Switch Theme:

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
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?


1) is wrong. I can't find anything in the rules that allows Knights, or Titanic units in general, to move over units in the movement phase. they can fall back over INFANTRY/SWARM models per a rule on their datasheet.

2) Um...sure. OK. I like that this got listed as though there are psychic knights?

3) Yup. This is true, and AFAIK the only thing the Titanic rule does...except for making it so you can't claim any kind of benefit from cover at all.

4) An ability that everything should have already had, it was pants-on-head stupid that a wraithknight could not hit a squad at its knee level on a ruin and a needed fix to not just knights, but also basic close combat units like dreadnoughts.

5) Wow, ignoring morale in 40k, imagine that, an ability that basically only ever applies to 10+ model light infantry units that aren't marines.

6) how is high damage weaponry mitigated by an invuln save? Invuln saves only reduce the effectiveness of AP?

7) Knights' invuln save reduces the effectiveness of AP-3 or better, or AP-2 or better if they use a strat. There are plenty of units in the game that have invulns just as good or better than this. All of daemons. All of harlequins. Both those armies completely and utterly invalidate the AP stat, and SOMEHOW have managed to be perfectly balanced with the rest of the game for the majority of their existence...like, I might add, knights. Knights have only ever been overpowered a couple of times, usually as a single model added as allies to another army, and just as much as any other army in the game has.

And still...knights are only one superheavy unit. You have not demonstrated that ANY of these problems are problems foundationally with any other type of unit, let alone titanic units in particular. Stormsurges, Stompas, Wraithknights, Baneblades, KLOS, not even getting into forgeworld we regularly don't hear a peep out of any of these units all edition long. So it seems to be perfectly possible to balance superheavies in regular scale 40k, its just one of those bugbears that old men will yell at clouds about like "Tau not belonging in 40k" or "Daemons not belonging in 40k" - you know, whatever people can get away with whining about wanting gone.>

"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!"  
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 p5freak wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
In 9th, sinking 400+pts into a single model that can't hold objectives is a significant enough penalty.


Where does it say that LoWs cant hold objectives ?


Yes, literally speaking, they can hold objectives.

Practically, they can only be on one objective, and they lose it to literally any unit of 2+ models, or a single lowly Troops model.

It's a lot of points wrapped up in something that can't play to the objective game, and has to be worthwhile solely on the basis of killing things. In an edition where you can't win on killing alone, that's a big drawback. The more points you put into LoWs, the fewer points you have for other forces, and the easier it is for the enemy to kill those objective-scoring units.

Taken to the extreme, pure Knights (or even mostly-Knights with some Guard meatshields) really struggle in 9th- you don't have to kill the Knights, just kill whatever they brought to score, and then get on objectives. It's a big change from 8th and introduces a new disincentive to LoWs that didn't previously exist.

Given that most LoWs are nowhere near the effectiveness of Knights, I don't think the lack of subfaction traits or the CP cost are needed as additional balancing measures.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The fact that Knights will almost always lose doesn't make playing against them more entertaining, it makes it even less entertaining. It's bad enough playing against an army you can't kill trying to win by just dying slowly enough, but if you already know ahead of time you're going to be able to, literally what is the point?

The bad interactions with the 9th missions are a sign of why super-heavies in 40k is problematic, not a sign of why we don't have to worry about them. "They suck anyway so it doesn't matter" isn't a great argument.

I mean on the specific question I agree, I see no reason not to let them get traits in an auxiliary super heavy detachment. That's not an important line to draw. But the fact that the game has never in its history had well-balanced integration of super-heavies should be a clue that there are fundamental problems with them in 40k's basic framework.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:40:43


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I'm still failing to see the distinction between a list with a superheavy and a list with

1) a large number of flyers
2) a large unit with a very good invuln save and tons of buffs, in a word "Deathstar" unit.
3) A list with a large number of cheap models

The fact that you need to win the game via...the way that you win the game, rather than via tabling your opponent's army I would consider a "pro" rather than a "Con."

If I had my way, it would be exceedingly rare to have "kill my opponent's entire army" as an option to pursue victory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.


Right, like how flyers have less firepower for the points than superheav-

...wait no, that's not right.

Hang on.

Flyers generally have WAY MORE firepower for the points than superheavies...AND there are less ways to interact with them in general..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 17:46:38


"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!"  
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 skchsan wrote:
The issue is that they have ALL of the benefits listed, not just some. Many units in the game have SOME of these benefits listed, but are mostly balanced through other means - namely, high durability units typically have some limits to its firepower.

On how invul saves against high D weapons - good invul save turns these weapons into all or nothing. Statistically, weight of fire has more reliable damage output against units with good invul saves.


How many superheavies actually have good Invulnerable saves? Is your problem superheavies, or just Knights?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

This is a solved problem in the better other game, where Lords of War are constricted to 2000 point games or larger, and can only be a maximum of 25% of your force. Up to 3000 points, then above 3000 points you can get into apoc (or so the game recommends).

Then, there's a specialist detachment - the Leviathan - that lets you take one Lord of War more than 25% of your force, and opens up the possibility of taking two more Lords of War (but they have to abide the 25% restriction). However, your support is crippled, your access to warlord traits is banned (you get what the detachment gives and no more), and you lack flexibility.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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?).


Don't worry, if/when i do get one, i'll be sure to cover it in skulls/skin/chains/blood to be as spooky as possible (even if it doesnt give -1 to leadership :( ).
Yeah, resin is a pain but i can manage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
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?


so we should ban harlequins by that logic? >


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
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?



as was said before : make the SuperHeavyAux detachement cost 0cp and give its faction bonuses if it matches your warlord's. that way Wraithknights, Stompas, KLOS, Zarakynel, Fellblades, Scorpions, Baneblades become playable and knights are untouched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.


Thats already possible as the rules stand right now.
Pay 0Cp for your Superheavy detachment then bring in a patrol/battalion of other stuff for 2/3cp.

And again, why would it be bad to have knights with some footsoldiers in the same army?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:05:38


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.

RE: all other counter points & rebuttals - all these suggestions are based around excluding knights - 'we should make a rule that benefits all non-knights and exclude knights only.' This only goes to show that the key factor on why these LOW related rules are skewed so. The 40k design space is currently skewed as to pretend that these units fit in the given design space - 'since our current soft cap on T is 8, we'll give knights T8, but because it should be tougher than say, a land raider, because its a huge effing hellbot of doom, we'll give it invul saves, and then a rule that give it even better invul saves just because its a huge effing hellbot of doom!'. This trends' been spiraling out of control since the day of plastic kit baneblade and IWIN FW. It really needs to stop.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:14:43


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.


Even LOS-blocking area terrain for units with less than 18W?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.

But you still haven't explained how this would benefit knights. If anything it would hurt them because it would give other factions better access to units that could threaten them.

yukishiro1 wrote:The fact that Knights will almost always lose doesn't make playing against them more entertaining, it makes it even less entertaining. It's bad enough playing against an army you can't kill trying to win by just dying slowly enough, but if you already know ahead of time you're going to be able to, literally what is the point?

The bad interactions with the 9th missions are a sign of why super-heavies in 40k is problematic, not a sign of why we don't have to worry about them. "They suck anyway so it doesn't matter" isn't a great argument.

I mean on the specific question I agree, I see no reason not to let them get traits in an auxiliary super heavy detachment. That's not an important line to draw. But the fact that the game has never in its history had well-balanced integration of super-heavies should be a clue that there are fundamental problems with them in 40k's basic framework.

Not fun to play against? So Tau to Apocalypse too then?

And do you still believe that any unit worth 200+ points should be "more bad than good", just to know what you consider "too big for 40k"? That would include all Land Raiders, Riptides, Swarmlords, Morkanaughts, Gorkanaughts, etc.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that

When people complain about LoW, they complain about either knights or the primarchs (when called OP i mean). The fact that some people feel like a wraithknight is on the same scope as an imperial knight and feel like both need to have consent from the other player feels wrong since a WK is basically a gloryfied heavy support (its got less firepower than a repulsor FFS)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:25:47


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that
Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.

The sheer act of balancing out non-knight LOW's to match the performance of knights is a really bad way of dealing with the issue IMO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:28:40


 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that
Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.


Both IMO. they are overcosted for their impact of the game and them losing their faction trait because souping a knight warranted a nerf was a result of collaterral damage.

Some LoW are worse than heavy supports in the same codex.

So yeah, they need to rework the numbers on them but making a fellblade give -1 to leadership (when legion traits are inevitably fixed) or giving double wounds for damage charts with an iyanden wraithknight wouldnt break the game and should be doable.

You cant ever give a stompa a kultur right now in a 2000pts...

And again, its not about making all LoW knight-level. Its about making them viable choices in an army instead of being centerpiece models that just die while doing nothing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:31:20


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm still failing to see the distinction between a list with a superheavy and a list with

1) a large number of flyers
2) a large unit with a very good invuln save and tons of buffs, in a word "Deathstar" unit.
3) A list with a large number of cheap models


I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally:

1) I see no difference and regard fliers as another unit that should be Apocalypse-only. The fact that a flier miles in the air completely blocks a unit from assaulting beneath it is testament to the fact that they do not belong in this game.


2) I regard these as different because (Girlyman et al. notwithstanding) they tend to at least be a more reasonable scale for the game. What's more, these tend to at least be somewhat weak to the weapons that are meant to be effective against them, as opposed to Knights which have an invulnerable save to protect them from weapons with good AP. Because why would an anti-armour weapon be good against armour?

Moreover, because they comprise many individual models, Death Stars can be picked apart. This won't necessarily be easy, depending on the death star in question, but you can at least feel like you're having an impact on it. Meanwhile, all you can do against a Knight is plink away and sigh at how little difference it makes even after you've driven 10 wounds into the thing.

I know some people really hate them (and I can understand why), but I've frequently enjoyed playing against death stars. I tend to use armies that are almost the precise opposite (e.g. infantry-IG), so for me it becomes a fun game of quantity vs. quality.


3) As above, these at least feel like they're on the right scale for the game. And (again as above) you get a much better feeling of actually having an impact on the enemy, as you sweep models off the table. Plus, while high RoF weapons are obviously preferable, hordes rarely have invulnerable saves, good armour or other such defences.

You're free to cal me biased, since I play a horde army myself. However, I'm always happy to play against other horde armies, too. In fact, I can safely say that I have never had a unfun game against a horde army. Meanwhile, I have never had a fun game against, say, Imperial Knights.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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?
I would presume power players will take 2+ detachments, 1 with all knights to unlock strats, then take another other detachments with minimal expenditure (loyal 32 comes to mind) while foregoing any detachment bonuses for the sake of taking extra knights.

It's another 'if you give a mouse a cookie' no matter how you spin in.

Ummm, you do realize that they can do that now, right?
The point is that any thing/rule non-knights will benefit from will benefit knights to a greater degree. Then, all non-knights LOW players will want even better rules which again, knights will benefit most from. The cycle will only continue.



How does making the superheavyaux detachment cost 0CP and give faction traits if it matches your warlord's faction help knights?
May I ask your rationale for why you're excluding knights in your suggestion?

If we see the need to exclude a specific subset within the whole set, clearly you are recognizing there is something different about it, right? That's exactly my point. I'm not saying that your suggestions are bad, but the fact that we shouldn't have to pick between less bad of the choices.


because knights are a standalone codex with their own rules to bypass the detachment costs.

Wraithknights are part of the Craftworlds codex.
Fellblades are part of the Chaos space marine codex.
Stompas are part of the Orks codex.
etc.

Knights are the only LoW that get access to Warlord traits, Relics and special stratagems.

I think we all agree that knights are the most problematic LoWs but that doesnt mean the other ones should stay unplayable because of that

Are non-knights unplayable on its own merits or are they unplayable in comparison to other knights?

If its the former, then it's a problem of internal balance. You need to adjust points so that they are worth their points.

If it's the latter, then it's an issue of knights existing as its own separate codex.

The sheer act of balancing out non-knight LOW's to match the performance of knights is a really bad way of dealing with the issue IMO.

Mostly points, but also rules. Even a single knight gets access to all their strategems while few factions strategems apply to their LOW and they don't get faction traits. But mostly points. I mean, 905 PPM for a Stompa? Really gw?
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:45:53


 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.


Just to be clear : the buff we've been talking about is making the first LoW that matches your warlord's faction cost no CP and get access to its faction bonuses.

I could leave the CP cost as-is but at the very least i want to be able to play a LoW with its faction bonuses active, this has nothing to do with knights apart from the fact that the reason they lost it in the first place was to nerf Knights.

The solution we gave was to leave knights in their nerfed state and give codex LoW access to their own codex.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.


If these people are being intellectually honest, there is no difference. Skew is skew.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 VladimirHerzog wrote:
...Some LoW are worse than heavy supports in the same codex...


They all are, generally because of stratagems. A 415pt Wraithknight has comparable firepower to two Fire Prisms (340pts) and is paying the extra for the T8 and the melee output, which is fair enough, but then you bring in Linked Fire and the ability to use Fire and Fade to hop into/out of line of sight and the Fire Prisms have more firepower and are tougher. A 535pt Baneblade (one pair of sponsons) is sort of balanced against standard Leman Russes (it has about the firepower of 4 and the durability of 2 for the cost of 3), but it is very much not balanced against the huge pile of relic/tank ace traits you can stack onto Tank Commanders that can then use the Tallarn order to walk into and out of LOS.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:54:14


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Quasistellar wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

What is the actual distinction between a knight and a big unit of Wraithblades/Paladins/Terminators/MANZ/etc? Sure, you can usually kill 1-2 paladins more easily, but they tend to require many times more shots to bring down, have more obnoxious gak like -1 to all damage and 3++/2++ invuln saves, and just mechanically you're capped at causing 2-3 wounds at a time, while with a knight if a lascannon or melta gets through you can take off 6 all at once.


If these people are being intellectually honest, there is no difference. Skew is skew.


Sort of. The difference in terms of the Golden Age of Broken Knights is that the single Castellan parked in the middle of the Guard army was cheaper than a deathstar unit + support stack, did most of its damage at range instead of in melee so was much harder to avoid, remained at full effectiveness until you'd taken off all 28 wounds because of the fight at top profile stratagem, and was parked in the middle of a huge amount of Guardsmen to force you to engage it at range where it was more cost-effective than you were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
...I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


We know GW's rules team is incompetent and there's no chance of a real fix. We know this is all wishful thinking. Stop trying to pop the bubble of hope that something might get fixed someday instead of just getting replaced with bigger problems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 18:58:46


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 skchsan wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
IMO, the inclusion of knights in the game creates unreasonable level of expectations from the non-knights LOW which is why I believe knights is the root of the problem.


Well yeah, thats why i say non-knights go hit with collateral damage.

A quadlas predator has similar damage output to a wraithknight. for a smidge under half price
Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.

Buffing non-knights LOW's is nothing more than palliative care.

No, it isn't. Especially since I'm pretty sure you're prescription is "Move all LOW to Apocalypse". You've still not explained how our proposed rules change would help knights.
I'm not talking about it's direct effect, but what comes after.

What do you think would happen after if this suggestion was ever passed by GW and printed on rules? Someone in GW's rules team will say, 'Well, knights have their own codex so they should definitely be better or at least have some sort of edge against these non-knight LOW's. Afterall, they have their own dedicated codex FFS!'.

It's the initial snowball that will turn into a massive tumor of a rule bloat that will ruin the edition. We've seen this happen over and over.


Except knights are already better BECAUSE they have their own codex.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: