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.

 skchsan wrote:
Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."

No, nearly all single model units that are not knights that cost 350+ are considered useless because they achieve less than other cheaper choices (baneblade vs tank commanders, wraithknight vs fire prism, stompa vs nauts).
We dont want all LoWs to be knight level, we want LoWs to be actual choices you can make without gimping yourself

And anyway Knights suck right now, if i bring one with my admech, i consider it a casual list because i'm picking a suboptimal unit. 400pts of knights do less than 400pts of admech units.

Don't bother. 40k enthusiast will continue to believe that their games is the magical unicorn that is more complex, more difficult to balance and more special than any other game in existence despite evidence clearly showing the opposite.

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

youre both saying the same thing...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!

[Citation needed.]

"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020

"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020

 skchsan wrote:

the_scotsman 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.

Um. what?

Looking at WKs, Stompas, Stormsurges, KLOS, and baneblades, you'd want 400-500 points of almost anything else besides these big useless things.

Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."

No, they are considered useless because they don't perform equal to their cost because they are overpriced. The current prices for most non-knight LOW are too high to begin with, tacking on another 3CP and denying them faction traits is just adding insult to injury. Any Legion super heavy can go toe to toe with a knight, it's their price that's holding them back, not their rules.

 Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!

[Citation needed.]

"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020

"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020

"Bringing well balanced, potential choices, into the lists of various factions is awesome." - Not Online!!!

I don't care that much about well balanced, bring the stompa up to the level of squig buggies and I'd field it.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't care that much about well balanced, bring the stompa up to the level of squig buggies and I'd field it.

meh , i did state on page two that i am personally having a bit of issues in regards to superheavies under 2000 pts, however the state in which gw released them (and by extension left other units in a similar state) is personally unaceptable.
I mean if the stompa would turn into a squig buggy trolly option for fun would allready be a massive improvement and step torwards well balanced.

skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

Like maybe instead of making them T8, 3+, 5++ they should have made some T9 2+ super heavys that could actually be affected by high AP weapons while still feeling tough because of their high toughness?

Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!

[Citation needed.]

"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020

"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020

"Nothing says "Let the galaxy burn" like 300+ tonnes of off 10,000 years old war machine with 13 barrels of hell "-Gadzilla666, 2020.

Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit


Edit:

I agree with the sentiment that T9+ should be more common and a good way to represent these big vehicles thoughness.

The wraithknight only have t8 when the wraiths whole thing is being a higher toughness than their imperial equivalents (wraithguards vs centurions/gravis, Lords vs dreads) is almost a crime.
Make the land raider T10 even, that way shooting S5 weaponry at it becomes less of an optimal choice.
Expand the chart.
If you don`t want to make stuff T1 then go up, make stuff T12 even. Stop restricting yourself to 7 possible toughnessess, GW!

wow, I didn't know superheavies had such hate still. I thought after 3 editions of being allowed and not breaking anything they'd become more accepted.

As for the "no fun" moments: I have far less fun getting totally trashed by randoms than I have getting totally trashed by a Lord of War. My warlord gets crushed in close combat? You know what, fair enough, it's a giant stompy murderrobot with a sword and I'm just a Keeper of Secrets or whatever. Suitable amounts of FUN!! and AWESOME!!.

It's less fun, for me, to have like, 10 intercessors or 3 aggressors or whatever kill the keeper of secrets. "Alright, now my gigantic murder monster and living incarnation of the art of death got into combat with your line squad of riflemen... silly goon, you charged me... Oh it just got beaten to death by a squad of riflemen thanks to a billion rerolls. Neat. Suitably epic, not."

The unfun moments in 40k come from units behaving on the tabletop due to rules interactions in ways that they would not behave in "real life". Not from giant epic stompy robots.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit

i'd say it was xenomancer that claimed the squigbuggy to be ???
could be wrong though.

edit, yes double checked it indeed was xeno.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never said stompa was overpowered so that is a straight lie. It is pretty clear that the stompa is actually very bad. Squig buggy on the other hand is an insane value at this time. There has not been nearly enough time to see the results from chapter approved I'm not even sure if CA tournaments have been recorded at this time. Plus you gotta give all the ork players time to build and paint all their buggies. Give it a month. If it turns out I am wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Orks are one of the few armies I don't play so I have to wait for others to exploit it.

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.

ITT: "You can't design a game where stompy robots and grots coexist"

Also ITT: *a game where stompy robots and zerglings exist*

The first person, goalposts flapping in the wind while they charge off into the distance: "GW, sticking to arbitrary design limits that they self-impose and could easily discard at any time, can't build a game where stompy robots coexist with grots!"

nekooni wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.

The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Wasn't the squigbuggy OP? I remember seeing someone on here clamouring it was the best ork unit

i'd say it was xenomancer that claimed the squigbuggy to be ???
could be wrong though.

edit, yes double checked it indeed was xeno.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Never said stompa was overpowered so that is a straight lie. It is pretty clear that the stompa is actually very bad. Squig buggy on the other hand is an insane value at this time. There has not been nearly enough time to see the results from chapter approved I'm not even sure if CA tournaments have been recorded at this time. Plus you gotta give all the ork players time to build and paint all their buggies. Give it a month. If it turns out I am wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Orks are one of the few armies I don't play so I have to wait for others to exploit it.

Whenever a horrible ork unit is claimed to be OP, there is a decent chance of xeno being the culprit. The reasoning behind it is that, when he gets stomped by an ork player whatsoever, the issue can't possibly be him, so those units must be OP.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.

The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?

Like I just explained,yes.The point is that there's no T8 limit. I just fielded the most extreme example of that, but might of heroes is available to almost all vanilla marines and works with all the T8 units to breach the nonexisting cap of T8.

nekooni wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

Battlewagon, LR and monolith more or less set a soft cap on what it means to be "toughest" unit prior to introduction of knights. If you need to depict something thats tougher than that, you need to raise the ceiling instead of trying to fit it in where it doesn't.

It comes down to granularity, and the current d6 system has far too little granularity to incorporate T8's and knight class LOW seamlessly in the same system.

There is no T8 limit. I can field a T11 unit if I want to,maybe even more if I really try.

Ashmantle starts at T9,can get +2 through a warlord trait and I can then slap on two psi powers for +1 each.

The salamander stuff that boosts toughness + their dread character? Isnt that the only way to get that high?

Like I just explained,yes.The point is that there's no T8 limit. I just fielded the most extreme example of that, but might of heroes is available to almost all vanilla marines and works with all the T8 units to breach the nonexisting cap of T8.

We're not saying theres an actual limit. Its just that effectively, GW stops at 8. With 9 being a rare occurence. That is on the datasheet, not accounting for bonuses from spells/traits/relics/strats/etc.
There was one T9 model that made sense but got nerfed : the Porphyrion, which is a big fething chungus and got nerfed to T8 because with the chaos knight, it couldve been T10.

All the Legion super heavys except for the Spartan are T9 2+. Forge World got the defensive stat line for super heavy tanks right, unlike gw. There is no T8 cap.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All the Legion super heavys except for the Spartan are T9 2+. Forge World got the defensive stat line for super heavy tanks right, unlike gw. There is no T8 cap.

Yeah i know of these, i don't count them right now since theyre still living on with index stats and if the porphyrion is taken as an example, they could become T8 once the mythical Index 2.0 gets out. (I really hope they don't do that.

And again, there is no limit, it just makes no sense that most big things are T8 with some T9 sprinkled in there.

 skchsan wrote:

nekooni wrote:
They're both games with factions that aren't copies of each other, and therefore need a lot of attention to balance them correctly. Blizzard invested the time to do so, GW didnt. It's possible. That's the point.

I get what you're saying but the example is far from being applicable.

As a mental exercise on what exactly what I mean by design space: what if knights had T10, 2+ Sv, and no base invul, with 5++ stratagem? Raising T cap to 10 alone has immense design opportunities.

"knights having 3+ 5++ unfairly inhibits anti-tank weapons like lascannons :(((("

"Knights should instead have a 2+ save!"

I love it. Please, continue to dispense your wisdom.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.

And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

rbstr wrote:
LoWs are cool! They're fun models!

[Citation needed.]

"LoWs are cool! They're fun models!" -rbstr, 2020

"I enjoy bringing LoWs as nice centerpiece models for my armies" -VladimirHerzog, 2020

"Bringing huge tanks, giant walkers and gargantuan monsters is awesome" - jidmah, 2020

Welp, you guys sure showed me. Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.

And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.

Social contract, just as people can't be forced to play SM 2.0 eradicator spam lists or any other such hardcounter and or skew lists.

 vipoid wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

And those who wish to never have to play against anything bigger than a terminator are free to request a game of Kill Team.

And what about those of us who want to play a game between Kill Team and Apocalypse?

You know, like exactly what 40k used to be before GW decided to just splurge Apocalypse models into it.

Play that, then.

Other people being allowed to do a different thing than what you want to do, doesn't mean you are suddenly now not allowed to do the thing you want to do.

A whole lot of the modern world appears to have a problem grasping this concept. Are your opponents turning up to games armed, pointing a loaded dreadnought sock at you and threatening to kill you if you don't play their list with a knight in it?

Welp, all I can say is that I hope GW starts dumping more and bigger models into Kill Team until that turns into what was once regular 40k.

Then I can just play that and abandon 40k to the Mechwarrior fanboys.

 vipoid wrote:
Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.

Weren't you the one trying to be exactly that?

 Jidmah wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Clearly you are now the objective measures of what is 'fun' and 'cool'.

Weren't you the one trying to be exactly that?

No, that was the exact opposite of what I was saying.

 skchsan wrote:


Nearly all single model units that are not knights that costs between 350-600 is considered useless precisely because how well knights perform at similar point range, thus creating this expectation "anything that costs just as much as knights should at least be on par with it."

To be fair, I think my Repulsor sucks because it dies in a fire on turn 1. I think the Thunderhawk sucks because it's 1500 freaking points. Gman aint bad, but he gets Look Out Sir!. I think. And he's less than 400.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Bretons post: I have to admit that I'm not familiar enough with the other codices to know who could build a brigade and still have points for their superheavy and who doesn't.
Nontheless I (personnally) find a batallion too low of a treshhold.

So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...

Breton wrote:

So let me get this straight, when you can take a Brigade at 2,000 points, but the SM/GK/Custodes/etc player almost assuredly can't especially with points left over for 400-600 point LoW - they're not playing at the same level? Isn't 2,000 points 2,000 points? Why is this batallion of 2,000 points a lower threshold than 2,000 brigade? I repeat the best solution is an Aux LoW Det in each codex tailored to that codex, but "Screw the other armies, I got my BladeSwordHammer" is another way you can go...

It wasn't my suggestion, so I can't speak for the reasoning behind it.

However, I'm guessing the major difference is the minimum unit requirement. Adding a LoW to a Brigade means that you basically need a full army first (3 HQs, 6 troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS). That's a substantial difference from tying it to a Battalion, where you only needing 2 HQs and 3 troops in order to access a LoW. It seems you might as well not bother with restricting it at all at that point.

That being said, I do think that there's an issue with there not being any middle-ground between a Battalion and a Brigade. So you go straight from 'minimum 2 HQs, 3 Troops' to 'minimum 3 HQs, and 6 Troops, and 3 Elites, and 3 FA, and 3 HS'. I think this can be a pain for armies in general - not just those wishing to field a LoW.

You mentioned SMs, GKs and Custodes. If you don't mind me asking, what sort of numbers can they field at 2000pts if they want to still afford a LoW?