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.

I said right in the post above you that my cutoff was somewhere in the region of 200 points. Once you go above 10% of the value of a standard army in a single model, you're getting into dangerous territory balance-wise. With the rule of 3 in mind, as long as something under 200 points isn't egregiously overpowered, 600 points worth of overpowered stuff isn't going to win you a game on its own, so the damage caused to the game is not that high.

However, as points values go up, the damage caused by a single overpowered unit goes up dramatically. To take an extreme example, if you have a 666 point unit that's undervalued by 50%, you take 3 of those and you have an army that's worth 1000 more points than it costs. Meanwhile even if your 200 point model is 50% undercosted, that's only still only a 300 point gain.

That's not even getting into how lame very expensive models are to play against, how much they exacerbate first-strike advantage (both for and against), and how much they dumb the game down towards just being a dice-rolling exercise.

It shouldn't be a great shock to anyone that a game designed to be played with 30-150 models can easily run into big problems when one player takes half their points or more in a handful of models. The game system just isn't built for stuff that big, so it's very hard to get the balance right. It's the same reason that you can run into problems on the other end too, with lists taking 250+ models.

a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.

Distraction carnifexes be distracting.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:I'm not complaining?

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?

"anything I don't play" perhaps?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I said right in the post above you that my cutoff was somewhere in the region of 200 points. Once you go above 10% of the value of a standard army in a single model, you're getting into dangerous territory balance-wise. With the rule of 3 in mind, as long as something under 200 points isn't egregiously overpowered, 600 points worth of overpowered stuff isn't going to win you a game on its own, so the damage caused to the game is not that high.

However, as points values go up, the damage caused by a single overpowered unit goes up dramatically. To take an extreme example, if you have a 666 point unit that's undervalued by 50%, you take 3 of those and you have an army that's worth 1000 more points than it costs. Meanwhile even if your 200 point model is 50% undercosted, that's only still only a 300 point gain.

That's not even getting into how lame very expensive models are to play against, how much they exacerbate first-strike advantage (both for and against), and how much they dumb the game down towards just being a dice-rolling exercise.

It shouldn't be a great shock to anyone that a game designed to be played with 30-150 models can easily run into big problems when one player takes half their points or more in a handful of models. The game system just isn't built for stuff that big, so it's very hard to get the balance right. It's the same reason that you can run into problems on the other end too, with lists taking 250+ models.

Yes, you edited your comment while I was responding to your previous one, thus responding to my question preemptively.

I think the takeaway is that nothing should be under or overvalued by 50%, or even 10%. Your problem is with balance, not big models. If intercessors were 15 PPM they would be just as bad as a 400 PPM Baneblade.

If you prefer infantry heavy games, fine, play infantry heavy lists. Some of us like to bring something bigger from time to time, and they shouldn't deliberately be made bad just for your preferences.

Of course nothing should be that badly balanced. Hence why I said if GW was actually good at balance sure, it'd be ok if big models were just right (I'd personally still rather they weren't in the game at all, but I'll accept not everyone feels that way).

But we all know that GW is either very bad at balance, doesn't care about balance very much, or, most likely, a little from category one and a little from category two. That being the case, I am very happy for big models to stay on the "bad" side of the spectrum rather than the "good" side.

You can disagree all you want. It's fine for you to have your own opinion and for it not to match mine.

Fine. Agree to disagree.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course nothing should be that badly balanced. Hence why I said if GW was actually good at balance sure, it'd be ok if big models were just right (I'd personally still rather they weren't in the game at all, but I'll accept not everyone feels that way).

But we all know that GW is either very bad at balance, doesn't care about balance very much, or, most likely, a little from category one and a little from category two. That being the case, I am very happy for big models to stay on the "bad" side of the spectrum rather than the "good" side.

You can disagree all you want. It's fine for you to have your own opinion and for it not to match mine.

what's the differance between a super powerful large model and a super powerful model that just so happens to only be the size of a grot?

Read my earlier posts, I specifically addressed that. And we are obviously talking about large in terms of points values, not physical dimensions.

We all know the issue is that the so called balance doesnt really exist. It just doesnt. Nothign in this game is equal pt for pt.

Some people seem to ascribe raw firepower and resilience far above utility, mobility.
For example; when the impulsor got released many maaaany decried it as utterlly terrible because it couldint just delete units left right and center. Clearly trash tier...

"A flying, tough transport with a good invuln capable of delivering the best troops in the best faction in game after moving? Sounds terrible"
Unless you account for rules, traits and force multipliers also as a separate pts value it just doesnt work. So GW is not interested in makign it work. They could through a looong and grinding process like we saw leading up towards end of 8th/ post ynnari and castellan nerf.

So here we are starting from zero again. Im of the opinion the LR might become viable in some builds rules and pts pending.
If it gets an assult vehicle rules might well be very interesting.

I do not recall many people talking trash on the Impulsor.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I do not recall many people talking trash on the Impulsor.

Maybe it was the vocal minority usual suspects but I certainly remember people saying it.

(Probably same people who were trying to say SM 2.0 codex, invictors and supplemnts were "Actualy its not that strong apart from IH")

Anyway, I for one hope to see land raiders spewing out terminators will be a thing.
That used to be the scary prospect

 Argive wrote:


Anyway, I for one hope to see land raiders spewing out terminators will be a thing.
That used to be the scary prospect

Agreed, I welcome more terminators and Land Raiders. Both are such cool models and concept, plus being around forever it would be nice to have them back more often

 JNAProductions wrote:
I do not recall many people talking trash on the Impulsor.

This image may say otherwise:



Problem (that people have) with the new SM vehicles?
1. new 'primaris' aesthetics doesn't fly with everyone
2. way too many guns for a single vehicle unit/model, many of them which are inconsequential to the game overall (extra dice rolling that has no real impact in the game)

EDIT: ooooooooooooo the IMpulsor, not the REpulsor...

Trash on mechanics, I meant.

Not looks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Trash on mechanics, I meant.

Not looks.

I think that's because impulsors are actually really good in terms of abilities that you can add-on. They're the real primaris vehicle that everyone needed, not another 'Land-Raider-Predator cross over'.

 Argive wrote:
a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.

Distraction carnifexes be distracting.

You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Argive wrote:
a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.

Distraction carnifexes be distracting.

You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.

Some times, best defense is a distraction carnifex.

 skchsan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Argive wrote:
a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.

Distraction carnifexes be distracting.

You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.

Some times, best defense is a distraction carnifex.

I cant heal a wave serpet by 6 wounds a turn though...

I'm not saying as it stands its comparable or good...
I was responding to the notion it should be 180pts as was suggested earlier and making general point about people not valuing utility and mobility enough. We don't yet know the rules, or the points of it or temrinators yet.

You do you of course,

 Xenomancers wrote:

Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.

Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.

My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!

If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...

And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.

Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.

My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!

If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...

And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.

For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.

Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.

My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!

If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...

And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.

For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.

Or you can just give a LR specific damage reducing or FNP stratagem. Say:

Unyielding Machine Spirit
Play this stratagem when a LAND RAIDER unit in your army fails a save roll. Before allocating damage, roll a d6 then consult the results blah blah. This effect persists until the end of the phase this stratagem is played on.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.

Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.

My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!

If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...

And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.

For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.

Want a Land Raider with a 4++? Get an Achilles.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.

Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.

My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!

If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...

And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.

For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.

Want a Land Raider with a 4++? Get an Achilles.

Oh I'm gonna be converting one for sure.

I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

Obscured isn't that much of a benefit when you're running a LR that wants to deliver it's passengers anywhere useful - it's too big to hide effectively in most cases.

nekooni wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

Obscured isn't that much of a benefit when you're running a LR that wants to deliver it's passengers anywhere useful - it's too big to hide effectively in most cases.

Different tables I guess. I don't think I'd have too much of an issue.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?

What's the price tag on that?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?

What's the price tag on that?

Pricey, 380 PPM. Always remember the Spike Tax.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.

What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?

What's the price tag on that?

Pricey, 380 PPM. Always remember the Spike Tax.

Oh that's not so bad at all, I was figuring it'd break 400. Interesting vehicle. Actually the 6 transport capacity combined with the short range on the Multimeltas is kind of a turnoff for me, but that seems like a pretty decent deal for a hefty linebreaker.