Is competitiveness ruining/ruined 40K?

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.

**Eldarsif**

A competent game designer would make everything balanced from the beginning, so no such adjustment is necessary.

As someone who has been about 15 years in the game industry I would love to meet this unicorn you speak of. Even the largest companies that have insane amount of money at their disposal are unable to do this perfectly from the beginning and still work on balancing many years after release(Riot and Blizzard come to mind).

And yet other companies do it.

Please name these companies. These companies must be under siege from other companies trying to hire these legendary game designers.

---

On a more serious note I think GW would be in a much easier position if they could update the point values more regularly, much like what we see in digital games. I would even say that the points should be available for free online if they were really hardcore about making the game more balanced.

Don't get me wrong. GW could do a lot better than they are currently doing, but to argue that there exists some god designer is rather ludicrous.

**auticus**

The fact everything is in print makes them harder to update regularly. If they had their points online in digital format, then publishing quarterly updates would be a lot easier and feasible.

I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Chamberlain wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. IOW, you purposely make bad decisions when list building. Why should anyone purposely have to make a bad army? That's not how it's supposed to work, and you're not letting GW take any responsibility for something that's their fault.

Where does it say that the proper way to build an army is to make it as strong as possible? Or that building an army of any given level of power and tuning is what's mandated by the game?

I want a game where people have choice. Just like in magic where some people can choose to make a tier 1 legacy or modern deck and take it to events with 100s of people while others can have fun playing with a pile of commons and uncommons around the kitchen table.

Neither is the objectively right or wrong way to play a game, but each is a way to play the game.

2. It actually isn't an impossible standard. All you need to do is start with half the armies and then work your way around. Everyone knows that you can't get it perfect. What the issue IS, though you ignore it, is how far that level goes. The goal should be to minimize that NOT through list building, but through unit entry building.

In that same Long War podcast where they talked about knights pretty much not existing in the game of 40k, they were talking about them because they saw the potential for them to suddenly be good enough. How can a unit swing so completely from "effectively does not exist" to be an option tournament minded players are excited about with no change to the points cost or any other balancing mechanism? A new release might be shifting the larger meta. It's simply not possible to provide balance for a situation where the value of something goes from non existence to a counter for what's new without any change to the balance mechanisms like its points values.

I also think that 8th is way, way more balanced than 7th. That they've already hit the point of good enough and that GW is certainly not ignoring it. They have a plan for FAQ and meta review at set times during the year. They're actively soliciting feedback. The largest 40k event in the history of the game had one of their playtesters in the top 8.

The current state is what GW wants. It's not ignoring the problem at all. It's a feature for 40k just like it is for Magic. Competitive metas contain a subset of the available choices. True for 40k, true for X-Wing, true for Magic.

3. I've done Open War cards as most people have. We ALL use Chapter Approved. This doesn't fix anything and I have no clue why you suggest it would fix anything as if it were that magical.

The only thing it might fix is your current dissatisfaction. Seriously, play some Hold at All Cost and Death or Glory with unequal points for a while. It can be transformative when you realize your expectations are causing the problem, rather than the thing you are blaming. Maybe question the idea that the proper or right way to select an army is to make it as strong as possible?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vertrucio wrote:
The reason why people in this hobby are more willing to let it slide is that miniature games are played less often and with a narrower set of people than say online multiplayer games, which can and do often achieve balance for significant amounts of time.

I think they have access to data that GW simply does not. Had the LVO been played through computers and every point of data that would be useful to someone doing balancing work, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of data an online multiplayer game generates in a day.

I work in the tabletop and video game industry and we balance massively more complex games, and keep balancing them.

Think about Magic the Gathering. It has an online game and a new version (Arena) is in beta. It has loads of players. They just hit a new daily record of logged in players.

And yet, they don't take the data and do their best to make perfect balance. They do the opposite. Their development team intentionally overcosts and undercosts cards to craft an experience. And like 40k, it has to be multiple experiences. Draft, casual kitchen table magic, competitive constructed, multiplayer, multiplayer commander and on and on. And yet they persist in making unbalanced cards.

Unbalance accomplishes something for them. FFG accomplished the same thing with X-Wing and now GW has as well with AoS and 40k. Just because you or I may not like the results doesn't mean it's not working exactly as intended. And now GW is doing it again with Shadespire. All cards not being balanced in that game is going to lead to the same deck and list building fun that the other games i mentioned have.

And those of us who are not into competitive anything can solve our problem the same way kitchen table magic players do. Stop trying to make the strongest list possible and be open to the wider amount of game content beyond equal points matched play games. Jace the Mindsculptor just got unbanned in magic's modern format! I better get some copies for my kitchen table deck! Oh no wait, that's a terrible idea. *I* would be ruining everyone else's fun if I did that.

1. Tiers exist in MTG and Yugioh too. I used to play those ya know. Choice is an illusion in TCGs as you need to decrease your odds of a bad hand, and choice is almost an illusion in wargames as well. Difference is you get more room to work with in a wargame, but that room only goes so far before you admit you should take a mathematically better unit.

I had to have an argument about Sternguard vs Tactical Marines for Pete's sake. There isn't a mathematical niche for Tactical Marines and OS is a useless rule. Just saying "But fluff!" doesn't fix that issue.

And where does it say you should make a bad army? I'm all ears for that.

2. Nobody cares about some podcast. Knights aren't making rounds for a reason because "potential" isn't the same as "actually doing something".
Also almost anything is more balanced than 7th. You're not raising the bar high with that, so you've got impossibly low standards rather than Perigrine or me having impossibly high standards.

3. IOW, you're defending lazy game design with your low standards. Playing at uneven point levels STILL doesn't change your choice is an illusion. Yeah you do your scenario with uneven point levels, but how does that fix the problem with units like Tactical Marines and Dark Reapers being on opposite ends of the spectrum?

**Eldarsif**

auticus wrote:
The fact everything is in print makes them harder to update regularly. If they had their points online in digital format, then publishing quarterly updates would be a lot easier and feasible.

I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.

I also feel like actual attempt at higher level balancing is something very recent in the studio altogether. This is why I think this year is going to be important. It will tell us whether they are serious about addressing serious issues and what lengths they will go to improve the game.

**Leo_the_Rat**

It would be nice if they also modified stats and rules on specific units that need help. Sometimes point cost is only one symptom of why a unit isn't being used.

**Marmatag**

This whole idea that competitive players are ruining the balance is so ridiculous.

"Competitiveness is ruining 40K!"
"Why?"
"BECAUSE MY SUPER HEAVY DIES TURN 1." (implicitly stating that your opponent should be unable to kill your super heavy, even if he/she commits significant firepower)
"Right, so let's nerf the problematic & overpowered units." (How would you determine the OP units without significant play data?)
"WTF, competitive players nerfing models, total bs, violates my fluff."

Unit1126PLL wrote:

My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.

And this is why fluffy lists are nonsense.

You can literally create any justification for any list you'd make. I'm not meaning to pick on you, but you really do serve to highlight how any two people would have entirely different definitions of fluff.

**Chamberlain**

Jidmah wrote:The balancing everyone is upset about is stuff like the ork index. Tournament game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Narrative game? Bring green tide or get tabled. Playing a new player with dark imperium minis? Green tide.

This could well be the case. If so, it's a fire GW should put out. My guess is that the codex is their solution to this problem. Would I rather have seen a larger overhall in either a FAQ or Chapter Approved, yes. This is one instance where GW could have done a way better job for the ork players who are interested in it and for making the army work

That said, we do have an ork fan in our group and he plays all sorts of stuff. His amount of losing doesn't stand out as exceptional. It's possible we are all that horrible or that we really are building truly unoptimized lists. It's sort of like how if mill is a bad strategy in a given standard but it can still beat a pile of cards at the kitchen table.

My position is not that all possible imbalance is a good thing because it allows competitive players to work their list building magic. I'm just saying that it's okay that some imbalance creates the competitive subset of datasheets while those who take a army selection approach that isn't concerned with strength have more options. Does that mean all armies are equal? No. Orks need work to get more datasheets into even this widened pool of options.

I play WH40k with the very same people I play kitchen table magic with. People that buy what they think looks awesome in their army, with little regard to how they perform on the battlefield. One of them got two riptides for his birthday when they were released in 6th, he had been playing Tau since 3rd. Each time he brought them he ended up apologizing for utterly destroying his opponent, up to the point where he had to shelve his two beautifully painted models because they were so powerful no other player could stop them.

I have a super low opinion of 6th and 7th in terms of game balance. 8th is far better in terms of how much stuff gets included when you stop list building for power. I would not have taken this tact with 6th or 7th. It took too much work and wasn't supported by the basics of how the game is played despite how GW was going on about how the game was meant to be casual. AoS and later 8th showed they saw where things went wrong and actually addressed it with multiple ways to play. And made sure to have an on ramp that covers the basics in Open play.

That said, If the goal was the cool models that the player liked being used on the table, why didn't you just adjust the points size of the game? Why was equal points so unquestionable in the face of a problem?

Obviously this is a case of a design failure, but why respond with helplessness? What I'm saying might seem crazy to most, but if you do find power issues in your game, why not set up a scenario the next time you play that person where you get some extra stuff? The goal for the players you describe was to make your army out of things you think are cool, so why not use the tools in the current rulebook to get the job done?

I can already hear the objections a person might make "It's not my job to fix the game!! It should just work at equal points!" Why? Why should you expect equal point value games to be the best way to play the game when a full half of the Open Play scenarios in the main rulebook recommend unequal power levels?

So then you have three options:

1) Do what needs to be done so the models can hit the table. Which is actually what happens if you just take the rulebook for the game and go through it and play through the content.

2) Blame the game designer and keep the model on the shelf until they create a single way to play that somehow works for all people with all possible armies.

3) Accept that not all armies are viable for equal points matched play and get busy discovering the data sheets and army builds that are viable.

The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.

People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.

The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.

**auticus**

Those are definitely some interesting points to ponder sir.

**Chamberlain**

In the end my goal is just more enjoyable game play for more people.

I see people going into equal points pick up games with expectations that might be harming their enjoyment. Those who go into competitive play with enthusiasm are totally fine with it. It's the "matched play by default" player that thinks their army should be better that has the trouble.

To go back to the thread title: Is competitiveness ruining 40k?

Only to the degree that people are internalizing an approach to the game as the default or real way to play that doesn't actually bring them enjoyment. And then doubly so if they are the kind of person who will then blame someone else for the issue rather than seeing if another way would bring them joy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
I do agree that no game designer I have ever met was able to get balance right out of the gate either. And much of the gw rules dev team are young young green guys so I consider this for many of them to be right out of the gate. There is not a great depth of experience remaining in the game dev studio besides a couple of old hats, that seem to be more involved in the narrative part now.

I've noticed this trend as well. And on top of that when I listen to any interview on warhammerTV with rules writers, they don't really seem concerned with balance or similar issues. The things they say always seem to be about getting the rules to evoke the right feeling or fictional element or experience rather than trying to make a competitive environment.

I think the competitive-matched-play-as-default 40k might actually be bolted on by the fan base rather than being a core part of 40k. It may actually be the least appropriate way to engage with the game.

Though it is quite suitable for those who go into it wanting to play competitively. Loads of people had a blast at the LVO and are looking forward to both Adepticon and any competitive events in the UK (Is there one at Warhammerfest?). It just seems like it might make a really poor default approach.

**Unit1126PLL**

Marmatag wrote:
This whole idea that competitive players are ruining the balance is so ridiculous.

"Competitiveness is ruining 40K!"
"Why?"
"BECAUSE MY SUPER HEAVY DIES TURN 1." (implicitly stating that your opponent should be unable to kill your super heavy, even if he/she commits significant firepower)
"Right, so let's nerf the problematic & overpowered units." (How would you determine the OP units without significant play data?)
"WTF, competitive players nerfing models, total bs, violates my fluff."

Unit1126PLL wrote:

My standard for my own lists is that I make them as fluffy as possible within my own view of the fluff.

And this is why fluffy lists are nonsense.

You can literally create any justification for any list you'd make. I'm not meaning to pick on you, but you really do serve to highlight how any two people would have entirely different definitions of fluff.

.... which is why I said later in the post that I don't really mind what people run being fluffy or unfluffy. I did mention that I might give a good ribbing to people, like Space Marines who use "Lost Legion" geneseed or Bloodthirster-summoning Space Wolf armies from back in 7th, but I will never once tell someone their army is unfluffy without the qualifier of saying "in my opinion."

The fluff is entirely fabricated, and how much you want your fluff to be based on stuff GW has explicitly written (e.g. playing Imperial Fists 2nd Company, with the 2nd Company commander and characters named in the fluff, all painted fluffily down to Sergeant McGee with a silver stripe where a tyranid in that one book clawed at him) versus being your own bolt-on to the setting (e.g. playing a set of "monsters from beyond who brainwash humans but are totally not Tyranids with GSC) is entirely on you.

I don't think that's nonsense. I think it's perfectly fine for me to believe that someone's "Free Colonial" humans who own one system and somehow don't fall to Chaos/Imperium/myriad-other-threats-that-murder-solitary-human-worlds is a bit silly, and for you to say "yeah, suck it up, that's my fluff." At the end of the day, I'm not going to turn down a game over it. That's the biggest difference between me and most casual players: I don't let the competitiveness of the opponent's list get to me, because some of the best competitive lists can be justified in the fluff fairly trivially.

BUT, I do have my own headcanon, and I enjoy and cherish that headcanon, so telling me how to play my own army is not something I appreciate. In return, I try not to tell people how to play their army (though I'm sure I have because I'm a fallible human).

**Marmatag**

Chamberlain wrote:

The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.

People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.

The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.

Without matched play restrictions the delta between armies is exacerbated.

I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.

Matched play doesn't come with expectations. It comes with a set of rules & restrictions. The expectations you bring are your own. Is it fair for you to expect your Super Heavy to live past turn 2? Why or why not? Further, just because you spend an inordinate amount of time crafting, painting, converting, basing a miniature, doesn't mean it has value on the table.

**Unit1126PLL**

Marmatag wrote:
Chamberlain wrote:

The problem is that people aren't learning the basics. They're skipping right to matched play at equal points and assuming that all else is invalid or not "real" 40k. Then when they can't accept the implications of their decision (not all lists or units are viable) they end up shelving units that could otherwise hit the table.

People need to go back to Open Play kindergarten and learn the basics again. Or actually embrace the implications of Matched Play and make good armies.

The problems seem to come when people don't get on the same page. When relaxed casual appropriate army selection is being bolted onto matched play competitive game setup expectations.

Without matched play restrictions the delta between armies is exacerbated.

I also must challenge the concept of "relaxed casual appropriate army selection." This immediately places a wholly undefined rating onto each list, that neither of the players targeted by your gameplay scenario would be able to identify in the first place.

Matched play doesn't come with expectations. It comes with a set of rules & restrictions. The expectations you bring are your own. Is it fair for you to expect your Super Heavy to live past turn 2? Why or why not? Further, just because you spend an inordinate amount of time crafting, painting, converting, basing a miniature, doesn't mean it has value on the table.

This is why I bring 3 superheavies, because it's unfair of me to expect one to live past turn 2. I think it /is/ reasonable to expect that of three.

As for the rating being questioned here: meh, there are things I do all the time that are unquantifiable social norms. Every day I do things that aren't "rated" or "calculated" or written down anywhere but that are still tailored to the social situation I am in. I think this is what he means with lists: take the context of your social surroundings into consideration when you write your list.

**Martel732**

Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

When did three turns come up?

Also if you want an answer: Necron Pylons. I haven't had the misfortune (?) of playing Dark Reaper spam yet.

**Wayniac**

Martel732 wrote:
Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

Honestly I think at this point he's just using anything as an excuse to talk about his "fluffy" 3 superheavies army that people seem to hate playing against but he never brings anything else.

**Martel732**

I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.

**Grimtuff**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

When did three turns come up?

Also if you want an answer: Necron Pylons. I haven't had the misfortune (?) of playing Dark Reaper spam yet.

Ah yes that very common matchup of Baneblades v Necron Pylons...

**Marmatag**

Martel732 wrote:
I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.

Agree, this whole argument is predicated on models being killable. And, as Tyranids, I find it absolutely hilarious people claim their toughness 8 model with 24+ wounds isn't survivable. Drop matched play restrictions and killing them becomes much easier, though.

Just because Eldar, Guard, and Imperium have tools readily available to kill T8 3+ with a billion wounds doesn't mean the rest of us do.

And Necrons have no answer outside of the pylon, lol, and no one plays pylons.

**Unit1126PLL**

Wayniac wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

Honestly I think at this point he's just using anything as an excuse to talk about his "fluffy" 3 superheavies army that people seem to hate playing against but he never brings anything else.

Actually I moved clubs to one that is far less (? maybe more? Not sure what casual means anymore) casual, and people don't have a problem at all now.

Martel732 wrote:I find playing against a single baneblade to be incredibly frustrating, much less three. I think the unit is pretty busted. I think it needs to go up about 100 base points and knights come down 50 or so. They're so much better than knights it's kind of nauseating atm.

Sure. Wish I could play you because I'd totally take a 300 point handicap in the list against you. Because I play it for fun, not points efficiency. You could take a 40,000 (heh, warhammer 40,000) point list against my 3 baneblades, though I'd probably tell you not to bother deploying and that I've lost.

Grimtuff wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Who/what is killing 3 baneblades in 3 turns? Dark reapers? Maybe?

When did three turns come up?

Also if you want an answer: Necron Pylons. I haven't had the misfortune (?) of playing Dark Reaper spam yet.

Ah yes that very common matchup of Baneblades v Necron Pylons...

What do you expect? I'm known for bringing superheavies and I arrange my games ahead of time (because dropping 3 superheavies on people by surprise is dumb) and they bring Pylons or whatever their anti-superheavy weapon of choice is. Last time it was 3 trukks full of Tankbustas with bomb squigs, though they killed one and severely crippled another one before the game ended and I lost on objectives.

**Martel732**

Heavy venom cannons are actually the perfect baneblade killers. They do it faster than any weapons I have. The -1 to hit poops on the IG even worse.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Heavy venom cannons are actually the perfect baneblade killers. They do it faster than any weapons I have. The -1 to hit poops on the IG even worse.

I haven't had the fortune (or misfortune maybe?) of playing Tyranids locally; they're not a popular army. I'd be surprised to learn they can't handle superheavies at all, though. There are very few factions in the game that literally have 0 tools required for it.

**Martel732**

Having the tools and bringing them in a non-tailored list is very different. I have to dedicate a big chunk of my BA lists to clearing chaff, which is 100% useless vs your list, or really, most lists with baneblades. Which are all magically Valhallan, of course.

I don't like that there's a strat that turns them into IKs in melee, either. IKs don't get a strat that turns them into a baneblade for shooting.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Having the tools and bringing them in a non-tailored list is very different. I have to dedicate a big chunk of my BA lists to clearing chaff, which is 100% useless vs your list, or really, most lists with baneblades. Which are all magically Valhallan, of course.

I don't like that there's a strat that turns them into IKs in melee, either. IKs don't get a strat that turns them into a baneblade for shooting.

My Baneblades are Vostroyan for fluff reasons, and yeah, that stratagem (and defensive gunners) is a slap in the face to IK players, though IKs remain better in the edge case of assaulting other superheavies.

Also crucially, I encourage people to tailor their lists against me because I would rather lose to a tailored list and have fun than crush a TAC list and not. The challenge (for me) then becomes building a list that makes it hard to tailor against; e.g. I can spend 1212 points on superheavies and 800 points on other stuff, or like 1800 points on superheavies and 200 points on other stuff.

**Martel732**

The baneblade I play against is also perma-buffed with +1 armor and -1 to hit. Obviously, additional baneblades couldn't have that. I really hate primaris psykers.

**Leo_the_Rat**

I'd have to decline a game against you. I'm a mono-GK player (aka a masochist) and have nothing that would even bother your tanks. I mean yes, in theory I have acess to Lascannons and multi meltas but my standard config only has 2 twin Lascannons and 1 multi-melta.
I already faced a knight and that didn't end well for me.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
The baneblade I play against is also perma-buffed with +1 armor and -1 to hit. Obviously, additional baneblades couldn't have that. I really hate primaris psykers.

Psykers are one of those things I don't always run. My regiment hates them (the commander spent part of her childhood on a shrine world operated by a very conservative SOB order) and so the only ones they use are 2 Astrotelepaths (for interplanetary communication) and 1 Primaris Psyker (issued by the Departmento Munitorum) and they usually don't show up to the battlefield, because my regimental commander (Lord Marshal Katerina Malinenko, if you're curious) keeps them on a VERY tight leash. Sometimes they do though.

But yes, I don't go out of my way to optimize my list like most competitive players do, and it shows, I think. I could be much meaner than I am.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd have to decline a game against you. I'm a mono-GK player (aka a masochist) and have nothing that would even bother your tanks. I mean yes, in theory I have acess to Lascannons and multi meltas but my standard config only has 2 twin Lascannons and 1 multi-melta.
I already faced a knight and that didn't end well for me.

My 3 superheavy list got crushed by GK at NOVA spamming GKGMs in Dreadknight Armour. You've got the tools in your army - but yes, if you're unwilling to tailor I understand. That's a pretty un-fluffy list anyways, from my narrow point of view.

**Marmatag**

Martel732 wrote:
Heavy venom cannons are actually the perfect baneblade killers. They do it faster than any weapons I have. The -1 to hit poops on the IG even worse.

3 baneblades would shred 8 carnifexes so badly.

lascannons are cheaper and overall stronger against baneblades.

**Martel732**

Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.

Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.

Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.

Yes, the extra d6 (compared to the index version) on the main gun is a bit silly. I get why they did it, so the Baneblade is not automatically worse than its points in Russes, but it's a bit naff regardless.

**Marmatag**

Martel732 wrote:
Perhaps, because the fexes have to get within heavy bolter range.

Lascannons are not cheaper than heavy venoms. They are the same cost and have half the rate of fire. The lascannon's only merit is you can stay out of heavy bolter range vs a the baneblade, turning it into 4 lascannons, one autocannon, and the main gun. The main gun is insanely unfair, but I'll take what I can get.

The guns don't float in space, they need to be held or be mounted on something. In this regard the lascannon is cheaper.