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.

 Continuity wrote:
I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.

Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.

I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots

There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.

Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.

Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.

I just feel there have been so many broken units/strats/combos in various times in 8th. Castellans, dark reapers guilliman, flyers, tank commanders etc etc. And now suddenly a ban on the new broken jazz. I feel if bans were meant to be a community thing they should have happened earlier.

The state of the game is in my mind already set in a way that there is always something broken. So I dont see the point in banning anyone from playing regardless of what models they have and what books they use. Accept the gakky balance and play, this aint starcraft.

Banning is never a good solution to a problem, just creates feel-bad's and leads to players calling for everything else they see as broken to get banned as well.

We will likely see the two week FAQ for Iron hands in a couple of days, I'm hoping for the Half Damage strat to be restricted to 13W Dreads or below, its a simple fix that greatly reduces the problem.

I don't see the Levi as a problem on its own, I've had one for a couple of years and it puts out great firepower but at a poor range, is certainly durable but can easily be put down by armies that are prepared to fight knights. Add to that its utter uselessness in combat and if it even gets tagged its out of the fight and I think that 300pts is a pretty fair price, if anything was to change I'd put the price of the stormcannons up by 10-15pts each as they are the best but cheapest option.

The main problem is the stacking of the iron hands rules, all of which directly benefit the leviathan in a big way. Better overwatch, moving and shooting, rerolling 1s, extra AP, 6+++ Add in the strat and relic and its a massive boost for no cost.
The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions, aggressors for instance are much better in ultramarines, Assault centurians as raven guard or outside of marines all Aeldar as Alaitoc or all Drukarii Coverns as Prophets of flesh.
I don't think we really want each specific flavour of the different factions to have a different points cost chart to reflect the relative power of the different units with their stacked special rules, that would take the fun out of list design and playing to the strengths of subfactions.
40K isn't chess and I wouldn't want it to be.

 WisdomLS wrote:

I don't think we really want each specific flavour of the different factions to have a different points cost chart to reflect the relative power of the different units with their stacked special rules, that would take the fun out of list design and playing to the strengths of subfactions.

The shock horror of having balance and fluff at the same time eh?

The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,

okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.

tneva82 wrote:

 Continuity wrote:
I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.

Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.

I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots

There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.

Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.

Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.

My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.

Karol wrote:

The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,

okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.

They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.

It would also fix some of the traits.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:

The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,

okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.

They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.

It would also fix some of the traits.

well thenI guess they should work hard on a CA, and review the points costs of stuff. Because there is no way two identicaly armed leviathans, one from the Word Bearer legion and the other from the Iron Hands chapter should cost the same. Because besides the name, they aren't really the same thing.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:

The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,

okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.

They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.

It would also fix some of the traits.

well thenI guess they should work hard on a CA, and review the points costs of stuff. Because there is no way two identicaly armed leviathans, one from the Word Bearer legion and the other from the Iron Hands chapter should cost the same. Because besides the name, they aren't really the same thing.

The chaos and sm versions don't even have the same stats. Sm leviathan has a flat 4+ invul while chaos has 5+ for shooting and 4+ for cc. The sm levi can also take hk missiles while the csm version can't take any kind of equivalent. Another example of different costs for the same thing is that thunder hammer cost more for characters than basic troops because the characters superior stats make it a more powerful option on them so this isn't a new concept.

Ice_can wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Continuity wrote:
I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.

Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.

I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots

There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.

Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.

Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.

My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.

5++, -1 damage, 6+++. It does not benefit from halve the damage nor have 4++. Which helps a ton. No more 4 damage goes down to 1. More damage past inv saves and nearly twice the damage for each wound past invulnerable save. That's big.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Continuity wrote:
I still consider IH repulsor executioner to be the true threat while Leviathan is a smoke-screen that players are afraid of because it's statistically impossible to win a DPS race against it. Yes leviathan is functionally immortal with absurd damage output, but the counter-play is extremely obvious: Range and close combat, so there are ways to completely shut it down.

Repulsor on the other hand has no counter-play other than a damage race that is heavily to its favor since it has extremely efficient repairing, fly, and -2 to charge it.

I think that the Leviathan might warp the meta to force every list to contain some kind of ignore overwatch element to babysit Leviathans (which many of them already contain), but in the end it will be the Repulsors laughing all the way to the top spots

There are armies whose range band is 24". Can't outrange when your guns are 24"! And those same armies don't have viable melee solution to that either.

Meanwhile I average 11 wounds vs that repulsor with my AT guns. Vs 3(pre-FNP) of leviathan with primary AT weapons(with more left). I can actually destroy that thing. Not so with leviathan.

Everybody don't have ignore overwatch. Many don't even have anything that can charge that thing before getting shot off by others.

My question would be what assumptions underpin that maths as the repulsors can benifit from 90% of the durability buffs.

5++, -1 damage, 6+++. It does not benefit from halve the damage nor have 4++. Which helps a ton. No more 4 damage goes down to 1. More damage past inv saves and nearly twice the damage for each wound past invulnerable save. That's big.

It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.

Ironstone executioner builds shifting the meta away from flat 2 damage is kinda interesting TBH. Flat 2 damage has reigned supreme in all competitive builds in all factions for quite a while...

Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-meta, high damage weapons that will have no problem at all killing executioners

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with the ban. The tournament has the right to house rule whatever they want. Don't like it don't go.

Yep - its pretty simple.

Ice_can 780931 10586994 wrote:


It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.

Well armies can't be affected differently. not much change for your tau, but if an armies anti tank comes from razorbacks, land raiders and venerable dreads, then it becomes a real problem, because the weapons bought for anti tank are already pricy, and they don't get cheaper just because someone can make a lascannon do 2D max.

Karol wrote:

Ice_can 780931 10586994 wrote:


It may just be my lists but the half damage strategum and the iron stone achieve the same thing to most of my weapons as even my anti tank is flat 2 or D3 damage for Tau, marines and heck even most of my knight's have been moved over aswell.

Well armies can't be affected differently. not much change for your tau, but if an armies anti tank comes from razorbacks, land raiders and venerable dreads, then it becomes a real problem, because the weapons bought for anti tank are already pricy, and they don't get cheaper just because someone can make a lascannon do 2D max.

Again given lascannons cost what they do and have a single shot so high variance I don't take them ecen for my marines they cost too much to spend half the game doing 0 damage, ven dread get autocannons for now, their really isn't a good argument for any weapon that has a 57% chance to do 0 damage like lascannons.

I know people don't like it when I say this, but lascannons on vehicles are kind of the the only source of anti tank GK get. We can't really replace it with something else, because there is nothing else to take. And trying to plink a leviathan with str 4 psylancers or storm bolters requires loaded dice to work.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?

Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?

I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious

I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:

The issue comes from the fact that with the model of pricing units they can't really charge more for a unit in different factions,

okey this maybe a stupid question, but why can't you make it cost different. If let say we had two eldar books, and in one dudes would come with 1 stock rule, and in the other they came with 4, the it would make sense to make the ones from the other book cost more.

They can, absolutely a tac is now 12 pts in mainline sm dex. Compared to the 13 elsewhere.

It would also fix some of the traits.

I mentioned that the same thing should have the same cost referring to factions within the same codex, having six different lists of points costs within the space marine book would just be getting silly and would also be add an entirely new level to the more or less impossible job that is points balancing the sheer variety of units in this game.

The thing they should be able to do within the context of the same codex is better balance the subfactions, especially as with the new super doctrine bonuses the choice of subfaction is now far more relevant.
I like the bonuses for playing a pure list and it shouldn't be overlooked that these bonuses are coming at the cost of not being able to soup at all, soup has been the main course of complaint over balance for the past two years after all.

I can only assume that the other codexs will be getting pure faction bonuses in the near future - either via psychic awakening or chapter approved, if they don't then there is no justification of a chaos/bloodangel/dark angel etc... unit costing the same as a much more powerful marine version.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?

Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?

I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious

I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.

Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....

Do you feel the Levi Ban was warranted given the new IH issues?

Honestly - In this specific circumstance Yes.

I am not opposed to a TO banning something which can cause a lot of drama and other issues and something like the Leviathan benefiting from the Iron Hand buff train is definitely something capable of that.

It's not the most elegant or even best solution but its a temporary stop gap and the fact you CAN bring a non IH Leviathan is saying the model is not the issue, it's what it can benefit from, from the Forge Father, Ironstone buff train.

The game is not in the best place from a competitive viewpoint but casual games have never been more fun from my experience and this new marine codex is posing an issue no matter how you play (Except for narrative, you guys are awesome and custom datasheets are always amazing in narrative missions). The TO mentioned originally it was banned due to potential issues arising from it and that is fair since HE/SHE is the TO, their word is law and if it poses unpopular, people don't play.

Also in other news - How on earth do I even begin to beat IH even in casual games with mono chaos daemons?! stupid repulsors and executioners...

Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

Bans are a good way for a community to tell GW things, at a certain point it is not up to the players to sell GW stuff. If the company cannot keep it in line then it’s there own fault if players react to that.

It’s also not really a great fix, having to sort though a bunch of chapter tactics and strats is far less elegant fix. Particularly for a unit shared but other chapters.

Of course it's more elegant. You remove the extra layer of rules that break it, whilst not banning the model.

People spend money and time buying/building/painting their models. None should be banned.

 Ishagu wrote:
Of course it's more elegant. You remove the extra layer of rules that break it, whilst not banning the model.

People spend money and time buying/building/painting their models. None should be banned.

Then tell GW to step up.

I support the ban, because a TO should be able to do what they want. If it's not agreeable to you, don't enter the tournament, I guess?

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.

Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.

Dudeface wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Could have simply prevented the unit from being able to benefit from Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

It's a more elegant fix.

None of the other chapters are as much of a problem with it though, it's the iron hands buff stacking primarily.

Not that the leviathan doesn't need a small tweak maybe.

The Leviathan is costed fine, its the stormcannons in particular that need their points increasing, if a unit has 5 different weapons options and only one is ever taken that's the problem .

Im really enjoying how a not insignificant proportion of the respondents to this seem to think they're being asked whether TOs should be able to do something, and not whether or not a particular rules coalescence is an issue. Brilliant study design right there.

 Elbows wrote:
I said Yes, because there wasn't an option for "A Tournament Organizer can so whatever the feth they want.".

This. 1000x this.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Would you honestly rather wait the 6months until the next "balance pass" if it gets touched at all?

Would you rather wait those 6 months fighting nothing but lists designed to min max on the one or two broken lynchpin units?

I think the answer is pretty bloody obvious

I'd rather wait till it's been in tournament for a month or two and see how it actually performs under the competitive mission set before making such bans, but hey so be it. Most good players are saying the Dreads aren't even gonna be a problem, but seems low level players competitive don't understand that there is more to the game than math and have already decided where this landed.

Funny I remember peopel saying the same thing about Wave Serpents in previous editions - especially those that fielded them....

Funny I also remember them saying the same thing about Orks, Drukhari, and GSC, yet none of these need to be banned in tournament. You can't point at an example of when the community was right, just to ignore the times that they were wrong, my statement is that it could go either way, and youresponding that they could turn out to be OP doesn't counter that. The fact that you had to dig up an example all the way back from over 6 years ago now, kinda highlights my point if anything.