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 19:02:13
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
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 19:05:57
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
Well partially you're right, but I'm actually fully recognizing the root of the problem is their standalone codex which provides them the edge over all other non-knight LOW's creating this unrealistic expectations that non-knights can ever fulfill.
No matter how much you buff non-knight LOW's, knights will always be better than non-knights, and there won't be an end to 'making things right' for non-knight LOW's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:07:39
2020/09/08 19:07:31
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
2020/09/08 19:08:03
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.
A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad.
Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: Well partially you're right, but I'm actually fully recognizing the root of the problem is their standalone codex which provides them the edge over all other non-knight LOW's creating this unrealistic expectations that non-knights can ever fulfill.
No matter how much you buff non-knight LOW's, knights will always be better than non-knights, and there won't be an end to 'making things right' for non-knight LOW's.
Im comparing non knights to heavy supports in their respective codexes more than im comparing them to knights.
Why would i chose to play a wraithknight in a competitive list when for cheaper i can get two Fire prism that have higher damage output, resilence (they can be hidden unlike the WK) and stratagem support?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:11:18
2020/09/08 19:12:10
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.
A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad. Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,
unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..
everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.
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 19:13:48
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.
A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad. Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,
unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..
everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.
im talking in present day 40k. (for the WK)
and yes, everything can be feelbad. Losing a squad of skitarii to a repulsor putting everything in them can be feelbad even if its not the correct move.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:14:54
2020/09/08 19:15:02
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.
The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.
The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:20:42
2020/09/08 19:19:46
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
i think Skchsan has missed that knights are the issue partially because thanks to their codecies they bypass the other restrictions placed upon superheavies and partially because their pricetag isn't correct.
that said a full super heavy army should not exist personally.
agreed, a full knight army is in full-on skew territory and to me feels strange on the table because it invalidates a big part of a lists weapons.
Having one LoW in an army however isnt a problem since any list should be equipped to deal with vehicles and monsters.
A wraith host with a Wraithknight at its core isnt OP or feelbad. Terminators being carried to the midfield in a Spartan isnt OP or feelbad,
unless the sales manager at GW intervenes by the designer....
as has happened, sadly,..
everything can be feelbad if it goes over the top, like the CSM dex design, it is inherently feelbad,
the fulff bunnies because their lists get overpriced inefficent in most cases.
the comp players because you have a list that relies upon soup and more moving parts then a swiss skeleton watch.
the wargamer, because what the feth are those stratagems and why the feth does my havoc need to personally beg for a bloody missile for AA duty.
im talking in present day 40k. (for the WK)
and yes, everything can be feelbad. Losing a squad of skitarii to a repulsor putting everything in them can be feelbad even if its not the correct move.
Oh i perfectly agree, it's just an unit type that is so all in that if done badly (either way) and gw has sadly a track record of that.... becomes an inherent issue, is it overpriced, well when 1-2 squads are overpriced who cares, when 25-50% of your list suddendly are overpriced, that is opportunity cost that starts to even make casuals be annoyed. Otoh you have the other exemples, cue castelan (pre nerf that is).. that everyone and their mother want's one.
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 19:22:41
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
The reason for excluding knights is simple : knights have their own codex. Knights with their own codex already get a ton of bonuses over all other titanic options. Look at the number of Stratagems you can use in say a stompa, then compare to either chaos or imperial knights. Look at warlord traits and relics. Thats the problem with everything else. The level of "support" one can give the other knights is what makes them so good. If imp knights for example had 0 warlord traits / relics / strata for them then they would be in much the same group as stompa / wraithknight.
But thats not where we are. And as such thats what this post was about.. trying to see if the general community feels the same as I did about lack of good ways to use these things / add them to the army without breaking things again and bringing back the early days of knight codex "I got 3++ and.... i win ".
2020/09/08 19:23:17
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.
I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.
Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/09/08 19:32:16
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.
The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.
The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.
But that's what we're talking about. I agree that making an entire faction of LOW, a skew list in codex form, was a bad idea, but currently most other LOW are horribly balanced compared to other options available to their armies. We're proposing that nerfs they recieved as collateral damage from knights be removed, and only for them, not knights.
And as for your point about non-knight LOW never being able to compete with knights: give my Fellblade a price of around 650 PPM, or better yet, my Cerberus one of 470 PPM as it was in the index, and I will make knights burn. And it's quite useless against infantry. Unless you think a 470 point unit that can at best kill four infantry models a turn good at that.
2020/09/08 19:37:12
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Not sure how knights are an issue right now,to be honest. Granted,I've only played a single game Vs them this edition so far,but my warrior / carnifex nids list won something like 80:40 while getting almost wiped. Was a fun game, killed two FW knights. Didn't even bring hive guards or the big shooty beasts, just a bunch of (heavy) venom and claws
The game isn't just about killing anymore.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:43:23
2020/09/08 19:47:38
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
But, they already think that. The current state of non-knight LOW proves that. You're proposing to preemptively stop a problem that already exists. The house has already burnt down and you want to install a sprinkler system.
Not quite. It's more akin to having a commercial kitchen with 20 gas fired equipment in a 1,000 sf single family residential building and saying that the house is not prepared for fire, so we need to install sprinkler system.
The root of the problem is that you installed a commercial kitchen in a residential building, not that you don't have a sprinkler in your house.
The problem is internal balance, so it should necessarily be balanced internally and not comparatively to knights.
But that's what we're talking about. I agree that making an entire faction of LOW, a skew list in codex form, was a bad idea, but currently most other LOW are horribly balanced compared to other options available to their armies. We're proposing that nerfs they recieved as collateral damage from knights be removed, and only for them, not knights.
And as for your point about non-knight LOW never being able to compete with knights: give my Fellblade a price of around 650 PPM, or better yet, my Cerberus one of 470 PPM as it was in the index, and I will make knights burn. And it's quite useless against infantry. Unless you think a 470 point unit that can at best kill four infantry models a turn good at that.
And my stance is that it is impossible to fully balance any non-knight titanic units without stepping on knight's toes. Introduction of knights in 40k necessitated introduction of titanic units for other factions. We're already at the bottom of the slippery slope.
Following, introduction of these titanic units in other factions caused severe internal imbalance in each of the factions OTHER THAN knights. By buffing these units that were meant to compete with knights, knights will undoubtedly require additional buffs to 'compensate' for this 'equality'.
2020/09/08 19:50:13
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.
I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.
Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.
What if you want a cadian Baneblade?
2020/09/08 19:51:47
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.
I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.
Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.
What if you want a cadian Baneblade?
You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.
2020/09/08 19:53:19
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
nekooni wrote: Not sure how knights are an issue right now,to be honest. Granted,I've only played a single game Vs them this edition so far,but my warrior / carnifex nids list won something like 80:40 while getting almost wiped. Was a fun game, killed two FW knights. Didn't even bring hive guards or the big shooty beasts, just a bunch of (heavy) venom and claws
The game isn't just about killing anymore.
yeah, this is a big one too. At the end of 8th, knights were never taken either. They received their nerfs already, why nerf them further in the new edition while fething up monodex LoWs too
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.
I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.
Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.
What if you want a cadian Baneblade?
You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.
Lucky you, because right now, youre the only non-knight LoW that can do it.
Wouldnt you rather it be free instead? Why is your cadian baneblade not cadian?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 19:54:21
2020/09/08 19:57:52
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
VladimirHerzog wrote:What if you want a cadian Baneblade?
You spend a CP and turn your Baneblade into a Cadian Baneblade. Or you skip your Warlord Trait and use that instead.
Lucky you, because right now, youre the only non-knight LoW that can do it.
Wouldnt you rather it be free instead? Why is your cadian baneblade not cadian?
I just answers your question mate, you asked what you could do if you wanted a Cadian Baneblade and I told you how that works.
I agree that there should be better ways to bring single LoWs to the table properly.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 20:00:14
2020/09/08 20:00:22
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread.
Edit:misread part of that,adjusted my post accordingly
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 20:08:34
2020/09/08 20:10:05
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
That's just a straw man and you know it. The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread ffs.
I think you're confusing the strawman I'm attacking here with a different strawman. I'm on your side here, I'd love to fix things, but it seems like any time anyone tries to ask for better balance we get folks appearing out of the woodwork arguing that balance would make everything boring because the game would magically turn into an expensive chess set.
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.
If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.
2020/09/08 20:12:41
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Why do we need to fix the Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment? I think its fine - you want to add a Lord of War to your army you spend 3 of your CP. Not seeing the problem. So for my Astra Militarum if I want a Knight for a Strike Force game I forgo 3 Command Points leaving me with 9. The problem is? So maybe I don't get an extra Relic and extra Warlord trait. I make harder decisions with my Dark Angels lists when I really want that fourth HQ, fourth Fast Attack or fourth Heavy Support option.
I understand that not all LoW are created equal, and that Astra Militarum at least have a 1CP stratagem to make a Baneblade chassis have a Regiment keyword (or forgo a Warlord Trait for your Warlord). I could get behind having a similar strat for other factions with Titanic tanks that are meant to be part of their faction with a keyword. I think that most of those, though, are FW and we have yet to see how they fare in 9th.
Speaking of FW, I could get behind making the Leviathan Dreadnought a Lord of War instead of a Heavy Support choice. Might shake things up a little.
What if you want a cadian Baneblade?
I referenced how you do it in my post. I don't always use Baneblades, but when I do, I make them Catachan (with Tank Aces from TGG).
Anyhoo.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
2020/09/08 20:17:33
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.
If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.
I don't know that that's true. The only superheavy that made any waves at all in the competitive scene through all of 8e was the single buffed-up Castellan sitting in the middle of the Guard army; if large things were inherently broken we'd see a lot more of them. Heck, if Knights were inherently broken we'd see more all-Knights armies. My Cerastus Knights spent all of 8e being garbage even with access to WTs/relics/stratagems/faction traits because of how overpriced/underarmed GW decided they needed to be as punishment for being made of resin.
LunarSol wrote: I'd love it if we could go a week without a dedicated "I don't want my friends to play with their favorite toys" thread.
See, this is what I don't get. People go on and on about how more balance would make the game more boring, but then we get the "BAN THE OP THINGS!" threads. Is the game made better by being so poorly-balanced as to make us all fight each other over which of our toys we should/shouldn't use?
That's just a straw man and you know it. The argument is not that things are fine and you should keep it like that,it's that instead of banning broken things you should fix them. It's literally in the title of this thread ffs.
I think you're confusing the strawman I'm attacking here with a different strawman. I'm on your side here, I'd love to fix things, but it seems like any time anyone tries to ask for better balance we get folks appearing out of the woodwork arguing that balance would make everything boring because the game would magically turn into an expensive chess set.
Yeah, I totally misread your post,already updated mine - sorry!
2020/09/08 20:34:23
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
skchsan wrote: Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.
If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.
But they did just that. when castellans entered the game, the meta shifted in a such a way that two things happened either you had an army that could deal with a castellan, and this ment every other vehicles was not worth taking, or you had an army which would lose to something a lot of people were taking, because of how powerful it was. Everyone can say that they want something, but with good rules that doesn't break the game, but that is a dream because GW is a company that does not write their rules that way. GW has no issues with anything they sell, no matter how broken it is, they call it meta defining and change it after a few months, after people bought out the unbalanced things.
Also escalation of bigger things isn't always a good way, because not every army gets such options, or the options exist in the form ally, and not everyone wants to ally in outside stuff. It also makes large parts of armies don't really do much.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/09/08 20:34:55
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
2) Um...sure. OK. I like that this got listed as though there are psychic knights?
Tzeentchian Pyrothrone gives the Psyker Keyword and lets a Chaos Knight cast Smite and Deny, so yes, there are Psychic Knights.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2020/09/08 20:45:23
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
skchsan wrote: Rather, people on the anti-knights camp is saying that knights broke the balance at a fundamental level by its mere inclusion in the 40k ruleset.
If you're going to introduce bigger and badder things, you need to compensate for it at the rule level. Clearly, GW has no issue with knights being where they are and are not willing to revise the rules from ground up to provide enough design space and instead crammed into a box that it doesn't fit in.
But they did just that. when castellans entered the game, the meta shifted in a such a way that two things happened either you had an army that could deal with a castellan, and this ment every other vehicles was not worth taking, or you had an army which would lose to something a lot of people were taking, because of how powerful it was. Everyone can say that they want something, but with good rules that doesn't break the game, but that is a dream because GW is a company that does not write their rules that way. GW has no issues with anything they sell, no matter how broken it is, they call it meta defining and change it after a few months, after people bought out the unbalanced things.
Also escalation of bigger things isn't always a good way, because not every army gets such options, or the options exist in the form ally, and not everyone wants to ally in outside stuff. It also makes large parts of armies don't really do much.
The whole LOW fiasco happened precisely because GW was trying to find a way to fit something that was tougher than a LR without introducing a more properly scaled stat system. When does this trend stop? When every army gets competitive LOW's and the game turns into Titanicus?
AnomanderRake wrote: I don't know that that's true. The only superheavy that made any waves at all in the competitive scene through all of 8e was the single buffed-up Castellan sitting in the middle of the Guard army; if large things were inherently broken we'd see a lot more of them. Heck, if Knights were inherently broken we'd see more all-Knights armies. My Cerastus Knights spent all of 8e being garbage even with access to WTs/relics/stratagems/faction traits because of how overpriced/underarmed GW decided they needed to be as punishment for being made of resin.
It's not that knights are inherently broken - there just isn't enough design space in the given T8 system to depict something of knights' class.
The problem arises when you're trying to justify (at rule writing level) a T8, 3+/5++(3++) Sv, exemption from core rules via abilities, etc within the current limits of statlines.
Buffing LOW's is like reaching for a broken ceiling. There isn't going to be an end.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 20:55:02
2020/09/08 20:57:35
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Buffing LOW's is like reaching for a broken ceiling. There isn't going to be an end.
look, its clear you don't want LoWs in 40k, i get that. We just want our toys to be sensible options. Just as CSM not getting their legion traits on their vehicles, LoWs that are in a monofaction list not getting their traits is stupid
