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.
2020/09/08 14:41:56
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.
Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?
2020/09/08 14:42:23
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
argonak wrote: Asking superheavies is be removed from the game is silly. Never going to happen.
Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.
That's how vehicles used to work for a long long time. You could lose an engine but not be destroyed. You could lose a weapon on that facing. The downside was it could be hard to get the final kill shot after the only thing left was a driver who couldn't drive. So they added Hull Points. Then they made them people with toughness and wounds. But they did a fairly poor job of it. Give it a couple editions and they'll either revert because this sucks, or they'll fix it so it doesn't suck.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2020/09/08 14:48:49
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Karol wrote: I have little expiriance with big stuff, besides knights armies and castellans in 8th ed, and it tells me that both create two type of play expiriance, either they are part of some sort of very gimmik list with rules over laping from non core products and multiple books, or create a negative play expiriance, because either the opposing army has no way of dealing with a knight or it can kill a knight per turn tabling the knight player around turn 4-5.
Also big stuff in games make it really hard for elite units and normal tanks to be worth taking. castellans changed the meta in such a way., and it wasn't very fun for people that wanted to take some tank.
FW seems to always create problems, specialy if there is over lap with codex rules. Codex dreads weren't a problem in 8th, but chaplain dreads and leviathan were too good with 2.0 rule set.
Imperial knights are the only group of strong LoW in the game right now.
When is the last time you played against a stompa, a cobra or a fellblade?
I'm gonna guess that never.
The castellan used to be 100pts cheaper and the strats that supported it used to be cheaper and you could bring it to a 3++ save. all these things were fixed.
lord of wars arent a problem when they are balanced, right now, knights are the only balanced ones since they can circumvent the penalties for taking them (CPs) and their pts have been adjusted enough to where they arent OP.
FW only creates problems with their undercosted dreadnoughts, everything else they produce are nothing more than cool looking models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 14:50:07
2020/09/08 14:53:11
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.
To complicated. Losing movement and worse shooting is fine.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 14:54:34
2020/09/08 14:53:29
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Keramory wrote: Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.
Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?
You only get a house if you bring it in a fully fledged SuperHeavy Detachment.
So you gotta pay 6cp (because it includes a titanic unit) and add 2 armigers to fill out the detachment.
Its pretty ridiculous, hence the topic of this thread
2020/09/08 14:53:55
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Keramory wrote: Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.
Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?
I think the SH aux detachment says you don't get subfaction traits? I'm really not sure. And even if it does I'm pretty sure knights have a strat they can use that lets them have that cake and eat it too.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/09/08 15:25:33
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Keramory wrote: Question on the super heavy. I know that you can't get chapter tactics and the like, but is there a specific rule as to why? Just asking in case I'm missing something else about it.
Basically I have a Castellan now which I want to bring every so often with sisters/marines/custodes for fun. 3cp seem well worth it. But now trying to learn about the mech/imp forge and freeblade stuff as I don't get a house?
Not sure which version of the rulebook you've got, Keramory, but there's a reference within the Detachments section - look for the sidebar/box with Detachment Abilities in it, which is on pg 58 of the mini-rulebook from the Command Edition starter. Basically, there's a small list of detachments which are excluded from getting Detachment Abilities (such as Chapter Tactics, etc), of which the Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment (with the single LOW slot) is included.
The big Super-Heavy Detachment can get access to them, but then you're fielding 3+ LOW, and it costs more CP.
I don't know if the Freeblade stuff would apply - I suspect not, but I'm not a Knight expert.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/09/08 15:35:07
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.
This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.
Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
2020/09/08 15:38:28
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.
The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.
So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.
And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?
I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.
Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.
2020/09/08 15:57:51
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.
The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.
So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.
And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?
I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.
Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.
I was joking, seems like i need to work on my delivery a lot more
Most LoWs are in the same boat. Overpriced and undersupported when compared to knights which is a shame since i like the look of LoW that look like vehicles more than bipedal robots.
I wasnt kidding when i said just realised how many guns the fellblade gets and now i'm tempted to get one for my Night lords since at least i'll be able to split fire with it but that will 100% wait on the new FW index if it ever happens.
2020/09/08 16:06:27
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.
The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.
So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.
And who says the Scorpion isn't overpriced as well?
I'm not complaining about the Fellblade's rules, I'm complaining about its price. Is it worth 880 PPM compared to a 635 PPM Castellan/Tyrant? Is the Scorpion worth 710 PPM compared to those knights? A four sponson Baneblade is 650 PPM, how does that stack up against them? And let's not even get started on the 905 PPM Stompa. Right now gw favors knights in both price and rules ahead of most other super heavys (the klos seems to get a favorable turn as well). That's not "equal long pikes" as a friend of mine likes to say. So look at those Fellblade stats again and compare them to a Castellan/Tyrant and tell me if you think it's worth an extra 245 points, and while you're at it ask if that Scorpion is worth an extra 75.
Oh, and don't forget all those nice strategems and relics available to knights. 3CP gets you a 4++ for a Castellan/Tyrant, only 1CP for the "smaller" knights.
I was joking, seems like i need to work on my delivery a lot more
Most LoWs are in the same boat. Overpriced and undersupported when compared to knights which is a shame since i like the look of LoW that look like vehicles more than bipedal robots.
I wasnt kidding when i said just realised how many guns the fellblade gets and now i'm tempted to get one for my Night lords since at least i'll be able to split fire with it but that will 100% wait on the new FW index if it ever happens.
Ah, sorry.
Well they look great in 8th Legion colors (just make sure to stain those treads bloody, remember, we're the Eighth Legion), and Prey On The Weak is useful against anything L8 or less. Just be prepared to straighten some tread sections and gun barrels (ever work with resin before?).
2020/09/08 16:13:24
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 16:14:55
2020/09/08 16:25:14
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 16:26:50
2020/09/08 16:30:36
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
What core rules do LOW units "Virtually ignore" as compared to non-LOW units?
....ignoring of course Guilliman if you like. i think it's fair to lump the other primarchs in there though.
They can generally not be prevented from shooting by locking them in melee...but now neither can any monster or vehicle. Or like. All planes?
And that's about...it?
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/09/08 16:31:00
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.
This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.
Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.
Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a big part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 16:44:39
2020/09/08 16:41:02
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far: 1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement) 2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic) 3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting) 4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting) 5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul. Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul. Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem. The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.
Oh, and not to mention that knights have a stratagem that essentially insta-kills any infantry characters <T6 in combat, barring unlucky rolls.>
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.
Then the begging question is, do we revise the entire 40k and all of its factions in order to comfortably fit knights into the fold, or do we exclude knights from 40k ruleset?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 16:54:50
2020/09/08 16:43:04
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.
This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.
Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.
Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a bit part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.
Seconded. Especially the second point.
2020/09/08 16:51:01
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Azuza001 wrote: Sorry guys, this wasn't supposed to be about if they should exist or not. It was how to make it more reasonable to bring one in a list.
That tends to happen here, I'm finding.
I get the opinion that its no fun to face certain ones, when imperial knight codex came out in 8th i hated them. They were so overwhelming. But as time went on gw fixed them rules wise (changed cp value for their detachments, removed 3++ as a thing, increased cost of certain units...) and other rules came out to make them less of a draw (doctrines....).
But I am more concerned about baneblades / stompa / wraithknights / ext. For example, i have seen my opponent start with 3cp in this new edition because he was trying to get into imperial guard but didn't own enough for 2000 pts. He had a good start on infanty, a few tanks, and a baneblade. So to flesh it out he brought some custodies to try and help out.
It didn't go well for him. I was playing craftworld eldar (Beil Tan is the best!) and utterly crushed him. It wasn't even close pts wise. He still has his guard but now is waiting until he has 2k before he plays them, and even then he isnt sure about the baneblade (and can you blame him?). It costs 4cp just to take it and give it his army trait, and while they are good they are not THAT good.
Same with the wraithknight. They are cool to see, I still love the model. But they are not anywhere near the same lvl as an imperial knight. Or a stormsurge. Or a stompa. Heck even a tesseract vault is now harder to swallow (however they still are nasty enough in the right list to be an insane option so I still use mine once in a while).
I dont think these things should be autoincludes or auto win units. But it would be nice if I saw them on the table more and have a real chance to help out without just auto-gimping an army.
As mentioned I don't think CP and Dets/List Building should be tied together at all beyond the Stratagems for army selection. I suspect they're doing this - and the Cap on Dets per army - to try and hamstring "unfluffy" armies that take multiple small Dets to min/max the non Troops choices, or to soup multiple armies. But it doesn't really work, and punishes some of the more esoteric armies many of us would like to see more of. Beyond that - is the Baneblade worth it's points even before the CP cost? 26 3+ T8 wounds for roughly 20% to 30% or more of your 2,000 point army could evaporate awful fast. You could be connecting two separate but crossing-over issues. If (And it's an if) it's not worth it's points it's definitely not worth it's points plus a handful of CP and no changes to the Aux-LOW Det CP cost is going to change that.
How fast was he using his CP? Did he run out? How fast would he have used his CP with the 4 extra? i.e. Would he still have run out? Was he making efficient/good use of his CP?
How fast did the Baneblade die? How many times did you shoot it, with which weapons? i.e. did you get luckier than average, was it some of the change from AV to Toughness (vehicles in general took a huge hit going from AV to Toughness)? Were you loaded for bear with anti-tank? Was this the only tank he had?
Next up: GW isn't going to change the rule based on what we say here, so I'm assuming you're looking for a friendly game house rule. First I'd figure out if it's a Vehicle/Baneblade issue, a CP issue, or both. Then I'd figure out some house rules to fix whatever's broken -especially if this opponent was a buddy you don't want to get discouraged while he only has half an army - if that's what you're looking for. I just saw he only had 3 CP. Had he made his piecemeal army without the soup/det/etc penalties and given him the full 12 - basically open play with CP added - would it have made a difference?
i finally took a look at the fellblade's stats and i was surprised to see it actually has decent firepower and the possibility to split fire. Gosh you better stop complaining about it, its super OP strong compared to the Eldar scorpion.
The scorpion has a single (real) gun for 710pts. Sure that gun will delete a titan per turn but against anyone not running a low model count army, its gonna suck balls.
So many cool models that are just unplayable because of their pts costs. Even stuff like the Tantalus which isnt a LoW sucks because its too expensive.
I can remember when a Thunderhawk moved to the Marine Codex for the blink of an eye for only 600 or so points. What is it now? 900? 1100? My bad, 1500 or somesuch.
So his baneblade died t3 to my eldar guardian blob and banshees.... i know that sounds ridiculous but 20 guardians drop down, banshees drop down. Then doom onto tank, guide onto banshees, and in the shooting phase warlord trait guide onto guardians, plus jinx onto tank.
Guardians are hitting on 3's rerolling, wounding on 6's rerolling, each 6 is an auto wound, followed by a blob of 10 banshees with the same situation (3's to hit with reroll, 6's to wound auto wound with reroll) in combat (court of the young king helps make those deep strike charges). I have used the guardian trick before to kill repulsers so I knew how to deal with his tank easily enough.
I dont think the issue comes completely down to the rules though. If the tank had 10 more wounds would it still be where it is now? Or if it was t9? Who knows. But as things sit.... I hate to see cool models just gather dust.
2020/09/08 16:52:27
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Honestly Azuza, what you described here, is nothing more then the fact that GW has no bloody idea that their wounding chart is in essence broken.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/09/08 16:57:04
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.
This is one of the strangest takes for me for 2 reasons.
Technically, superheavies don't exist. These are Lords of War, superheavies were a 7th edition thing.
And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
Well, there's two reasons. First has to do with gameplay - in general, in any gaming system, units that push the upper and lower threshholds of the game mechanics are the ones that create the most problems. We can see this with super-heavies in particular with the fiasco that was knights for a portion of last edition, until they got nerfed. Presumably nobody but knights players want to go back to that. It would have been better just not to have these models introduced at all, just like it is a good thing that factions don't get 2 points per model S1 T1 1W no save models that can't attack but can just sit on objectives. Skew lists are problematic for a reason.
Second, it's just not what a lot of people think 40k should be about. You used to have Epic to simulate that scale of warfare. 40k has historically been about smallish engagements between what are basically combat patrols. Super-heavy models just don't really fit that setting, just like tanks in kill team don't fit. Obviously this one is subjective and GW itself disagrees since it introduced knights. But as the thread shows, there are a lot of people who agree that making super-heavies a big part of 40k (which they weren't before knights, the models existed but basically nobody seriously used them) was a mistake.
So they skewed the game before they were nerfed? So, Iron Hands to Apocalypse then?
As to your second point, you think any unit 200 PPM should be "more bad than good" so that's where you're coming from. And as you say, it's subjective, so an opinion, which is fine, but you're opinion shouldn't affect other people's games.
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.
Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?
2020/09/08 16:58:41
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yes i have, the less we see this abomination on the field the better, if they'd wanted to make the only codex LoWcsm have atm into khorne why the feth not make a plastic brass scorpion.
So they skewed the game before they were nerfed? So, Iron Hands to Apocalypse then?
As to your second point, you think any unit 200 PPM should be "more bad than good" so that's where you're coming from. And as you say, it's subjective, so an opinion, which is fine, but you're opinion shouldn't affect other people's games.
i mean he has kinda a point, the inclusion of knights and other super heavies, atleast imo, facilitated the race to the bottom that hit infantry and tanks. But frankly if GW would've controlled themselves when writing rules then we would've had WAY less impact than we had now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:01:44
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/09/08 17:02:58
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far: 1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement) 2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic) 3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting) 4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting) 5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul. Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul. Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem. The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.
Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?
No, I think you're failing to take into account the fact that LOW can't be balanced out properly precisely because of this outlier.
If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.
So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:03:19
2020/09/08 17:04:13
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
meh for most non knights a simple price fix would solve the issue.
heck a baneblade / variations aren't that far off from fieldable allready.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/09/08 17:07:15
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
ERJAK wrote: And 2...why not? They're basically just really expensive tanks. There's nothing special about them that makes them inerently any different than a repulsor or a land raider or a defiler. They're just pricier with better rules to go along with that increased price.
In reality you're just calling for the banning of models priced at greater than or equal to 400pts. Which seems a bit arbitrary tbh.
It is a problem when the said "just really expensive tanks" virtually ignore most of the core rules, and come with 2~3x the amount of firepower/durability at less than 2x the points cost.
There's nothing more arbitrary in 40k than the points for imperial knights and other titan-class super heavies.
Exactly what core rules do they ignore? And any amount of firepower/durability is ok as long as you pay for it. And less than 2× the points? What units are you comparing exactly?
Without updated rules for knights, so far:
1. Can move through/over non-VEHICLE units, including fall back (Movement)
2. Can fall back and manifest psychic powers (Psychic)
3. Can fall back and shoot (Shooting)
4. Indirect result, but can now charge & fight into units on upper level of ruins (given they are within 5" vertically) (Charging & Fighting)
5. Single model unit = no morale checks (Morale)
Hard counter for high W model is high D weapons - mitigated by good invul.
Hard counter for high Sv model is high AP weapons - again mitigated by good invul.
Soft counter for damage bracket models is lower their damage bracket - mitigated by stratagem.
The only REAL hard counter for knights is charging with vehicles or bikers - which is mitigated by anti-vehicle AND anti-infantry weapons the model carries.
At purely objective level, there really isn't enough design space in 40k ruleset to truly balance out these bipedal warmachines. They will always be overcosted or undercosted.
Ah, so your problem is with knights, and much of this thread has been spent complaining how much better they are than other LOW. And your list applies to lots of units that aren't knights or other LOW. Number 5 in particular applies to any vehicle/monster or character. Are you sure LOW is your problem?
No, I think you're failing to take into account the fact that LOW can't be balanced out properly precisely because of this outlier.
If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.
So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?
And I think you missed my "fix" for the problem: allow LOW in super heavy auxiliary detachments to have a faction trait if it's the same as the armies warlord in your main detachment and fix the points for non-knight LOW. It's impossible for a knight to have the same faction trait as a non-knight warlord, so how would that help knights?
2020/09/08 17:09:12
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
If you 'fix' how LOW detachments work, the party that benefits the most, not to mention beyond the stratosphere, are the knights, not these overcosted non-knight LOW.
So what are you really fixing? - making non-knights LOW more usable or making knights more abusable?
Just the aux LoW det is what they're working on. You could fit one knight in there, but if they hold to pattern you're going to lose your Tactic/trait/dynasty/hivefleet/sept/genome/insert equivalent here.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2020/09/08 17:11:29
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
