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.

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

Depending how it's done that can be interesting or horrible. I kinda dig it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I need to fix that without increasing points and that's a very difficult thing to do.

To be fair, the solution is very simple, its just that it'd upset people who play entirely superheavy armies, or use them regularly.

Yeah I mean you could always delete the problem units from the game.

That doesn't really mean I get more games with the army I want to play though. It just means I don't get to play Warhammer 40k at all.

Rhyltran wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

Depending how it's done that can be interesting or horrible. I kinda dig it.

That's how it was in 3e/4e - you put the pie plate down where you wanted to go, rolled scatter like it was an actual pie, then you set your unit up within the plate wherever it went.

Oh, and I think there was a roll for them to show up at all that turn.

If it scattered off the table, 100% casualty. If it landed in DT, you had to make rolls against Toughness, I think. Can't remember anymore.

That's part of the reason that airborne type Doctrine wasn't so hot for Guard at the time - you could make a number of units (inf, sentinel) all have Deep Strike, but you risked losing guys on the drop, scattering all your sticks around into useless positions, and so forth.

M.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

I'd love that. Since there are no scatter dice anymore something like rolling a D6: on a 4+ the unit can deepstrike 9'' away from enemy units, on a 2 or 3 it can arrive 18'' away from enemy units, on a 6 it's completely destroyed. No re-rolls (like CP) allowed.

Or maybe just limit the deep strike ability to one unit and one solo character per list.

IMHO the deep strike spam is one of the biggest problems of 40k.

 Blackie wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

I'd love that. Since there are no scatter dice anymore something like rolling a D6: on a 4+ the unit can deepstrike 9'' away from enemy units, on a 2 or 3 it can arrive 18'' away from enemy units, on a 6 it's completely destroyed. No re-rolls (like CP) allowed.

Or maybe just limit the deep strike ability to one unit and one solo character per list.

IMHO the deep strike spam is one of the biggest problems of 40k.

*thinks deep strike is unfun and uninteractive because it removes his units before he gets to use them.*

*wants to introduce a mechanic that instantly kills a deep striking unit before it gets put on the table*

Tourney games are a very good litmus test for balance. Spammed units probably need a nerf bat or alternatives buffed. Marines have very few undercosted options and actually tend toward overcosted.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yeah I mean you could always delete the problem units from the game.

That doesn't really mean I get more games with the army I want to play though. It just means I don't get to play Warhammer 40k at all.

They wouldn't be deleted from the game, just restricted to certain game types, like Apoc of old.

Its pretty melodramatic to say you couldn't play 40k at all; if you were here prior to 6th, everyone got along just fine back when you couldn't run 3 baneblades as a regular, pick up game army.

The scale creep in 40k is hurting it just as bad as power creep. I have no problem with Apoc being a thing, but I feel that 40k would be improved dramatically if the 'base' game had no flyers or superheavies, or at the very least, heavily restricted.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Yeah I mean you could always delete the problem units from the game.

That doesn't really mean I get more games with the army I want to play though. It just means I don't get to play Warhammer 40k at all.

They wouldn't be deleted from the game, just restricted to certain game types, like Apoc of old.

Its pretty melodramatic to say you couldn't play 40k at all; if you were here prior to 6th, everyone got along just fine back when you couldn't run 3 baneblades as a regular, pick up game army.

The scale creep in 40k is hurting it just as bad as power creep. I have no problem with Apoc being a thing, but I feel that 40k would be improved dramatically if the 'base' game had no flyers or superheavies, or at the very least, heavily restricted.

The problem with "everyone got along just fine back in 5th" is the dramatic increase in lethality.

My 3rd-6th Edition 40k army had 1 Baneblade in it and other stuff. Nowadays, a single Baneblade gets alpha-struck off the board, and I don't actually get to use it. It's not really fun at all; I've tried running just one.

In 7th I transitioned to the Heresy, where Baneblade companies were fine and no one had problems with them.

Now, in 8th, they're dramatically better (sure, that's fine), but there's an issue with skew lists (as usual) so I don't know how to proceed.

 Blackie wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

I'd love that. Since there are no scatter dice anymore something like rolling a D6: on a 4+ the unit can deepstrike 9'' away from enemy units, on a 2 or 3 it can arrive 18'' away from enemy units, on a 6 it's completely destroyed. No re-rolls (like CP) allowed.

Or maybe just limit the deep strike ability to one unit and one solo character per list.

IMHO the deep strike spam is one of the biggest problems of 40k.

Could change reserves so that you rolled a dice for each unit you had in reserves at the start of your turn, and on a 4+, you could pick one of your units from that list to come in. On turn three, all remaining reserves would become available. More reliable than previous editions, but still have to account for not everything being right where you need it when you need it.

@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO deep strike should have never existed. And as I said the before rhinos don't look particularly competitive for SM because right now they're basically a gun line army.

Hear me out. What if deep strike were associated with some sort of risk mechanic, like a scatter, failure, and so on?
I know it sounds crazy but....

I'd love that. Since there are no scatter dice anymore something like rolling a D6: on a 4+ the unit can deepstrike 9'' away from enemy units, on a 2 or 3 it can arrive 18'' away from enemy units, on a 6 it's completely destroyed. No re-rolls (like CP) allowed.

Or maybe just limit the deep strike ability to one unit and one solo character per list.

IMHO the deep strike spam is one of the biggest problems of 40k.

*thinks deep strike is unfun and uninteractive because it removes his units before he gets to use them.*

*wants to introduce a mechanic that instantly kills a deep striking unit before it gets put on the table*

Anon (because of the posting style), it was a joke about the old deep strike in the sense that was not 100% reliable so you could not count on the reserves alpha striking the enemy on turn 1 with 100% reliability.
We went from LOLRANDUMB to "whoever gets the first turn".
I do ask, maybe there is a middle ground? Like even roll reserves on a 2+, and mishaps just delay their arrival, with everything automatic at turn 3-4, as suggested.
But what people say above "if I deploy ONE super-heavy gets deleted" tells us that there is something wrong about alpha strike.
And I said this as someone that loves DS and summoning.

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

We went from LOLRANDUMB to "whoever gets the first turn".

Which is actually more LOLRANDUMB than it used to be, as so much hinges on a single roll.
Back in my day all the random reserve rolls averaged out over the course of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

No problem! Always glad to be of assistance!

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

I mean, honestly, the solution is to play something other than 3 baneblades. It may not be ideal for any number of reasons, but apparently its not ideal to run 3 baneblades either for your opponent.

If the single superheavy detachment let you run a doctrine, that'd be a help to let you run a single one with the doctrine of your choice, and would probably be an easy houserule.

It sounds like you're screwed no matter what you do anyways, and the choice boils down to running what you love at the expense of some opponents, or running something you're not in love for some opponent goodwill.

Pick your poison I suppose.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

Your reply confuses me a bit.... on one hand, you are concerned running 3 bane blades is making you too competitive... on the other hand you don't want to take less because it's less optimized.

 Fafnir wrote:


Could change reserves so that you rolled a dice for each unit you had in reserves at the start of your turn, and on a 4+, you could pick one of your units from that list to come in. On turn three, all remaining reserves would become available. More reliable than previous editions, but still have to account for not everything being right where you need it when you need it.

How about you just divide the deep strikers into thirds rounding up.

1/3 can arrive turn 1
1/3 can arrive turn 2
1/3 can arrive turn 3

That means a guy with just 1 or 2 two deep striking units isn't hamstrung.

Then add a stratagem for 1 or 2 CP that allows you to deep strike on additional unit that turn.

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

Your reply confuses me a bit.... on one hand, you are concerned running 3 bane blades is making you too competitive... on the other hand you don't want to take less because it's less optimized.

Not because it is less optimized - I'm not worried about losing, and in fact dropping 3 Baneblades down to 2 or 1 would probably improve the list.

But

the problem I've encountered is 1 Baneblade is comparatively trivial to alpha-strike for rather normal TAC armies, and is an obvious and hard-to-hide target, so running 1 is essentially a very good way to end up running 0 with a 1500 point army. I want to play with a Baneblade, not set it on the board and then take it off the board and play on with other models.

Two Baneblades avoids this problem, but lack Regimental Doctrines (which is a crucial part of the fluff, really) and takes 2/3 of the max detachment limits, so it severely limits the support options I can bring anyways, though admittedly in this case by detachments rather than by points. I could bring 2 in Supreme Command detachments, but taking 6 irrelevant HQ's just seems weird. Like my 2k army is ten Company Commanders and two Baneblades... that makes sense. *rolleyes*. As an additional, though more minor concern, two Baneblades are still borderline skew anyways, and with 1 being able to be alpha-struck, the second one has only a single turn of retaliation before it, too, evaporates - unless I can destroy the enemy AT assets in that turn, and then the remaining Baneblade dominates. That's... just more skew, again.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah, from a CSM perspective rhinos are solid, though I think they'll be replaced by the dreadclaw for most things now that that's priced reasonably.

You think so? They still cost fifty points more than the loyalist drop pods (at 83) because reasons. Hard to justify when dread-claws are supposed to be older technology. Maybe theres something im missing that dread-claws do better than drop pods?

On a separate note i say we petition ITC to do some point changes for their tournaments so we can start using those instead of this chapter approved garbage.

Wouldn't the problems with deep striking be cured by not letting them come in turn 1 and then having to roll for each unit individually each turn. Like we did in other editions.

Right now there is no downside to deep striking.

"There is no downside to deep striking"

As designed by the game devs. Because if its not completely reliable... its "not fun".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

Your reply confuses me a bit.... on one hand, you are concerned running 3 bane blades is making you too competitive... on the other hand you don't want to take less because it's less optimized.

Not because it is less optimized - I'm not worried about losing, and in fact dropping 3 Baneblades down to 2 or 1 would probably improve the list.

But

the problem I've encountered is 1 Baneblade is comparatively trivial to alpha-strike for rather normal TAC armies, and is an obvious and hard-to-hide target, so running 1 is essentially a very good way to end up running 0 with a 1500 point army. I want to play with a Baneblade, not set it on the board and then take it off the board and play on with other models.

Two Baneblades avoids this problem, but lack Regimental Doctrines (which is a crucial part of the fluff, really) and takes 2/3 of the max detachment limits, so it severely limits the support options I can bring anyways, though admittedly in this case by detachments rather than by points. I could bring 2 in Supreme Command detachments, but taking 6 irrelevant HQ's just seems weird. Like my 2k army is ten Company Commanders and two Baneblades... that makes sense. *rolleyes*. As an additional, though more minor concern, two Baneblades are still borderline skew anyways, and with 1 being able to be alpha-struck, the second one has only a single turn of retaliation before it, too, evaporates - unless I can destroy the enemy AT assets in that turn, and then the remaining Baneblade dominates. That's... just more skew, again.

Well it just seems like you are really set on playing 3 bane blades (which is fine). But without dropping one or two down instead and excepting they may just die or losing out on some doctrines there's simply no way around your problem. Playing a one-dimensional list will typically lead to a one-dimensional game. Your opponents are either going to have a list with the capability of beating you or they won't. This will never really change when you play a list that consists of one model type as lack of diversity in your list also presents the issue of lack of answers from another.

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

Your reply confuses me a bit.... on one hand, you are concerned running 3 bane blades is making you too competitive... on the other hand you don't want to take less because it's less optimized.

Not because it is less optimized - I'm not worried about losing, and in fact dropping 3 Baneblades down to 2 or 1 would probably improve the list.

But

the problem I've encountered is 1 Baneblade is comparatively trivial to alpha-strike for rather normal TAC armies, and is an obvious and hard-to-hide target, so running 1 is essentially a very good way to end up running 0 with a 1500 point army. I want to play with a Baneblade, not set it on the board and then take it off the board and play on with other models.

Two Baneblades avoids this problem, but lack Regimental Doctrines (which is a crucial part of the fluff, really) and takes 2/3 of the max detachment limits, so it severely limits the support options I can bring anyways, though admittedly in this case by detachments rather than by points. I could bring 2 in Supreme Command detachments, but taking 6 irrelevant HQ's just seems weird. Like my 2k army is ten Company Commanders and two Baneblades... that makes sense. *rolleyes*. As an additional, though more minor concern, two Baneblades are still borderline skew anyways, and with 1 being able to be alpha-struck, the second one has only a single turn of retaliation before it, too, evaporates - unless I can destroy the enemy AT assets in that turn, and then the remaining Baneblade dominates. That's... just more skew, again.

Well it just seems like you are really set on playing 3 bane blades (which is fine). But without dropping one or two down instead and excepting they may just die or losing out on some doctrines there's simply no way around your problem. Playing a one-dimensional list will typically lead to a one-dimensional game. Your opponents are either going to have a list with the capability of beating you or they won't. This will never really change when you play a list that consists of one model type as lack of diversity in your list also presents the issue of lack of answers from another.

Right, yes.

I realize this. And it bothers me. There are no solutions. To me, that is worse game design than unbalance - at least if it were unbalanced, I could offer to tone down the special rules or reduce their firepower or something, or if it was unbalanced against me, just accept losing (as I did when I ran the army in 7th).

But this is actually an insurmountable (apparently) problem in the game's structure, and I'm very much upset and alarmed that knight armies, baneblade armies, flyer armies, etc., which in my opinion are some of the coolest and most engaging armies out there fluffwise, are boring.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
@Unit

I can assure you that removing superheavies and flyers (or again, heavily restricted) would eliminate the issues of skew lists using those unit types.

Yes, but it also removes my army and interest in the game outside of Apoc, which almost never gets played in my experience.

So aside from "feth you, got mine" do you have any advice that could help me?

Don't play 3 baneblades?

We already went over this. If you want to play with 3 baneblades, no more, no less, there's nothing that can done outside of GW changing the rules.

The solution to your problem is to simply not use 3 baneblades.

Thanks for your help, I'm glad you bothered to reply.

And I would be willing to play more, and less, actually. But more just exacerbates the problem, and less has a whole bunch of nonsensical rules issues (loss of doctrines/use of 2/3rds of allowed detachments/loss of command points) while also preventing me from actually using the vehicles, as a single Baneblade is very very very easily alphastruck.

Your reply confuses me a bit.... on one hand, you are concerned running 3 bane blades is making you too competitive... on the other hand you don't want to take less because it's less optimized.

Not because it is less optimized - I'm not worried about losing, and in fact dropping 3 Baneblades down to 2 or 1 would probably improve the list.

But

the problem I've encountered is 1 Baneblade is comparatively trivial to alpha-strike for rather normal TAC armies, and is an obvious and hard-to-hide target, so running 1 is essentially a very good way to end up running 0 with a 1500 point army. I want to play with a Baneblade, not set it on the board and then take it off the board and play on with other models.

Two Baneblades avoids this problem, but lack Regimental Doctrines (which is a crucial part of the fluff, really) and takes 2/3 of the max detachment limits, so it severely limits the support options I can bring anyways, though admittedly in this case by detachments rather than by points. I could bring 2 in Supreme Command detachments, but taking 6 irrelevant HQ's just seems weird. Like my 2k army is ten Company Commanders and two Baneblades... that makes sense. *rolleyes*. As an additional, though more minor concern, two Baneblades are still borderline skew anyways, and with 1 being able to be alpha-struck, the second one has only a single turn of retaliation before it, too, evaporates - unless I can destroy the enemy AT assets in that turn, and then the remaining Baneblade dominates. That's... just more skew, again.

Well it just seems like you are really set on playing 3 bane blades (which is fine). But without dropping one or two down instead and excepting they may just die or losing out on some doctrines there's simply no way around your problem. Playing a one-dimensional list will typically lead to a one-dimensional game. Your opponents are either going to have a list with the capability of beating you or they won't. This will never really change when you play a list that consists of one model type as lack of diversity in your list also presents the issue of lack of answers from another.

Right, yes.

I realize this. And it bothers me. There are no solutions. To me, that is worse game design than unbalance - at least if it were unbalanced, I could offer to tone down the special rules or reduce their firepower or something, or if it was unbalanced against me, just accept losing (as I did when I ran the army in 7th).

But this is actually an insurmountable (apparently) problem in the game's structure, and I'm very much upset and alarmed that knight armies, baneblade armies, flyer armies, etc., which in my opinion are some of the coolest and most engaging armies out there fluffwise, are boring.

I wouldn't consider this an issue with the game's design... as this works the same in every game I've played in my life whether it be athletic, card, video or board. If your hockey team plays purely offense and doesn't back check you will either blow the other team out or be blown out. There's no in-between because there your strategy is so one dimensional it either works or fails completely. Play hearthstone and run a pure agro deck and you will always get blown out by decks that can repeatedly clear the board. Spec your mage to be a one-shot monster and you either one-shot people or you lose. I would say that your issue is being created by your own playstyle. It doesn't really matter which game you play if you always focus on a singular aspect of a game it's going to give you dramatic win/loss conditions and make fights either easy or nearly impossible to win.

Asmodios wrote:
I wouldn't consider this an issue with the game's design... as this works the same in every game I've played in my life whether it be athletic, card, video or board. If your hockey team plays purely offense and doesn't back check you will either blow the other team out. There's no in-between because there your strategy is so one dimensional it either works or fails completely. Play hearthstone and run a pure agro deck and you will always get blown out by decks that can repeatedly clear the board. Spec your mage to be a one-shot monster and you either one-shot people or you lose. I would say that your issue is being created by your own playstyle. It doesn't really matter which game you play if you always focus on a singular aspect of a game it's going to give you dramatic win/lose conditions and make fights either easy or nearly impossible to win.

I don't think that's true at all, because I'm not focusing on a singular aspect of the game. I want to run 3 superheavy tanks, sure, but that's one of a whole list of things:

1) I'd like to run 3 superheavy tanks
2) Putting my SOB in with them would be pretty neat too, as I like the imagery of 3 cathedral tanks with sisters around them.
3) Putting in some IG infantry would be good to prevent boardwipes and the like, maybe to screen (though screens are less necessary with Baneblades)
4) Bringing some attached support units of other types would be fun: recon, ordnance and maintenance, logistics - and there's even models to represent them on the tabletop.
5) Perhaps add other mono-focused support units, like a squadron of Hydras or some artillery

etc. etc.

The point is that I don't only want to run tanks - if I played 3k, I wouldn't just bring 6 tanks. But because of the 2k limit and 3 tanks being 1500 points, the game is fairly boring, even if I do bring a couple of recon units, a platoon of infantry, and maybe a maintenance vehicle or so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I wouldn't consider this an issue with the game's design... as this works the same in every game I've played in my life whether it be athletic, card, video or board. If your hockey team plays purely offense and doesn't back check you will either blow the other team out. There's no in-between because there your strategy is so one dimensional it either works or fails completely. Play hearthstone and run a pure agro deck and you will always get blown out by decks that can repeatedly clear the board. Spec your mage to be a one-shot monster and you either one-shot people or you lose. I would say that your issue is being created by your own playstyle. It doesn't really matter which game you play if you always focus on a singular aspect of a game it's going to give you dramatic win/lose conditions and make fights either easy or nearly impossible to win.

I don't think that's true at all, because I'm not focusing on a singular aspect of the game. I want to run 3 superheavy tanks, sure, but that's one of a whole list of things:

1) I'd like to run 3 superheavy tanks
2) Putting my SOB in with them would be pretty neat too, as I like the imagery of 3 cathedral tanks with sisters around them.
3) Putting in some IG infantry would be good to prevent boardwipes and the like, maybe to screen (though screens are less necessary with Baneblades)
4) Bringing some attached support units of other types would be fun: recon, ordnance and maintenance, logistics - and there's even models to represent them on the tabletop.
5) Perhaps add other mono-focused support units, like a squadron of Hydras or some artillery

etc. etc.

The point is that I don't only want to run tanks - if I played 3k, I wouldn't just bring 6 tanks. But because of the 2k limit and 3 tanks being 1500 points, the game is fairly boring, even if I do bring a couple of recon units, a platoon of infantry, and maybe a maintenance vehicle or so.

The problem you repeatedly seem to miss or ignore is that the game isn't built for you to bring multiple of that kind of unit at the standard 2k points level. That's on purpose, and the way the detachment system hinders your efforts further reinforces the idea. You're hung up on this super specific list and trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. I don't know what else people can tell you. If you absolutely cannot fathom a game without three Baneblades, then folks have provided you with suggestions on what to do with the remaining points (as you've listed above), but you're still embarking on a path that has all the problems people have mentioned. You keep asking for advice. The only thing I can add is, if nobody around you wants to face three BB's every week, then you've got to change your list. There's a systemic issue and a social issue. Only one can be solved by you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I wouldn't consider this an issue with the game's design... as this works the same in every game I've played in my life whether it be athletic, card, video or board. If your hockey team plays purely offense and doesn't back check you will either blow the other team out. There's no in-between because there your strategy is so one dimensional it either works or fails completely. Play hearthstone and run a pure agro deck and you will always get blown out by decks that can repeatedly clear the board. Spec your mage to be a one-shot monster and you either one-shot people or you lose. I would say that your issue is being created by your own playstyle. It doesn't really matter which game you play if you always focus on a singular aspect of a game it's going to give you dramatic win/lose conditions and make fights either easy or nearly impossible to win.

I don't think that's true at all, because I'm not focusing on a singular aspect of the game. I want to run 3 superheavy tanks, sure, but that's one of a whole list of things:

1) I'd like to run 3 superheavy tanks
2) Putting my SOB in with them would be pretty neat too, as I like the imagery of 3 cathedral tanks with sisters around them.
3) Putting in some IG infantry would be good to prevent boardwipes and the like, maybe to screen (though screens are less necessary with Baneblades)
4) Bringing some attached support units of other types would be fun: recon, ordnance and maintenance, logistics - and there's even models to represent them on the tabletop.
5) Perhaps add other mono-focused support units, like a squadron of Hydras or some artillery

etc. etc.

The point is that I don't only want to run tanks - if I played 3k, I wouldn't just bring 6 tanks. But because of the 2k limit and 3 tanks being 1500 points, the game is fairly boring, even if I do bring a couple of recon units, a platoon of infantry, and maybe a maintenance vehicle or so.

Seriously? There is nothing wrong with the game design if your games are boring since you are bringing three of the most expensive shooty tanks in the Codex.

Are you expecting them to powerslide over enemies, sprout arms and punch Dreadnoughts to death?

Your list is insanely one dimensional with three superheavies in 2,000 points. By your same logic, I want to run nothing but Assault Marines and wonder why my games are one of three boring conclusions; 1) I get blown away on the way in since I lack fire support... Or support of any kind 2) I can't hurt my opponents tank heavy army because I didn't bring the tools to do it or 3) I make it into melee with my opponents army on foot and punch them into oblivion because they weren't expecting 80 Assault Marines

If you want more interesting games while running THREE superheavies play at a higher points value. That, or ask the game designers to make your superheavies far worse at everything they do and make them cheaper so you can bring a balanced force.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I wouldn't consider this an issue with the game's design... as this works the same in every game I've played in my life whether it be athletic, card, video or board. If your hockey team plays purely offense and doesn't back check you will either blow the other team out. There's no in-between because there your strategy is so one dimensional it either works or fails completely. Play hearthstone and run a pure agro deck and you will always get blown out by decks that can repeatedly clear the board. Spec your mage to be a one-shot monster and you either one-shot people or you lose. I would say that your issue is being created by your own playstyle. It doesn't really matter which game you play if you always focus on a singular aspect of a game it's going to give you dramatic win/lose conditions and make fights either easy or nearly impossible to win.

I don't think that's true at all, because I'm not focusing on a singular aspect of the game. I want to run 3 superheavy tanks, sure, but that's one of a whole list of things:

1) I'd like to run 3 superheavy tanks
2) Putting my SOB in with them would be pretty neat too, as I like the imagery of 3 cathedral tanks with sisters around them.
3) Putting in some IG infantry would be good to prevent boardwipes and the like, maybe to screen (though screens are less necessary with Baneblades)
4) Bringing some attached support units of other types would be fun: recon, ordnance and maintenance, logistics - and there's even models to represent them on the tabletop.
5) Perhaps add other mono-focused support units, like a squadron of Hydras or some artillery

etc. etc.

The point is that I don't only want to run tanks - if I played 3k, I wouldn't just bring 6 tanks. But because of the 2k limit and 3 tanks being 1500 points, the game is fairly boring, even if I do bring a couple of recon units, a platoon of infantry, and maybe a maintenance vehicle or so.

Why don't you simply play larger point games? But even at 3k points your list is still heavily lopsided having 1/2 of your points in 3 of the same type of unit.