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.
2020/09/09 15:27:47
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 15:28:44
2020/09/09 15:40:22
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.
were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.
2020/09/09 15:45:46
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.
were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.
Ok, so the claim isn't "GW has a cap of T8" but "GW doesn't design datasheets for the Citadel Range that have T above 8". That's fine.
Whats the point, though? They still could.
Wasn't the point of this that you can't balance a Titan and a Grot in 40k because ... yeah, why, exactly? Because you think GW has a company policy saying they can't have T9 models?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 15:48:04
2020/09/09 15:48:12
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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?
Not counting Gulliman? The cheapest one outside of Legends is a Relic Spartan at roughly 500 depending on load. Its a 20W T8 BladeStormHammer special rules Stretch limo Land Raider with two Quad instead of Twin LC's and one Twin HB that can transport 25 old marines. I mean sure, you could make a list with 12 servitors, 3 Tarantula guns, and 3 TFC's I suppose.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2020/09/09 15:48:58
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
The whole point is that the T goes up, and Sv improves to compensate for the removal of base invul and bonus strat invul.
If you really want the math:
Lascannon (S9 AP-3 Dd6) @ BS4
vs T8, 5++ = 28% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save vs T9, 2+ = 22% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save vs T10, 2+ = 11% chance to hit, wound, & bypass save
6% difference, much sleeker implementation (T9 Sv 2+, instead of T8 Sv 3+/5++) against high S, high AP weapons.
Then maybe you have non-knight titanic LOW, you can assign T9 Sv3+, instead T8 Sv 3+/5++/6+++, -1 to hit, can do this, can do that, ignore this rule, etc. Right now, the durability of titanic units are defined by the defensive gimmicks the units have and not by its stats. It just gets messy too quick, not to mention doesn't leave room for granularity.
We already have the mechanics regarding defensive capability in place already (Toughness, Save & Wounds) - use that instead of giving units specials rules this and special rules that.
Also, I've said raise the cap to T10, not 'GW limits the T to maximum of 8'. Similar, but not quite what I said. As VladimirHerzog explained, this is in reference to most units being designed with T8 assigned.
There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/09/09 16:06:07
2020/09/09 15:55:41
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
They said there was a cap of T8,claiming that the design space only goes to T8 and is capped there . Now saying "well I didn't mean cap but " isnt helping. Just like claiming that you can't balance a Titan Vs a grot in 40k while you can probably do similar things in other games.
Moving goalposts is annoying.
were not moving goalposts, were saying GW hasnt given models T9. The only T9 that exist right now are from the Forgeworld Index. When GW rewrote some rules, they dropped the T9 to T8 (porphyrion).
There might not be a cap, in fact we know there isnt one because of stuff that gives +1T. That doesnt change that GW hasnt shown any willingness to give models T9+.
Ok, so the claim isn't "GW has a cap of T8" but "GW doesn't design datasheets for the Citadel Range that have T above 8". That's fine.
Whats the point, though? They still could.
Wasn't the point of this that you can't balance a Titan and a Grot in 40k because ... yeah, why, exactly? Because you think GW has a company policy saying they can't have T9 models?
Dude, chill out. Right now theyre not releasing T9+ models so yes, we could assume there is a policy that states that T8 is the maximum.
The whole point of suggesting raising the Toughness was to differentiate better between a T2 grot and a t8 land raider.
2020/09/09 16:00:24
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.
If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.
Right now because they are "mandatory" parts of the game GW (rightly) errs very much on the side of not making them a competitive choice. If they weren't a mandatory part of the game, there'd be no need to be so cautious and people could have the viable models they want. Some people would no doubt still be angry because they felt slighted by the suggestion that their models aren't a core part of the game, but surely if you want to use super-heavies it'd be better to be able to do so with better rules among like-minded individuals than use the gimped versions against people who don't really want to play them anyway?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 16:03:08
2020/09/09 16:03:42
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.
If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.
Fine, make it officially "opt-in" thats not even the point of this whole thread.
Now assuming that its "opt-in" how would you fix the SHA detachment?
As we proposed before : If your SHA shares the same faction as your warlord, its free and lets you benefit from faction bonuses.
2020/09/09 16:03:57
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
They have definitely missed a trick in artificially (and unofficially) capping toughness at 8. That’s a lot of super easy to tweak design space that’s not being used, when instead they throw out invulns that negate the efficacy of the very weapons that are designed to kill these models.
Back on the subject, though, I simply think the super heavies should get traits. Paying CP to include them is fine, IMO, as they consolidate a lot of power into a single model.
2020/09/09 16:26:45
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.
If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.
Fine, make it officially "opt-in" thats not even the point of this whole thread.
Now assuming that its "opt-in" how would you fix the SHA detachment?
As we proposed before : If your SHA shares the same faction as your warlord, its free and lets you benefit from faction bonuses.
I've already said twice in the thread that I think the lack of faction bonuses is stupid and not the place to draw the line. I think you're preaching to the choir?
2020/09/09 16:29:23
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.
If super-heavies were optional content that you could use only with agreement from your opponent, it'd mean the competitive scene wouldn't have to deal with them, and they wouldn't have to worry so much about getting the balance just right. People who want to play their super-heavies could do so among like-minded individuals, without it skewing the rest of the game for those who prefer not to have that power level represented in their games.
Right now because they are "mandatory" parts of the game GW (rightly) errs very much on the side of not making them a competitive choice. If they weren't a mandatory part of the game, there'd be no need to be so cautious and people could have the viable models they want. Some people would no doubt still be angry because they felt slighted by the suggestion that their models aren't a core part of the game, but surely if you want to use super-heavies it'd be better to be able to do so with better rules among like-minded individuals than use the gimped versions against people who don't really want to play them anyway?
....Everything in the game is opt-in.You have to agree with your opponent on pretty much every detail of the game's setup framework in order to play the game...and that does include their list.
It's only on dakka where this persistent narrative exists of the poor, downtrodden, oppressed #gamer who turns up to the game, their opponent twirls their mustache and reveals the secret Thing That Ruins Everything About 40k and cackles maniacally as the #gamer (#gamersriseup #gamersmostoppressedminority) faints onto a nearby couch, back of his hand to his forehead, powerless to stop the evil game-ravishing he is about to endure.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2020/09/09 16:59:23
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.
Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.
Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.
2020/09/09 17:13:27
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Took a day away from this thread, then came back to four or five pages to reply to, hence the spoiler of doom.
Spoiler:
argonak wrote: Instead we should change their rules to ensure they’re playing the same game as everyone else. I think expanding on the concept of their degrading stats is the way to go. They should lose guns or something rather than have their stats crippled. That way a damaged knight is still useful, but shows effect from takin gun damage.
You do realise that your first sentence and the suggestion that makes up the rest of this paragraph are at odds, right?
skchsan wrote: 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)
1, Not a feature of TITANIC units by default, though certain datasheets may now allow it via errata. Final positioning still curtailed by Engagement Range, however. I would also note that the current CRB errata adds a section into Rare Rules about Moving Through Models, so it can be argued that these units now do obey the core rules document.
2, True, though only benefits CHAOS units, as far as I'm aware - Morty, Magnus, and I think someone mentioned a Tzeentch upgrade for Chaos Knights. Unsure if this is the only case of this rule being bypassed, or if there are alternative options within Codexes.
3, True, though not alone in this. IG have an Order which allows it, for instance.
4, No more so than other units, when we're talking models on a base. If you check "Measuring Distances" (Basic Rules, pg. 11 of the mini-rulebook) you'll note that distances are measured base-to-base unless a model doesn't have a base. As a result, a Knight still measures its Engagement Range from its base, rather than the hull, meaning it still has the same reach as a Guardsman in that regard. A Stompa is likely to see some benefit, however, as they typically don't have a base, and therefore can measure their Engagement Range from anywhere on their hull. (This read is brought to you by the mini-rulebook, Knights FAQ and CRB errata).
5, Not unique to TITANIC units - I direct your attention to most CHARACTER units, for example.
skchsan wrote: 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.
A - Not true of many LOW. I give you the Baneblade chassis, for example.
B - See A.
C - Don't have enough books to hand to argue this one. I'm aware there is a Knight stratagem to do this, but I can't confirm that other factions don't get something similar.
D - I'd argue that the usual mid-range S, low-to-mid AP, high-volume-of-fire weapons that have become the most common source of anti-tank firepower for some silly reason still work here.
skchsan wrote: 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.
Point of order - your opinion =/= "purely objective level", chief.
skchsan wrote: 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?
GW did a roughly quarter-arsed job of reviewing stats coming into 8th. They removed the caps for S and T, and used the lack of a S cap to address Destroyer weapons, but didn't play around with most stat lines given the freedom.
I would argue - and have done before - that a full review of unit stats needs to take place to get some semblance of sense back into profiles. I'd also consider adding an Evasion stat, and going back to having WS compared to WS and BS compared to E to determine yout chance to hit, probably using a similar guideline to what is seen for S vs. T at present (and probably without the cap of 10 on these stats we had before, either). It makes no sense that a Conscript is as likely to hit a Gretchin in melee as a Bloodthirster, or be as accurate shooting at an oncoming Genestealer as he is a Fortification.
skchsan wrote: 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.
If you'd actually bothered to read the proposition being discussed, you'd've realised that:
A, We were discussing the Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment only.
B, The suggestion to potentially allow traits that matched your Warlord would, in any case I can think of, not benefit Knights due to faction mis-alignment. The only oddity might be in using a SHA detachment because you filled your Super-Heavy Detachment with the rest of your Knights, in which case sharing the Warlord trait isn't an unfair benefit.
And it is still not a "fact" that LOW can't be balanced out. GW just haven't proven themselves good at it thus far.
skchsan wrote: The fact of the matter is, 40k does not need all-TITANIC army nor can it support it within it's design space.
Again, your opinion =/= "the fact of the matter", bub.
the_scotsman wrote: 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.>
In fairness, Tau don't belong in 40k, at least not with the Mecha-obsession the design team currently have. Take it back to how they were with their initial introduction, where anything Riptide size or bigger was seen as a massive waste of resources due to how limited an area it could affect compared to airpower.
Then also increase the number of auxiliaries, and maybe we can get a Tau faction that fits in 40k again.
Maybe.
skchsan wrote: 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.
Technically, the suggestion has no exclusion for Knights. However, if you're bringing a Knight in a SHA detachment alongside an IG army, for example, it isn't able to benefit from the Warlord trait of the IG, due to being from a different book. It might get a CP reduction, depending on the suggestion, but that's it. Stick a Shadowsword or Baneblade in that slot, though, and they do beenfit, due to being from the same book.
Simple force construction principles, with a dash of logic - you might want to try it sometime.
vipoid wrote: 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.
I might be missing something here, but they don't seem to? The only exception seems to be the base footprint, which another model can't end up on top of, but asides from that their Engagement Range doesn't appear to block any movement, as far as I can see in the CRB.
skchsan wrote: Right. So do we root out the problem or work symptomatically? I think it's better to root out the problem.
Definitely in favour of getting rid of the problem - there's the door, don't let it hit you on your way out.
skchsan wrote: 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!'.
What they should be recognising is that the difficulty in using in-faction LOW with their faction means that they're not selling as many of those kits as they could be. Increasing accessibility increases their sales.
Knight armies can be built out of their 'dex simply enough, mostly with a single Super-heavy Detachment, with their bells and whistles still functioning, so don't need further attention at this time.
Your windmill is over there, Don *points off into the distance*
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.
You managed a fun game against a Knight army? Surely you jest...
What did the opponent bring, out of interest, and was it Imperial or Chaos?
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.
Seconded - and while I own some Knights, I've not built any of them yet.
skchsan wrote: 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?
I'd be quite happy with every faction getting a usableLoW and Fortification in their Codex, as long as it makes sense with the background of the army - GSC and Harlequins are factions where I don't see a sensible LoW at first glance, but I'm sure there are concepts that would fit.
Note I said usable, not necessarily competitive - they shouldn't be a bad choice, but they don't need to be top-tier, either.
And we do seem to agree that not properly making use of the increased opporunities for S & T was a mistake at the start of 8th, at least. Bad GW *raps them on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the Sunday Times*
Breton wrote: Another thing that needs "fixing" is equal access to LOW's. They did the Fortification, but must be aligned Det. They're released a bunch of aligned fortifications for equal access. A few factions need a non-Forgeworld LoW. Nids need some sort of Titanic Carnifex style mob, I don't know what to do with GSC (Stolen BladeSword?), SM and CSM of all varieties could see a 30K Superheavy cross over, or bring back the Thunderhawk to the main codex for a reasonable price, Tau have one, Orks have one, CWE have one, but DE don't a simple mirror/cross over might work or a DE Thunderhawk since theyre a little more flighty, Demons need one, preferably not a super demon, but some sort of construct demon engine that spews out demons, warpfire, or whatever- somethign they can all use with different paint/bits. Sisters and Custodes need one.
Arguably, you might want to go to four for Daemons - starting by giving them in-codex access to the KLOS. Add in a Silver Tower or a Fire Lord for Tzeentch, either the Plague Tower or Contagion for Nurgle, and bring back the Slaaneshi Hell Knights, and we're sorted.
Pyroalchi wrote: I personally still like the idea mentioned earlier in the discussion to add a single LoW slot in the Brigade detachment for various reasons:
1. it would not effect Knights, as their Codex cannot build a Brigade
2. it would allow IG to take one Baneblade etc., Eldar to take one of their Titans, Orks to take a Stompa etc.
3. just looking from a Guard perspective and my personal taste: it would give another reason to put everything into one Brigade instead of taking two Battalions to profit from two sets of regiment traits/WLT/relicts/stratagems/orders
It's certainly not a bad alternative to tweaking the SHA, for sure.
vipoid wrote: I would consider this a feature, not a bug.
Those who wish to play a LoW would be free to request a larger game size.
If you're not going to be constructive, what're you doing in here?
skchsan wrote: There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.
Well, Citadel datasheets manage S16, going by the IG 'dex, so...
yukishiro1 wrote: Maybe the best resolution of the divide between people who think super-heavies have a place in the game and those who don't would just be to go back to something like the old special character/FW approach, where you had to get your opponent's agreement to field them. I realize that's always true in a general sense, but making it an official rule makes it a lot easier for people to say "no, I don't want to play with that" without feeling bad about it.
Feth that noise - people can use their words, and opt-out instead.
If they're playing a tournament, they implicitly agreed to the TO's decisions regarding what can and can't be used, so can take their lumps in that environment, too.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/09/09 21:59:27
Subject: Re:How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
skchsan wrote: 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)
1, Not a feature of TITANIC units by default, though certain datasheets may now allow it via errata. Final positioning still curtailed by Engagement Range, however. I would also note that the current CRB errata adds a section into Rare Rules about Moving Through Models, so it can be argued that these units now do obey the core rules document. 2, True, though only benefits CHAOS units, as far as I'm aware - Morty, Magnus, and I think someone mentioned a Tzeentch upgrade for Chaos Knights. Unsure if this is the only case of this rule being bypassed, or if there are alternative options within Codexes. 3, True, though not alone in this. IG have an Order which allows it, for instance. 4, No more so than other units, when we're talking models on a base. If you check "Measuring Distances" (Basic Rules, pg. 11 of the mini-rulebook) you'll note that distances are measured base-to-base unless a model doesn't have a base. As a result, a Knight still measures its Engagement Range from its base, rather than the hull, meaning it still has the same reach as a Guardsman in that regard. A Stompa is likely to see some benefit, however, as they typically don't have a base, and therefore can measure their Engagement Range from anywhere on their hull. (This read is brought to you by the mini-rulebook, Knights FAQ and CRB errata). 5, Not unique to TITANIC units - I direct your attention to most CHARACTER units, for example.
skchsan wrote: 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.
A - Not true of many LOW. I give you the Baneblade chassis, for example. B - See A. C - Don't have enough books to hand to argue this one. I'm aware there is a Knight stratagem to do this, but I can't confirm that other factions don't get something similar. D - I'd argue that the usual mid-range S, low-to-mid AP, high-volume-of-fire weapons that have become the most common source of anti-tank firepower for some silly reason still work here.
Please read the post in full - comment was specific to Knights. This is the beginning point of my assertion that LOW cannot be costed 'fairly' in terms of points or CP because of the unreasonable level of expectation knights create. (Largely due to the new ceiling of T8 Sv 3+/5++[3++] as the big bad boi).
So if non-knight LOW's are supposed to be better than a Landraider with T8/3+Sv but worse than knights, how do we stat it? How do we cost it?
skchsan wrote: 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.
Point of order - your opinion =/= "purely objective level", chief.
skchsan wrote: 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?
GW did a roughly quarter-arsed job of reviewing stats coming into 8th. They removed the caps for S and T, and used the lack of a S cap to address Destroyer weapons, but didn't play around with most stat lines given the freedom.
I would argue - and have done before - that a full review of unit stats needs to take place to get some semblance of sense back into profiles. I'd also consider adding an Evasion stat, and going back to having WS compared to WS and BS compared to E to determine yout chance to hit, probably using a similar guideline to what is seen for S vs. T at present (and probably without the cap of 10 on these stats we had before, either). It makes no sense that a Conscript is as likely to hit a Gretchin in melee as a Bloodthirster, or be as accurate shooting at an oncoming Genestealer as he is a Fortification.
skchsan wrote: 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?
I'd be quite happy with every faction getting a usableLoW and Fortification in their Codex, as long as it makes sense with the background of the army - GSC and Harlequins are factions where I don't see a sensible LoW at first glance, but I'm sure there are concepts that would fit.
Note I said usable, not necessarily competitive - they shouldn't be a bad choice, but they don't need to be top-tier, either.
And we do seem to agree that not properly making use of the increased opporunities for S & T was a mistake at the start of 8th, at least. Bad GW *raps them on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the Sunday Times*
Precisely my point. Within the given "soft cap" of T8, we're not going to be able to 'get some semblance of sense back into profiles.'
skchsan wrote: 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.
If you'd actually bothered to read the proposition being discussed, you'd've realised that: A, We were discussing the Super-Heavy Auxiliary detachment only. B, The suggestion to potentially allow traits that matched your Warlord would, in any case I can think of, not benefit Knights due to faction mis-alignment. The only oddity might be in using a SHA detachment because you filled your Super-Heavy Detachment with the rest of your Knights, in which case sharing the Warlord trait isn't an unfair benefit.
And it is still not a "fact" that LOW can't be balanced out. GW just haven't proven themselves good at it thus far.
skchsan wrote: 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.
Technically, the suggestion has no exclusion for Knights. However, if you're bringing a Knight in a SHA detachment alongside an IG army, for example, it isn't able to benefit from the Warlord trait of the IG, due to being from a different book. It might get a CP reduction, depending on the suggestion, but that's it. Stick a Shadowsword or Baneblade in that slot, though, and they do beenfit, due to being from the same book.
Simple force construction principles, with a dash of logic - you might want to try it sometime.
Your referencing a particular suggestion. The post also mentions potential discount for CP cost for taking a SHA and internal balancing via point reduction. If non-knight LOW can take advantage of these special rules, namely the CP reduction, guess which other faction benefits from it?
skchsan wrote: 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!'.
What they should be recognising is that the difficulty in using in-faction LOW with their faction means that they're not selling as many of those kits as they could be. Increasing accessibility increases their sales.
Knight armies can be built out of their 'dex simply enough, mostly with a single Super-heavy Detachment, with their bells and whistles still functioning, so don't need further attention at this time.
Your windmill is over there, Don *points off into the distance*
Because no other detachments cost 3 CP's, am I right?
There's nothing 'difficult' in using in-faction LOWs. You just don't think it's worth the point. Non-knight LOW's aren't the only units that are overcosted. In fact, majority of units in the game are now 'overpriced' from the port from 8th ed to 9th ed anyways.
I understand this post is specifically about SHA detachment - but justifying adjustments to both CP AND point reduction simply because it's not point efficient? Now that's double dipping.
skchsan wrote: There's really no good reason why [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] S characteristic would go up to 10 while [standard GW designed datasheets' for citadel range] T characteristic tends to be 8.
Well, Citadel datasheets manage S16, going by the IG 'dex, so...
You generally exclude outliers when speaking in general.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/09 22:04:59
2020/09/09 22:40:11
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.
Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.
Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.
If you prefer that LOWs stay terrible but "official" go for it I guess, it's no skin off my back either way. I would have assumed you'd prefer to have good rules for models for "unofficial" units than bad ones for official ones, since you don't care about competitive play, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
2020/09/09 22:46:51
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: I already addressed that in my post. Please don't beat straw men.
Right, you just want it to be an actual written rule instead of an agreement between two opponents. That way you can remove LOW from tournaments, just like Legends units, which would mean they would become an issue outside of tournaments just like Legends or trying to play without the rule of three.
Nah. You want LOW out of tournaments? Take it up with your TO. Don't ask for it to be codified by gw, or that LOW and any other unit worth 200+ points be made less viable just because you don't like them in your "competitive" games. All 40k shouldn't be compromised just for competitive players.
If you prefer that LOWs stay terrible but "official" go for it I guess, it's no skin off my back either way. I would have assumed you'd prefer to have good rules for models for "unofficial" units than bad ones for official ones, since you don't care about competitive play, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
No, I want good rules for "official" LOWs. If you want them out of whatever tournament you're playing in then take it up with the TO, since LOWs with good rules worries you so. Don't go expecting all 40k to bend to the wants of competitive players.
2020/09/09 22:55:27
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).
2020/09/09 23:01:33
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
I personally like to think that certain LoW should be allowed within certain factions and be able to use the Chapter traits but still pay the CP penalty. For instance an all Ultramarine Detachment should be able to Take Guilliman and have him use his own damned chapter tactics. Guard armies should be able to take things like Baneblades since with Regiments since thats what they are designed for. A craftworld Wraithknight should be able to benefit from its own craftworld of origin. The only outlier is things like knights....and frankly they should be penalized to not use their House rules unless they are a freeblade.
17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"
-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer
2020/09/09 23:03:48
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).
Magnus is a "good" lord of war right now, is he breaking anything?
We're not asking for Wraithknight and castellan levels of cheese, just make all LoW playable like Magnus and we'd be golden
2020/09/09 23:05:01
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
what if vehicle toughness and wounds were redesigned with a much broader stat differennce between light, medium, heavy, titanic light, titanic medium, titanic heavy, and AT weapons adjusted to compensate.
Shooting a heavy bolter at something tougher than a buggy or raider should be a bad idea. Shooting an autocannon should shred light vehicles and do ok vs medium targets and do absolutely horrible at heavy or better.
Lascannons should be able to hurt heavy vehicles but should do less damage to light vechiles.
I would love to see a difference in High strength / ap weapons and lower damage, vs something that might struggle to penetrate but does massive damage when it does. or even go so far as something like overpentration which is a thing. for example you shoot a frigate with an armor piercing shell form a battleship congrats you punched a hole right through the ship and caused basically no damage unless you hit something important.
"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost"
2020/09/09 23:05:34
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
We all want to have our cake and eat it too. If you want to reject the compromise approach and hold out for the holy grail go for it, though based on the past history of the game I don't think you're going to have much luck. And I hope for the sake of the game you don't, frankly, because every time LOWs have been good in the game's recent history, it's been a total fiasco (wraithknights, castellan meta, etc).
In neither of those cases were the units in question "good", they were flat out overpowered. And in the case of the Wraithknight we know it was done intentionally. We're asking for our LOWs to be good, not OP.
And I don't have to accept any "compromise" with you, unless you've just been hired as gw's primary rules writer.
2020/09/09 23:05:43
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
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.
Super-heavies in "standard" 40K have been a thing long before Apocalypse even existed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 23:06:04
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
2020/09/09 23:19:27
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
Magnus isn't good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.
If you want all LoWs to be on the same badish level as Magnus I have no problem with that. I.e. if you want your fellblade to go from 880 to 750ish points instead, go for it I guess?
The other guy doesn't want that though, he wants his LoWs to be good, i.e. competitive choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 23:22:18
2020/09/09 23:22:02
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
yukishiro1 wrote: Magnus isn't very good. If you don't go first he just dies unless you spend a ridiculous amount of CP reserving him. He was briefly bonkers until they FAQed multi-cast smite, now he's back to deeply mediocre.
If you want all LoWs to be on the same badish level as Magnus I have no problem with that. I.e. if you want your fellblade to go from 880 to 750ish points instead, go for it I guess?
650ish. I'm sure that would break the game.
2020/09/09 23:39:05
Subject: How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?
60PL 
12PL 
17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
