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.

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

Meh. I find horde armies boring to play against. Yet here we are. Well except I'm not advocating Hordes players who spent lots of money and time be removed from play.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because the IK on an objective will just steamrole the one or two squads on the objective in CC. IKs aren't vehicles in the traditional sense - they win CC against most things. Even most of my CC units.

But it's not about being outscored - my complaint isn't about whether I'll win or lose the game. It's about how much of it I get to play. I put my guys on the table, then pull off a bucketload three times a round, and hope I have enough left. I will get to decide what to shoot at for the first turn or two. Aside from that, there's no actual play.

Welcome to playing marines vrs guard, Tau vrs Alitoc or non sniper lists vrs charictors spam. Because you can't shoot any of the 6 demon princes because of hidden or superbuffed unit

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

I feel this was the intention with the new, smaller Imperial Knight models (can't remember their name)

As many as you want whenever you want, baby.

Seems like people who complain the loudest don't play the missions and only measure victory by how much they kill?

Voted other. Use them responsibly. I use them when it’s been discussed before hand and when it’s appropriate. I wouldn’t turn up with a knight or baneblade and not warn people.

Quasistellar wrote:
As many as you want whenever you want, baby.

Seems like people who complain the loudest don't play the missions and only measure victory by how much they kill?

Not sure which 40k you play but in most standard missions the controlling objectives don't mean jack because they're counted at the end of the game. If you kill everything they don't have anything that can control an objective at the end of the game.

I am not a fan or large vehicles, super heavies, etc. at the 28mm scale. I like running dense tables (think Stalingrad), and I have had games (not in 40k yet) where special consideration had to be given for large models or else they were completely confined to a small portion of the table top clearly putting them at a disadvantage. The spoiler tag has an image of the Dust Tactics Punisher on a grid of 3" squares as an example. Those models are about 7" wide and almost a 12" long and required clear paths to not completely box them in.



Even without large vehicles, I like to create entire no vehicle zones on the table since historically tank traps, dragon's teeth and anti-vehicle mines were cheap and plentiful. For more sci-fi settings this was also done to justify walkers they would be probably be able to cross tank traps where wheeled/tracked vehicles could not. This wasn't done for an army to gain an advantage, simply to fit the idea of why a setting had combined arms of infantry and armor or why a sci-fi setting had walkers. These games were setup in advance or are very least when both players wouldn't terribly disadvantaged by them which was pretty common since my group rarely brought skew lists even in a game where you could go all infantry, all armor or even all flyers if you really wanted. Just little terrain things to get away from the same old, same old missions.

I don't mind super heavies in 40k in principle, but I also don't think they should be thrown in any old army list intended for PUGs with Marlon Rando. I think they are enough of a special case unit that warrants ensuring the game is going to be heavily favored to one side or the other to not be very interesting. At very least the players should try and consider a custom mission (I always like to re-create Steve Jackson's Ogre when big vehicles are included) so both players have the best possible chance at the beginning.

Reemule wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

Meh. I find horde armies boring to play against. Yet here we are. Well except I'm not advocating Hordes players who spent lots of money and time be removed from play.

Nor am I. I'm saying I'll prefer games that aren't vs Knight-spam. That's a very different proposition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

How?

There are problems with skewing to the extreme ends of the spectrum (Hordes can cause a similar problem).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not jsut about being strong enough/weak enough either. It has to be fun to play against, while also being fun to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because the IK on an objective will just steamrole the one or two squads on the objective in CC. IKs aren't vehicles in the traditional sense - they win CC against most things. Even most of my CC units.

But it's not about being outscored - my complaint isn't about whether I'll win or lose the game. It's about how much of it I get to play. I put my guys on the table, then pull off a bucketload three times a round, and hope I have enough left. I will get to decide what to shoot at for the first turn or two. Aside from that, there's no actual play.

Welcome to playing marines vrs guard, Tau vrs Alitoc or non sniper lists vrs charictors spam. Because you can't shoot any of the 6 demon princes because of hidden or superbuffed unit

T'au vs Alaitoc is nothing like this. They have their choice of which threat to try to eliminate, and each one tends to have very different defensive profiles, and the loss of it impacts the Alaitoc army very differently. They might be boned, but they still have choices.


The 6-DP list or some Guard Spam list might be roughly the same, though.

The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

I would still argue that units aren't to blame.

The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

 Tamwulf wrote:
What's a super heavy?

this, super heavy is a dead term, it really doesn't matter. what's the pratical differance between a land raider and a bane blade?

 Togusa wrote:
The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

What does that have to do with LoW? IGOUGO is a bad system, but that's an entirely unrelated subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

What does that have to do with LoW? IGOUGO is a bad system, but that's an entirely unrelated subject.

I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

No honestly the issue is 1400 points of guard plus a Castellen on a CP binge that makes Tony Montana's coke habit look amateur in comparison.

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

No honestly the issue is 1400 points of guard plus a Castellen on a CP binge that makes Tony Montana's coke habit look amateur in comparison.

CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

Some units have to be at the top, but the difference in power level between the top units and the average can be reduced. And it absolutely is a unit problem because a 400 point Macharius is not even close to as much of a problem as a 300 point knight. There are specific units and list combinations that are utterly broken, on top of any issues caused by the IGOUGO system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Which removes the incentive to bring troops-heavy armies. No thanks.

The correct solution, if you aren't wiling to ban allies entirely, is to make CP locked to the faction that generated it. Want to bring the loyal 32 with your knights? I guess you'll have lots of CP to spend on re-rolling lasgun dice, while your knight has only the base 3 CP for having a battle-forged army. Conveniently that isn't enough to allow even a single use of the IK stratagem set.

The only way a knight would be 300 points was if it payed guard points costs for it's weapon's, they are 400 points bar the 350 points CC specialist, if your calling a 350 heavystubber scary your taking the P.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

yeah I can confirm this, in Battletech a common tactic is to use you light units as bait to draw your opponent into a kill zone of your heavier units

Ice_can wrote:
The only way a knight would be 300 points was if it payed guard points costs for it's weapon's, they are 400 points bar the 350 points CC specialist, if your calling a 350 heavystubber scary your taking the P.

Ok, I remembered wrong, it's 350-400 points not 300. But the point remains. A 400 point Macharius is a joke, and the only way it disrupts the game is that your opponent might get frustrated with having to play down to your level all the time because you insist on throwing away 400 points on utter trash. A knight, whether in the form of a castellan + CP farm or multiple "normal" knights, ranges from "powerful, meta-defining unit" to "blatantly overpowered". This is 100% a unit problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

Some units have to be at the top, but the difference in power level between the top units and the average can be reduced. And it absolutely is a unit problem because a 400 point Macharius is not even close to as much of a problem as a 300 point knight. There are specific units and list combinations that are utterly broken, on top of any issues caused by the IGOUGO system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Which removes the incentive to bring troops-heavy armies. No thanks.

The correct solution, if you aren't wiling to ban allies entirely, is to make CP locked to the faction that generated it. Want to bring the loyal 32 with your knights? I guess you'll have lots of CP to spend on re-rolling lasgun dice, while your knight has only the base 3 CP for having a battle-forged army. Conveniently that isn't enough to allow even a single use of the IK stratagem set.

That doesn't remove the incentive to bring troops. Look at the suggestion to detachments I put in Proposed rules. You can easily have detachments give access to better strats and provide the incentive, while removing the CP battery.

Bharring wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

How?

I don't know the solution, but it's either they come up with something or we just have unfun Knights. Because they aren't going anywhere, Pandora's box is open.

I'm not convinced it can be resolved adequately without a new edition anyway.

 Togusa wrote:
That doesn't remove the incentive to bring troops. Look at the suggestion to detachments I put in Proposed rules. You can easily have detachments give access to better strats and provide the incentive, while removing the CP battery.

Sure, if you make significant other changes to the game you can move to a fixed CP system. But if you're going to do all of that work then why not remove CP and stratagems entirely? The easiest, minimum changes, system is to just lock CP to the detachment that generates it and solve the CP battery problem without having to worry about the effects of a more complicated change.

Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

 Argive wrote:
Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

1 No you don't that requires 1 a set subfaction and 2 CP spend on the strategums and not being Vected.

You know what also doesn't have moral any single model unit, if you want to start having tanks, charictors etc take moral tests for wounds fine, missing the thing moral is supposed to be balancing, ie lots of uber cheap models, that give brokenly poor return on investment when shot at or Close combated.

My experience is that Super Heavies make a fun centrepiece unit. At 1500 points, I wouldn’t complain about facing one in a “blind” match. Facing 2 SuperHeavies at 2000 points is likewise not a problem for me.

More than that, at those point levels, and I’d want to be warned ahead of time. I don’t really enjoy playing against an army of SuperHeavies, but my friends own a bunch and so we compromise. If they want to play more than 1 or 2 at a time, they let me know ahead and I play a list that gives us both a decent chance to win. I know the Russes are going down the turn they break cover, but I’ll take some anyway kind of thing. It’s almost a narrative game for us, at that point, where I take a list to achieve a “story” in which my army is not specifically tailored to kill Knights, but has enough of the tools in the right combinations to make it possible, while still giving my opponent a good mix of targets. It’s tough, and basically makes me responsible for balancing our game, but it’s better than the alternative.

Ice_can wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

1 No you don't that requires 1 a set subfaction and 2 CP spend on the strategums and not being Vected.

You know what also doesn't have moral any single model unit, if you want to start having tanks, charictors etc take moral tests for wounds fine, missing the thing moral is supposed to be balancing, ie lots of uber cheap models, that give brokenly poor return on investment when shot at or Close combated.

Ohh you would want that options and have it for free would you ?
As discussed 1 knight is equivalent to about 3 tanks.... so its not the same thing Unless those tanks have 23 wounds. Something with 23 or more wounds is just obscene in the same game as a T3 1 wound infantry..

The genie is out of the bottle so no point complaining about it. The issue is IK just gak all over their xenos counterparts. Add soup in the mix and the gap widens still. I would rather play a tide of green than something that's auto target priority.

I think that every Lord of War in the game needs a save of 5++, no matter what army, at a minimum to go along with the idea of being a "Lord of War", they all deserve that at least. I think the Baneblades are more or less well balanced since they only hit on 4+ but they have no invulnerable save, so why bother when you can take a knight instead, which hits on 3+s?

I don't like "mixing" (souping), I just want to play pure IG, the last few games I've played against pure Knights is such a pain in the ass, and I wasn't even min/maxing as much as I could have been, though I guess if I massed Basilisks and Manticores, I may have done better, but I don't really want to play with a parking lot. I don't even own a Baneblade but I would love to, but I have a feeling it'd get chewed up and spit out by any Knight on turn 1.


More on topic, I like Super Heavies, if you play with people who use them it helps you to learn how to deal with them if nothing else. They are a part of the game and I don't like the idea of banning things from the game or parsing things out into different "brackets", just talk it out with your buddies if you don't like them or just find people who don't use them instead.

In my second game of 40K in 1996 I faced an Eldar Cobra grav tank by Armorcast. They've come and gone, but LOW are here to stay. Why do folks want to ban other people's models? Worry about your own list. Don't like Knights? Don't buy one.

I've enjoyed my games against Knights and the big Eldar Wraithdude. I don't enjoy the Tau Riptide due to drone shenanigans, but I've learned to have a counter (besides chewing on the table edge out of frustration). My Baneblade and Shadowsword don't see too much action, but its cool to roll them out every now and then and knock the rust off the tracks.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
In my second game of 40K in 1996 I faced an Eldar Cobra grav tank by Armorcast. They've come and gone, but LOW are here to stay. Why do folks want to ban other people's models? Worry about your own list. Don't like Knights? Don't buy one.

I've enjoyed my games against Knights and the big Eldar Wraithdude. I don't enjoy the Tau Riptide due to drone shenanigans, but I've learned to have a counter (besides chewing on the table edge out of frustration). My Baneblade and Shadowsword don't see too much action, but its cool to roll them out every now and then and knock the rust off the tracks.

This is sadly the core issue. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

GW should never have introduced most flyers or super heavies into standard 40k but they did due to the fact that they make a lot of money selling those models if you can use them more often. Once you blended in Apoc into a standard game you got a weird hybrid that doesn't do either game justice.

It's my opinion that the game has generally suffered for it but at this point I would settle for GW to figure out some way to make most infantry and smaller tanks mean anything against knights being powered by a cheer leading loyal 32.