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.
2020/08/18 04:59:48
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...
Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.
Not a guarantee to deliver them. If your opponent can shoot off that much stuff they're not doing much to hold objectives in my current experience. Hide more and bring more W1.
2020/08/18 05:07:17
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Yes, I could see how 30 T4 3+ wounds sitting in cover could be....problematic.
Worse than that - he'll give them T5 or -1 to be hit while also in cover.
I'm seriously considering a Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannons, because even if I kill four models it's so rare for him to fail morale. But knowing him he's more than happy to drop 2 CP to make them stick. Never under estimate the importance of a single model - especially late game.
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 05:08:22
2020/08/18 05:29:17
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
Frikken' Salamanders spells. I literally can't wait for him to lose rerolls to hit on the tactic.
He runs very infantry heavy - 10 assault, 15 infiltrators, 5 incursors, 3 aggressors, 3 suppressors, 3 eradicators, 6 eliminators (3 las/3 sniper), judiciar, captain, phobos lib, lt, and 1 redemptor (for the most part).
2020/08/18 05:42:02
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.
I hope that doesnt happen or is at least limited to matched play.
Pre positioned terrain on a small board sound boring as feth.
The easiest way to improve them is to make them an assault vehicle again. I'll still use mine for the foreseeable future.
I'm just guessing. But it does several things - reduces the reliance on store play areas they're working on phasing out (Fewer Smaller tables eventually leading to zero in store tables), gives people more incentive to buy scenery when it's the freebie in a starter set, further reduces issues over one sided terrain deployment in matches - so it makes sense to me. As for your Match Play only thing... what rule they make isn't up to changing if you're not at some sort of Match Play event?
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2020/08/18 06:09:19
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/18 06:12:18
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
2020/08/18 06:15:33
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
Frikken' Salamanders spells. I literally can't wait for him to lose rerolls to hit on the tactic.
He runs very infantry heavy - 10 assault, 15 infiltrators, 5 incursors, 3 aggressors, 3 suppressors, 3 eradicators, 6 eliminators (3 las/3 sniper), judiciar, captain, phobos lib, lt, and 1 redemptor (for the most part).
Now that's a target rich environment. Can't remember the last time I played against Salamanders. Even without the rerolls his meltas will be nasty. Loyalists get too many tools. Maybe a new codex will help. Here's hoping we'll get the same treatment as loyalists and 1ksons won't have to wait for their own codex. Hopefully you're right about them giving us a timeline for them on Saturday, and hopefully the new fw books will be included in that timeline. *880 PPM my mumble grumble *
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
Agreed. Predetermined terrain is BORING. One of the reasons I don't like playing tournaments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 06:18:09
2020/08/18 07:24:17
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...
Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.
Not a guarantee to deliver them. If your opponent can shoot off that much stuff they're not doing much to hold objectives in my current experience. Hide more and bring more W1.
But a LR is also not a guarantee to deliver them if it can be blown up. Why is putting them in strategic reserves not a guaranteed way to deliver them? You can't stop them from coming in from reserves, the only thing you can do is restrict the targets they can shoot at by screening.
Also, that time I lost so much in one turn, I was facing an Imperium/admech army. Besides the regular shooting it had, tt also had 3 Admech vehicles and a Manticore that could all ignore line of sight. And it had cheap guardsmen that could move move move onto the midboard, and a 9 man Bullgryn squad with 3++ and 1+ armor saves to follow up. He held objectives just fine.
2020/08/18 14:49:01
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
They should give the big tanks T9 and add a global rule that if your toughness is more than double of the strength of the attacker, you cannot be wounded.
Heck, they should expand the toughness to more than 8 (yes i know theres a few t9 in the game already ,mostly FW superheavies).
That way you'd get a tank that can't be wounded by regular bolters or lasguns, meaning that anti-tank is actually needed to take them down instead of just high rate of fire.
Heck, tyranids monsters should also go that way. If they can't get good saves, at least give them higher toughness.
tauist wrote: Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
Agreed. Predetermined terrain is BORING. One of the reasons I don't like playing tournaments.
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/18 14:52:18
2020/08/18 16:20:21
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
Just don't forget that the Achilles can't benefit from Obscuring - I love putting a Tac Squad and Vulkan inside one for extra meltyness, but hiding it from lascannons is a pain.
2020/08/18 16:41:22
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
In predictions for the future. With the way they’re packing scenery in start sets, shrinking table sizes, and shrinking store sizes, I don’t think store tables are long for this world. At least until sales go down and we cycle back to store games. And predetermined scenery doesn’t necessarily mean mirror tables. It could me 80/20 splits for an attacker/defender mission.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2020/08/18 17:25:43
Subject: Re:Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
In predictions for the future. With the way they’re packing scenery in start sets, shrinking table sizes, and shrinking store sizes, I don’t think store tables are long for this world. At least until sales go down and we cycle back to store games. And predetermined scenery doesn’t necessarily mean mirror tables. It could me 80/20 splits for an attacker/defender mission.
seems like quite the conclusion honestly. Just because they add terrain in the most expensive starter set and reduce table size doesn't make me think theres gonna be fixed layouts anytime soon.
And the assymetrical tables part was a second point.
2020/08/18 17:31:13
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
2020/08/18 17:38:36
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
yukishiro1 wrote: The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
I'm mostly talking about non-competitive play being influenced by the competitive play.
Most of the popular batreps on youtube have a very "competitive" essence to them, with tables being mostly symmetrical (the outliers being SS88 and WintersSEO).
This makes it so that when playing casual games, people automatically make a symmetrical table (im guilty of that too) to reflect what they are used to seeing.
I agree that its more balanced to remove the map itself from the equation but i think its an interesting concept to explore.
2020/08/18 17:47:29
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 18:50:13
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/08/18 18:53:42
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
And that's just one faction.
2020/08/18 18:55:13
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Theres already too many invulns on big things in the game, which is problematic.
A wrack having an invuln isn't game breaking, contemptors having them, yes.
We need to make tanks unwoundable by certain things again. Bolters shouldnt be on par with lascannons when it comes to popping tanks open.
My suggestion from earlier:
Expand the toughness range and make some strengths unable to wound certain toughness.
for example : you cannot wound something that has a toughness MORE than twice the strength of your weapon.
Then make land raider T9.
2020/08/18 19:53:39
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
And that's just one faction.
And they're all pretty much overpriced garbage as well, just like the Land Raider.
/Proud Malcador, Macharius & Valdor-owner.
5500 pts 6500 pts 7000 pts 9000 pts 13.000 pts
2020/08/18 19:56:15
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 19:56:48
2020/08/18 20:43:44
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Theres already too many invulns on big things in the game, which is problematic.
A wrack having an invuln isn't game breaking, contemptors having them, yes.
We need to make tanks unwoundable by certain things again. Bolters shouldnt be on par with lascannons when it comes to popping tanks open.
My suggestion from earlier:
Expand the toughness range and make some strengths unable to wound certain toughness.
for example : you cannot wound something that has a toughness MORE than twice the strength of your weapon.
Then make land raider T9.
That would work if not for the fact wounding is fairly easy to accomplish. Bust a strat and you are rerolling wounds.This relic gives RR wounds. Now your toughness stat is worthless. Invune saves are important for this reason on expensive models. At the very least you have a chance to nulify the cheese.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
While I agree. LR are not super heavies but are still a model who has a chance to be the biggest model in a game. Should it not have a chance to be hardest to kill?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
And that's just one faction.
And they're all pretty much overpriced garbage as well, just like the Land Raider.
/Proud Malcador, Macharius & Valdor-owner.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/18 20:45:50
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2020/08/18 21:25:30
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
I don't thing just adding an invuln would be enough to save them without other changes. A bigger issue for those three are the more lackluster firepower for their size, namely how they're outgunned by their points in L.Russes.
2020/08/18 21:25:47
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Theoretically the LR shouldn't need an invuln. It's obviously tougher than a Leman Russ and has more firepower plus transport capacity, therefore, it should cost more. The problem is more that it costs so much that you only want one of them as your other troops are also expensive, and there's strong opportunity-cost for spending 300ish points on a Land Raider. This is in contrast to a Leman Russ Command tank, where the player will just take three of them and not bat an eye because the opportunity cost is low and their troops are cheap.
300 points for 16 wounds is rough when it's pretty easy to shoot at that 16 wounds, and multi-damage weapons will bring their full strength against it.
This is why I'm hopeful about Obscuration and Reserves though, as both of those rules can allow you to make that 300 points less targetable. The question then is if the LR brings something useful enough if you're being cagey about deploying it and spending the effort to keep it out of harms way.
With 18 point SMs, the Opportunity cost for my builds is going to shift quite a bit. The bodies in my Devastator Squads have shot the squad cost up by 50 points recently. (18-13 =5, 10x for 10 man squad). That's not insignificant. So 20 T4W vs 16 T8 wounds. . . that's at least a harder choice when the Devs start at 180 rather than 130.
yukishiro1 wrote: Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
or if it's such a problem for tourneys, the tourneys then should just not allow them.
Why mess with 2/3rds of the playerbase for problems that really only crop up in a small fraction of games?
2020/08/18 21:57:01
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Proliferation of invulnerable saves distorts the difference between high strength/AP and low strength/AP weapons and makes it harder to balance them. The T9 2+ defensive stat line is considerably more durable than the T8 3+ 5++ knight defensive stat line against weapons such as meltas and lascannons but weaker against high strength/AP weapons like railguns, fire Prisms, volcano lances, laser destructors, etc. The knight defensive stat line distorts what is good against heavy armour by encouraging the use of medium strength/AP high ROF weapons instead of actual anti-tank weapons with low ROF. If big units like knights had higher toughness and better armour saves instead of relying on invuls then anti-tank weapons would be more desirable and used more. If heavy armour is doing too well or poorly then balance could be improved simply by adjusting the costs on high strength/AP weapons up or down to change their prevalence and availability. This would also reduce the need for weapons and other abilities/powers that deal mortal wounds.
You want your floating boxes to be better? Give them and other heavy vehicles higher toughness and possibly better saves while doing the same for things like knights while removing their invuls. Suddenly that S10 -4AP gun is a lot more useful.
yukishiro1 wrote:Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Knights haven't been "nerfed into the ground" compared to other super heavys. A Castellan/Tyrant is now cheaper than a far less durable four sponson Baneblade, and far less expensive than the T9 2+ Hellforged/relic super heavys.
If you don't like playing against super heavys either refuse games against them or play Kill Team.
2020/08/18 22:22:49
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
I'd rather they not be competitive than too competitive.
I mean sure, in an ideal world where GW is good at balancing, it'd be great if they were just ok. But I'd much rather a big, expensive model be not very good than too good.
As a general rule of thumb, anything over about 200ish points for a single model is getting into dangerous territory where you need to start erring on the side of underpowering rather than overpowering them. When GW actually gets good at game balance (I made a funny!) they can go back to expensive models and try to make them balanced just right. Until then, I'd rather they keep them on the suboptimal side and focus on getting the main part of the game under control before worrying about big models that can easily break the game without very careful attention.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/18 22:42:11
2020/08/18 22:53:26
Subject: Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
I mean this is literally a thread about how big models are bad and I'm saying "good, I like that." Isn't that the precise opposite of complaining?
Really?
yukishiro1 wrote:Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Sounds like you're complaining about the introduction of knights into the game, and super heavys in general existing in the "competitive" environment.
So why do you think big models, which you consider Land Raiders to be an example of, should be more on the side of bad, than good? And what's the cutoff for "big" models? A Leman Russ? Leviathans?
Can't remember the last time I played against Salamanders. Even without the rerolls his meltas will be nasty. Loyalists get too many tools. Maybe a new codex will help. Here's hoping we'll get the same treatment as loyalists and 1ksons won't have to wait for their own codex. Hopefully you're right about them giving us a timeline for them on Saturday, and hopefully the new 
mumble grumble *
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
