Sarcasm*

So ultimately (1) Warhammer CAN be balanced and played in a balanced environment whereby (2) a healthy competition between players can be had so that (3) the winner of said competition can be determined in a meaningful way. Coming on here and saying "warhammer isn't balanced and it was never meant to be played competitively" is just your opinion that can't be supported by anything objective.

Now this thread is about how Eldar will affect tournaments, not why people think Warhammer isn't balanced or why tournaments are not how 40k was meant to be played.

Overall, as per the ITC survey results, Eldar's most immediate effect on tournaments is to determine how D weapons should be incorporated into regular competitive 40k. This shows us that the community and TOs can come together and make changes/alterations where there appears to be a need in order to foster (1) good will and (2) balance.

If 40k is balanced why the need for event specific rules/limitations?

People that run events may impose additional rules/restrictions that doesn't mean they balanced anything, only that they addressed whatever squeaky wheel had people not and bothered at that particular time.

The fact that hundreds if not thousands of posts are listed here and elsewhere complaining about codex design, Rules and game balance seem to suggest that 40k may have actual issue that make it a bad vehicle for fair competition. That isn't something I am the first to suggest...

First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Anyone arguing 40k is a well balanced game, particularly without any restrictions or changes, is not being realistic. (does anyone think a Malcador or Macharius is really worth as much as a Knight or Wraithknight? Does anyone think Vespids are worth more than Striking Scorpions or Swooping Hawks or half again as much as a basic Space Marine?)

As I've mentioned before, GW will be the first to tell you this because they aren't trying to write a balanced and competitive ruleset. They've said as much going back to their 6E 2012 studio open day event. This isn't a secret. This isn't subjective. It's not an opinion. The creators have flat out stated that 40k is not a balanced and competitive game, nor is that their aim. It's a framework for playing imaginary movie moments with plastic army men, not a tactical combat simulation.

If you want 40k to be a balanced and competitive ruleset, you'll have to make changes and introduce restrictions, and again, GW have said as much.

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced.

Of course it is. If everything was balanced then nobody would be unhappy enough about the things that are banned/restricted to demand bans/restrictions. Demands for bans/restrictions are almost always the result of a perceived balance issue, and when that perception is common enough for a particular ban/restriction to be the default in tournaments it's a pretty strong sign that the problem is legitimate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Don't you think that might be because people tend to not take apoc so seriously? Apoc is a chance to ooh and ahh over lots of models on a table and it is expected to be over the top, etc.: nobody is trying to treat apoc like a sport.

Exactly. Apocalypse is stupidly broken if you play it competitively. The only reason it functions is that very few people take it seriously enough to invest the time and money required to exploit its balance issues. If you make big games with high-point-cost models the default in competitive tournaments then the illusion of "balance" will be shattered.

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.
Edit: Because that would be hilarious.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced.

Of course it is. If everything was balanced then nobody would be unhappy enough about the things that are banned/restricted to demand bans/restrictions. Demands for bans/restrictions are almost always the result of a perceived balance issue, and when that perception is common enough for a particular ban/restriction to be the default in tournaments it's a pretty strong sign that the problem is legitimate.

It is actually a logical fallacy to assume that simply because specific rules/limitations and formats exist that they exist because 40k is unbalanced or that they are necessarily evidence that 40k is unbalanced-and that was simply my point. For example, why does anyone make any specified format if not because they want to play 40k that way? That doesn't necessarily mean that 40k isn't balanced.

Now as far as if 40k is balanced in any incarnation, we must first have some meaningful and objective metric to determine what is or isn't balanced. Does anyone have such a thing? I doubt it, so making blanket statements as to how balanced or unbalanced 40k is doesn't really do much or mean anything. Overall, 40k as it stands in 7th is a "play as you want" edition and what one group of people thinks is balanced is bound to differ from any other group and who is to say any one person's way of playing 40k is wrong?