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.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:
there's so much soup discussion in here Jamie Oliver just rode past on his moped and shouted "Needs more Salt!"

Seeing as we're at it ... and GW approve that soup is a thing (or at least have not disapproved ..yet) the issue becomes not that soup is bad, but that there's only really one maybe two soups out there that work well enough to be the de facto list component.

you want competitive you have to accept that you'll be facing these and either counter or bring the same.
it becomes as self fulfilling prophecy.

as for if it's fluffy or not.. man just pick up a HH novel and there's Guard / BA / knights in pretty much every major battle scene ... watch Helsreach - Grimaldus is marching alongside a Titan like a boss with guardsmen meeting him in the street to fight off Orks ... if that's not a true representation of the Meta right now I don't know what is

and let's be honest ... we haven't seen the fallout from CA2018 yet to see if the adjustments have affected anything significantly.
as a Necrons player, having played a few games so farr in a very Semi-comp setting.. I'm mildly hopeful that there'll be a small change in things to allow some more choice out there.
and then in April another minor tweak might change it up again..

the sky is not falling yet

I agree. GW drives the meta with their decisions (intentional or not). CA18 will causes some changes, I’ve got an event next weekend and the list submission deadline is midnight tonight (GMT). Some of the lists on there are completely different and you’d -never- have seen them pre-CA18. There are still a few Knight lists etc, but I think things will look very different for a couple of months.

Kdash wrote:
it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.

Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.

 Horst wrote:

Kdash wrote:
it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.

Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.

So what if you aren’t playing Cadians? What are Scions then?

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Kdash wrote:
it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.

Heh, I refuse to call my army "Astra Militarum" and I refuse to call my stormtroopers "Scions". They're Cadian Imperial Guard, and the elite are Kasrkin, for feth's sake.

So what if you aren’t playing Cadians? What are Scions then?

Well, I personally am playing cadians. You can call them whatever you want, just saying what I do.

Kdash wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Kdash wrote:
In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.

Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.

Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.

The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.

Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.

Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.

I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.

I’m not defending people taking the list simply because it is classed as one of the “top competitive lists”. What I was trying to do is counter some of the misconceived arguments around what is “fluffy or not” from both sides of this argument.

99.99% of the people running this list are competitive only players or people who’ve seen the list online and decided to try to smash their local store with it. But, what I’m also trying to explain is that, although it sucked before, and although it wasn’t seen before, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t fluffy before.

I play mainly at events, and, if I’m honest I suck at coming up with “cool” names for things. I had to come up with some names for the WHW Vigilus Weekender event and my god that was stressful I do enjoy reading well written fan fluff, but, it also annoys me when people submit lists where they’ve changed the names of the entries on the official list to their own names. Kinda a “time and place” guy.

Yeah, it's impossible anyone would've come up with a similar list for competitive play and it's all these netlisters that are to blame!!!

 Asherian Command wrote:
https://twitter.com/servoarm/status/1079706997220667393



So the army list for the Imperium in the new white dwarf is...

Loyal 32
Battalion Detachment

Company Commanders
Boltgun
Warlord Grand Strategist

Company commander
Bolt pistol chainsword
Heirloom Kurvov's Aquilia

3 Infantry Squads (catachan)
30 lasguns

5cp

Supreme Command Detachment
Mephiston

Blood Angels Captain with
Jump pack, thunderhammer, the angel's wing

Blood Angels Captain with
powerfist, jump pack, stormshield

1cp


Super Heavy Detachment
Knight Gallant

Thunderstrike Gauntlet, reaper chainsword

Heavy Stubber,

Warlord Trait : Landstrider

Knight Crusader
Rapid fire battlecannon, avenger gatling cannon, heavy flamer, 2 heavy stubbers,
Heirloom: endless fury


Knight Castellan
Plasma Decimator, volcano lance, four shieldbreaker missiles, 2 twin melta guns, twin siegebreaker cannons

Warlord trait : Ion Bulwark

Hierloom : Cawl's Wrath

total 1991 pts.

Seems fair


Yeah its real, i saw it in my own white dwarf.

Personal Thoughts on this list dakka?

Note : it was between two tournament players!

This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

 Strg Alt wrote:


This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me

 Horst wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me

Me too. I even started writing a reply post before huffing and saying it wasn't worth it.

This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

Hold on there bud. What

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.

No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.

If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.

If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.

In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.

catbarf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.

No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.

If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.

If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.

In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.

Basically a fluffy list is one built with the fluff in mind, a competitive list is built with only winning in mind.

Its not really a moral ethic, just how someone goes about building a list. Most fluffy lists for guardsmen would be guardsmen / conscripts for the majority of the lists and some tanks sprinkled here and there. (depending on the Regiment)

 Horst wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me

Ah, I just skimmed over the rest of the thread and realized that GW invited a tournament player to come up with a cheesy list in order to offend people like me who still value the background information of the units involved in the game. It seems that 40K is not lost after all.
What´s your opinion on the list?

catbarf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IOW, you're defining "fluffy" based on some weird kind of moral purity instead of how well it fits the background fiction. This is a terrible definition.

No, my point was that pedantically arguing over what lists are or aren't fluffy is missing the forest for the trees.

If you're coming to the tabletop with a list based lovingly on the background lore, and I'm coming with a list based on last month's tournament results and crafted for maximum gameplay efficiency, then we're not on the same page. It doesn't matter whether or not I can figure out a retroactive fluff justification for my list; I clearly did not build it with the same intent as you, and it's likely that that matchup is not going to result in a fun game.

If you're playing against similarly competitively-minded folks there's nothing wrong with building a list for gameplay first and foremost, or ignoring fluff altogether. It just needs to be recognized that this is a different approach to the game from someone building a list around the background, and the mere fact that 40K's fluff provides a lot of leeway doesn't make the two styles equivalent. If someone's calling a list unfluffy, that's not an assessment of the list's narrative plausibility within the deliberately-permissive structure of the 40K background so much as an assertion about the player's intent going into the game. Post-hoc rationalization doesn't change that intent.

In the context of the thread- historically, GW has showcased the narrative-focused, collector's aspect of the hobby. Battles and lists in WD typically are constructed around narrative themes rather than game-winning ability, so the implication is that that's GW's idea of what the game is at its core. A hot meta list showing up in a competition-focused battle report is a bit of a change in form, and is closer to what we see in games like Warmachine, where competition is the core experience promoted by the designers. You can decide for yourself whether that's a good thing, bad thing, different thing, indifferent, but arguing that you can theoretically justify the list narratively is rather missing the point.

How is that any different than any other edition with no allies but creating hyper competitive lists?

The answer is that it isn't. Anything can be justified and NOT justified with the fluff.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


This is an actual WD army? Christ, they trashed 40K really good. Look up at that nonsense:
You have two company commanders, two Blood Angel captains and the psychic monster Mephiston included in the same army. Five commanders in a single army? Who came up with this stupid list? So who is going to give the commands? Five guys with big egos will only cause infighting and bickering.

And now we come to the troops. Three Catachan squads. Where are they supposed to fight? In a jungle? Would the red paint jobs of their Blood Angels allies not give them easily away? Nah, I fooled you right there because no one is fighting in a self built jungle anymore but in an imperial ruined city made up of expensive Sector Imperialis terrain which gives no real cover or prevents LOS. And what kind of weapons did they give the jungle fighters? Thirty lasguns?! That´s all? No special or heavy weapons?. This is too just completely aweful.

So after having discussed characters and troops, we will now have a go at the tanks. Hah, fooled you again because there are none to be found in this list. Why? Hmm, my guess is they want to cash in on the immature Pacific Rim 2 movie which featured a bunch of kids doing Power Rangers heroics and try to sell the next generation of 40K noobs a trio of IKs.

I am honestly not sure if you are trolling, or just being willfully obtuse. If the former, bravo, you got me

Ah, I just skimmed over the rest of the thread and realized that GW invited a tournament player to come up with a cheesy list in order to offend people like me who still value the background information of the units involved in the game. It seems that 40K is not lost after all.
What´s your opinion on the list?

Personally I dislike the list, and feel that Knights like the Castellan were a mistake for GW to add to the game, at least in their current form. No model with that kind of firepower should be able to have a 3++ save. Rotate Ion Shields should require you to not fire your weapons or something, like an "all power to the shields" move or something. Even having a 4++ natively from the Ion Bulwark is a bit over the top IMO, unless it's like 800-900 points like the Stompa. I try to play a more "balanced" list personally, my guard list is I think a good mix of competitive and fluffy, though some people on this forum would be angry with me because I have basic infantry squads with no special weapons in them, and I have tank commanders for all my russes instead of regular leman russes. I wouldn't refuse to play the castellan guy though, and wouldn't be unhappy playing him, because I kind of built my list with lists like his in mind, where I will need the brute force firepower to force wounds though a 3++ on the Castellan. Sure, I'm at a disadvantage, but it's not like it's hopeless.

I think its wierd you can take separate warlords traits and multiple relics in the same detachment... That is kind of a jerk move and why that is legal i'll never know.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Okay, so yeah it looks like they brought two tourney players to the studio to do a competitive battle report. That's a bit easier to swallow. They used to do that periodically back in the olden days (In my view one of GW's best designers, Alessio Cavatore, was the Italian WHFB champion before he joined the studio IIRC)

This is perfectly acceptable then. I almost wonder if they did this to see what makes the top tournament armies "tick" firsthand so they can look at possibly addressing it rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. Also I am guessing they are using CA18 missions, so it would also be a good test to see how those missions can work in a simulated tournament matchup.

Why is it only acceptable for GW to acknowledge and support competitive play if it isn't GW employees? Why does there need to be some hidden agenda of working on balance changes and not just showing a tournament style battle report for readers interested in the subject?

Because the second something appears in a tournament it must be both A) overpowered and B ) Morally reprehensible, apparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think its wierd you can take separate warlords traits and multiple relics in the same detachment... That is kind of a jerk move and why that is legal i'll never know.

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

This is kind of a shock since I can't remember the last time WD had two lists like this, let alone one that is so transparently competitive. Yes you can try and justify this fluff wise with enough hand wrangling but I would ask this question.

Would you have taken this combination in previous editions because you came up with a cool story or it fit a person theme for your army. The answer is probably no, you wouldn't have because your not taking it to tell a story, your taking it to smash face and win. I've played mechanized marines since I started and still do to this day. I didn't pick that army because it was strong at the time I started and it certainly isn't a strong list now. I play that list because that's how I envision my chapter fighting and I find it odd to radically change how I play the game just to win a game.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)

Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader

Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.

 Asherian Command wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)

Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader

Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.

Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?

Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?

Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)

Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader

Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.

Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?

Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?

Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?

I mentioned only knights didn't I? They seem to be the only ones abusing it as they are the only ones who have it from what i can remember!

Warlord traits should only be 1 per an army, how is that a blanket fix? That is what the rules seem to include and want.

Super heavies in general like Knights should not have multiple traits, one should just be the warlord / hq of that group end and stop. Thats it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is that any different than any other edition with no allies but creating hyper competitive lists?

The answer is that it isn't. Anything can be justified and NOT justified with the fluff.

It's... not? Has anyone in this thread implied that hyper-competitive armies are a new thing?

The only new thing is WD featuring such an army in a battle report.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.

So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.

He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results

stratigo wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.

So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.

He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results

Actually Ynnari are still stronger.

Actually Ynnari are still stronger.

They haven't even gotten their codex yet. No one likes facing ynnari. They are the ugly duckling of 8th, no one wants to fight them, they are worse than knights because of their insane synergy.

 Bosskelot wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The main problem isn't that loyal 32+knights+Custards/Dakkabots is competitive, it's that it squashes out literally any other type of list. The game devolves into "Does your list contain two knights? If not, you autolose." because there is simply no way to bring anti-knight to the table when they can throw down 3++ saves and you need to burn half of your CP pool to have even a snowballs chance of hurting them.

So much wrong with this post that I'm not sure it deserves an honest attempt at reply. This is an incredibly low level mentality which displays an understanding of game knowledge that leaves a lot to be desired.

He was over stating his point, but there is no question that guard with knights plus a specialized usually character heavy detachment is the strongest list in the game. It isn’t unbeatable. Indeed it isn’t uncounterable. But it is the best list in the game and that is reflected by tournament results

Actually Ynnari are still stronger.

I don’t think their tournament record in comparison to knights since the knight codex bears this out, but the argument is academic, as ynnari are indeed a problem unit. The ability to do something twice is overwhelmingly powerful in the game and ynnari double down on that without paying points for it. Getting to fight twice is what propelled smash captains to the top of the meta after all and it’s why competitive ork players are salivating over loot as, and ynnari do this without the limitations of orks or space marines. Making fighting/shooting/moving twice a strategem or army ability means this ability isn’t properly priced for on the units that can do it, taking any good unit and making it ridiculously cost effective, which seems common sense and I am unsure why gw keeps doubling down on these abilities. Or not pushing them enough. Either everyone needs access to an ability like this and a chassis that takes advantage of it, or no one should

 Asherian Command wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Multiple relics is a jerk move and should be illegal?

That thing every faction can do?

Multiple relics + multiple warlords in the same detachment with little to no cp generated.... Yes I think it should be illegal if you have the cp from other armies you can't spend that cp on other armies relics and wargear.

OK, so you're basically saying nobody should be allowed to spend CPs they get from other detachments. I think that's a pretty common desire from most people who aren't still bringing out the old "but muh inquisition" argument (as if inquisition would somehow be MORE useless if you couldn't use the Tactical Reroll stratagem on them...)

Yes and taking multiple warlord traits in an army should not be allowed TBH. A warlord is your armies leader

Why knights can take multiple is really bad game balance.

Like, always? remove Finkin Kap and other relics from the game that grant a warlord trait?

Or are you mostly complaining about this ONE PROBLEMATIC ABILITY of an army to take warlord traits on multiple giant superheavy walkers for extremely minimal cost?

Maybe you should complain about the specific thing that is a balance problem, rather than going for a blanket fix to something that in other armies is so little of a problem you probably don't even know what units here and there have the ability?

I mentioned only knights didn't I? They seem to be the only ones abusing it as they are the only ones who have it from what i can remember!

Warlord traits should only be 1 per an army, how is that a blanket fix? That is what the rules seem to include and want.

Super heavies in general like Knights should not have multiple traits, one should just be the warlord / hq of that group end and stop. Thats it.

It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.

Imperial Knights that is, not the Renegade Red-Headed Stepchildren.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It doesn't help that Knights also have the single greatest amount of Warlord Traits AND Relics to use too.

Imperial Knights that is, not the Renegade Red-Headed Stepchildren.

Which COULD be fixed if they added a single page that listed out how to switch out certain keywords to run them as Chaos Knights.

That would be too hard though.