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.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

How would you define a strong minority?

Again, if you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was not iced, would you complain? Would you consider that a substantial amount of your cake that the bakers had neglected to ice?

A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

Wolfblade wrote:A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

Ok. So if you have a job, and the federal government only takes 38 percent of your paycheck in taxes, you don't consider that a large portion of your paycheck?

Noted.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

Talk about it with words.

This goes back to my assertion that some standard 40k vehicles really should be superheavies, but there is a distinction between superheavies and LoW. In general I think 40k should have a similar point percent restriction like 30k has on LoW, not necessarily as a rule but an agreed upon general practice. In 30k its 25% of your total points for a LoW and in 2000 point games this keeps out anything bigger than a Knight or Baneblade. I have played with and against Knights, Baneblades and similar untis and they're perfectly fine... the difference in resources it takes to destroy them is proportionate to their cost and is easily available in a 2000 pt game.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

My point:

You people are only saying that 38% isn't a strong minority because you're not thinking about how much 38% actually is. That's over a third.

Start thinking about what more than a third of things actually looks like. If more than a third of your car is missing, that's a lot of your car. You probably shouldn't be driving it.

If your internet doesn't work over a third of the time, that's unreliable cable.

8 hours of sleep a night means sleeping a third (less than 38%) of your life away.

I could go on.

It depends, is the 1/3 of the time it doesn't work also the 1/3 of my day that I don't use it (i.e, when I'm sleeping)?

If so, that'd be acceptable.


Is it acceptable to try a bludgeon people with a figure smaller than 2/5s because you can't admit that more than 3/5s of people don't share your opinion ? No.

It doesn't matter if ~2/5s of people share your opinion when the resounding result for your magical 100 people figure shows that 3/5s of people completely disagree.

Also please don't go on. You're just wasting your own time at this point. Go down with your ship with some dignity.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It depend, is the 1/3 of the time it doesn't work also the 1/3 of my day that I don't use it (i.e, when I'm sleeping)?

Let's assuming it's a third of the time that you'd actually use it. So it doesn't work 8 hours out of the day, for four of which you'd actually want to use it.

So basically my internet as it is currently? .

Is it preferred? Hell no. However I have to accept it as there's no other alternative.

It's still a minority of the time though.

Traditio wrote:

Wolfblade wrote:A bad analogy is bad. (but no, I'm not a huge fan of cake or icing)

I'd consider a strong minority something close to not being doubled by the opposing side.

Ok. So if you have a job, and the federal government only takes 38 percent of your paycheck in taxes, you don't consider that a large portion of your paycheck?

Noted.

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

What is the advantage of saying "no superheavies" in whatever context, over saying "no wraithknights" or what have you? Especially when some factions need superheavies to compete on a level playing field against top-tier lists.

Just because Traditio's seemingly incapable of balancing stuff on a more fine-grained level, doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Or that their bullcrap hypotheticals have any bearing on the real world, in which we talk things out like mature individuals, who recognize that the game is unfair and want to help each other have fun regardless.

I guess there's nothing left to discuss about any interesting subject and we're at the point of the thread where Traditio, having failed to get the result he wanted from the poll, goes on and on trying to convince everyone how this "strong minority" means that he's still right?

(It is, however, an amusing contrast with how he dismissed a similar percentage of people as "trolls" and came up with every possible excuse for why they aren't relevant when the minority vote was against his side.)

I think the "strong minority" that doesn't like superheavies is worth taking into account when you go into the store to play games, and specifically ask if people are comfortable with them. >_>b I also think GW didn't balance them very well in a lot of cases, especially WRT gargantuan creatures vs super-heavy walkers.

I think Traditio is being super-adversarial about super-heavies, though, and doesn't seem to have any more mature strategies than demonizing other players and proposing to build walls to keep them out of our bathrooms. They want to play Tau / super-heavies / whatever, and that means they as people are bad and are deliberately trying to hurt others. Guilty until proven innocent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People have caught on to Traditio's aggressive ignorance and intolerance, though, and are like "wait you really want to exclude people just for that???" Which is why they're now doing unscientific polls to try to show how much support there supposedly is for their idea of purging the 40k player base of its heretics.

They should've majored in sociology. Then they'd understand a lot of what's going on here as the complex interpersonal phenomena they are, instead of trying to corral people into bullcrap Socratic arguments that've convinced literally no one.

Looking at profile stuff, this is the same guy who started threads like "Formations Are the Strongest Possibility for 40k Army Balance". So..... yeah.

I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Looking at profile stuff, this is the same guy who started threads like "Formations Are the Strongest Possibility for 40k Army Balance". So..... yeah.

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

MIni MIehm wrote:
I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.

"Underwhelming abilities" in comparison to what?

That really is relative, isn't it?

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

So, if you go to the thread that the Waspinator was talking about, you may find my arguments, if not illuminating, at least as providing some food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

Voting no.

Games can become imbalanced if one side has a superheavy, the other not.

Traditio wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

1. Again, you're trying to use an analogy that's doesn't really work. What if what the government uses my taxes for gets me more than what I could pay for with it? (I.e. free health care, maintenance roads, etc).

2. It's really not. 38% of the electoral college means jack all when the other guy has 62%. I understand you're trying to save face here, but the "strong minority" doesn't exist. It's you grasping at straws to not be wrong. Just admit it and move on.

Traditio wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
I think the strong minority can be safely ignored. Most of them are probably the same sort of people who think that other factions deserve to be nerfed into oblivion for daring to be better than the army they choose to play. I think SHVs and GMCs add an interesting component to the game, even when those models aren't the best, and that banning them doesn't do anything for overall game balance, and in fact negatively impacts some weaker factions who can use, or in some cases need to use, SHVs to augment their underwhelming abilities.

"Underwhelming abilities" in comparison to what?

That really is relative, isn't it?

I actually like formations. I don't even get any formations and I like formations. I don't know about balance, but they certainly offer interesting new things to do with models on the board.

So, if you go to the thread that the Waspinator was talking about, you may find my arguments, if not illuminating, at least as providing some food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfblade wrote:1. Again, bad analogies are bad. This is a poll about SHVs/GMCs in a game, which has very few outside factors unlike that analogy which has a million other things to try and account for (i.e., are they using it properly, do I get back in a tax refund later, etc) which makes it a terrible analogy.

I don't think that's really relevent. 38% either is or is not a lot of your paycheck. It maybe spent for good reasons or bad reasons. But that's still a sizeable portion of your income.

2. You literally just stated the minority is irrelevant, which is you in this case. (And no, I'm talking about US politics here. Would you consider 38% of the electoral college (or popular vote) when running for US president a "strong minority"? Of course not.)

Yes. 38% is a sizeable minority of the electoral college. Practically speaking, it doesn't secure a victory. But that is a lot of people voting for the candidate.

Underwhelming abilities compared to other codices with vanilla units. A pure codex Astra Militarum army is pretty heavily outclassed by a codex Craftworlds army even without the Eldar bringing a Wraithknight. Give them a Knight, and the scales become a bit more fair. Chaos is largely outclassed by most codices, but a well chosen SHV can significantly alter the balance in their favor. These are armies that don't operate on the same power level as other choices in the game, unless they get an extra boost. The fact that the boost to Chaos is a boost to other armies is largely irrelevant. Without SHVs, Chaos is garbage. With SHVs, Chaos stands a chance, even against nominally better armies witrh their own super heavy options. Two Renegade Knights will eat a lot of things for lunch, and even one makes a strong addition to a Cabalstar.

Despite all this anti Traditio sentiment the original question deals with the idea that super heavies changed the 40k game significantly.

I voted Yes but really I think that the game was better before they came in. I have 2 superheavies but I always prefer games without them.

Anecdotally I also think that there are way more people playing this game with no superheavy rules applied to their games than all inclusive.

I enjoy the tactical nuances of 40k and most (not all) of it is lost when a player brings a superheavy.

I've been playing for a long time and I’d have to say it’s only in the current rules set that SHV/GMC having become a real issue.

If you’re going to use one it should be a real risk vs. reward gambit, yes you could devastate you enemies but if they pop it then you loss half your army and find yourself in a very very tight spot. The current set of rules and slew of imbalanced units has caused the issue, not the idea of the units.

Should they belong in Apoc only, hummm maybe more than one at a time yes but you should be able to use them for fluffy reasons or you just like to take risks.

I just make sure to ask my opponent if they are OK playing against a LoW option that is a SH/GH before the game. If they say no, I always try to have a list that doesn't include it. I think I have only had one person refuse, most people ask what it is, and then are OK with it. I think when they ask they just want to see what army I am playing, and making sure it isn't a warhound or something.
I don't think we need blanket bans from the game. I think if the player base as a whole could practice better etiquette and sportsmanship we wouldn't have these issues. Of course, none of this matters within tournaments, where the TO decides things, so my post is not with tournaments in mind.
I do believe that the old escalation rules were pretty nice though. The ones that gave a VP for ever 3HP/W you took of a SH/GC, and the other warlord traits.

I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

For codices with no answers, how is that helpful?

Martel732 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am a big fan of superheavy stuff and think it should be allowed in normal games, but I also think that you should let your opponent know beforehand.

For codices with no answers, how is that helpful?

Virtually every codex has answers to all but the most OP superheavies. Things like Baneblades and Stompas are not a problem for anyone.

 nurgle86 wrote:
I enjoy the tactical nuances of 40k and most (not all) of it is lost when a player brings a superheavy.

"tactical nuances"? in 40k?

Traditio wrote:

But if we can use bad analogies here, if you only got ~38% of the electoral college when running for president, or 38% of the popular vote, would you be a strong minority in a binary choice system?

The "binary choice" system by its very nature makes strong vs. weak minorities irrelevent.

However, if we were talking about European politicians, 38% control of a parliament would be pretty amazing.

This is a binary poll, is it not?

The biggest problem at the core of the superheavy issue is that there's this imaginary line GW draws and says "Ok, so right


-----------------------------------------------------------

HERE we have the line of 300 points.

Anything AT or ABOVE this line gets this particular set of abilities that are quite powerful, they get the full set as soon as they cross this line and no matter how their points costs and basic stats change, these abilities will not scale. The strength of their weapons, the toughness of their armor, and basically all the rest of their stats will totally cap out, but we're going to just keep making things bigger and bigger in terms of points and throwing value at the few stats that don't have a hard cap."

While this may work for a unit type where the benefits of the unit type are relatively minor and baked into the base game (say, infantry, who have a range of 3 - ~250+ points) this is bound to cause some issues when simply being that kind of unit should really be 150+ points worth of the unit's power budget.

The problematic superheavies almost universally fall in the range between 300-500 points, where they've roughly hit the cap of Toughness, armor save, weapon strength, etc, but they don't cost so much that including one is the vast majority of your army.

Should supers be blanket banned from the game? No. There are plenty of ways to make units that do the same stuff and present the same problems supers do using deathstars (especially with psychic powers being what they are currently) and other blob-type superunits. Should the 'superheavy' unit type be reworked to be less problematic at the lower ranges where it applies? Yeah, I do think that rather than the special rules being a blanket thing applied to every superheavy unit, making them parcel out and kick in at various points values would be a far better idea. A stormsurge IK or wraithknight wouldn't be such a problem without the infinite split fire or stomp rules at their full power.

But there are plenty of unit types that need a retool. Jump pack units really need the Jink rule or need to be able to assault after deep strike (maybe with a disorganized charge). Bikes should get either their +1T or jink, not both. FMCs and air rules in general need a total rehaul. Does that mean I think any of those things should be banned from the game because they're imperfect now? No.

 Jewelfox wrote:
What is the advantage of saying "no superheavies" in whatever context, over saying "no wraithknights" or what have you? Especially when some factions need superheavies to compete on a level playing field against top-tier lists.

It's too complicated and creates problems apparently.

I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

I actually think that's a pretty cool idea.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

I think this could be fair in sub 2k point games. Over 2k however that becomes very very army limiting for several armies.

Either way I still prefer the FW HH way of handling things, no more than 25% of your army.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I don't despise the idea of having SHVs and GCs in the game, but I think they've been implemented badly. I don't like they've been given their own FOC slot. I'd rather taking one take up all the appropriate slots in an FOC - so a Wraithknight would take up 3 Heavy Support slots, a Riptide would take up 3 Elites slots, and so on. That'd force some actual choices in list building.

It really wouldn't, it would just impose a troops and hq tax.

It also wouldn't have any effect on riptides since you can take an all riptide formation and riptides aren't GMC's.

 nurgle86 wrote:
Despite all this anti Traditio sentiment the original question deals with the idea that super heavies changed the 40k game significantly.

I voted Yes but really I think that the game was better before they came in.

I see it as the game changed significantly at the time Superheavies came in. I recall playing against Superheavies back in 3E. They were Armorcast and rare and expensive and Apocalypse.

The game definitely was better back then, because it was smoother and simpler. I'm talking 3E-5E. Not the bloated, lawyered mess that we got with 6E-7E. Games were smaller, quicker, with strategy and movement. At this point, there are just too many little rules, too many similar rules, too many special rules, too many unnecessary and random things in the game. But it's not fair to blame all of that on the big boys.