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.
2020/12/14 20:34:42
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I don't contradict myself by saying "big models for big games. Huge models for huge games." (corrected my spelling)
Physical size most is usually the same as having more wounds. Yes, I know that you're gonna bring up models X, Y and Z that doesn't follow that usual standard in an attempt to undermine my point.
In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense? I know many of them are outshined by smaller stuff. So? When have I ever claimed that they are too good or OP for regular 40k? Please quote me.
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:35:00
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels to me like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model.
They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? In my opinion ,No.
It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system.
"Oh, cool. You brought a model that i perceive as being from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
there, fixed it for you
2020/12/14 20:38:30
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
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.
2020/12/14 20:38:58
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: In what whay does my statement of Lords of War not beloning in 2k games of 40k not make sense?
How does it make sense? What logic is behind it or underpinning it? What sense is there in it?
It certainly doesn't make sense to me on face value, so you actually have to explain yourself. The reason other people keep guessing at what you mean is because you haven't managed to state it. You might as well say "In what way does my statement of glue seventy eight sky cat synergistic War of 1812 not make sense?"
No, that is incorrrect. That was an extremely poor analogy.
When someone slams down a super-heavy on the table it feels like they're slamming down an Apocalypse model.
They might as well field a Warlord Titan or a Warhound.Is it a Warhammer model? Yes. Does it belong in a normal game of 40k? No.
It's like they bring a model from a completely different game system.
"Oh, cool. You brought a model from Apocalypse to this game of regular 40k. Neato!"
A good first try at the logic, but you're missing a premise. You've omitted the assumption that you hold that that model is for a different game, i.e. "not a normal game of 40k".
Now that we've identified the missing premise, can you tell me why you make that assumption? Because if you remove that premise, your argument no longer functions.
Warhaounds and titans ARE made for Apoc.
My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
my problem is that youre lumping in plenty of models in with the traditional LoWs.
When you include things like Armigers, Spartans and the named greater demons in your argument it makes it nonsensical.
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 20:40:36
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:41:01
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
[CITATION NEEDED] Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
Kall3m0n wrote: My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
Not when you are seeking to then try to speak for everyone else. You're welcome to feel these things are not fun to play against.
You are not welcome to call for their banning from a game where lots of people enjoy them, just because of your feels.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 20:43:56
2020/12/14 20:42:03
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
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.
2020/12/14 20:45:07
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
[CITATION NEEDED]
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
Kall3m0n wrote: My argument of feelings is still valid. I've used the word "feels".
Not when you are seeking to then try to speak for everything else. You're welcome to feel these things are not fun to play against.
You are not welcome to call for their banning from a game where lots of people enjoy them, just because of your feels.
Fair point!
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:47:09
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
And? If the world accepted size of a matched play games makes it impossible or practicaly impossible to fit them in to a regular sized army, then they aren't ment for it. And I don't think people want to see the bad times come back, when GW designed eldar knights and just cut 200pts of their cost and let eldar players take 3 in their for fun casual lists.
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.
2020/12/14 20:48:15
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
That sounds like it's time for a cap on how many of those units you're allowed to field.
PLaying vs 1 knight isn't fun regardless if you kill it on turn 1 or not. I can't think of any fun games I've had against knights, no matter if I killed them turn 1 or just ignored them.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:48:20
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Well the thing is. When GW starts focusing on big kits to be corner stones of an army, and you and your friend decide to start playing or play, and you plop down 1000 or 1500pts. And suddenly those not so balanced big things at 2000pts start wrecking stuff left and right, or it goes the other way around the big thing is so important to make your army work that the army doesn't work without it, but it doesn't fit in to a 1500 army.
It would be nice if GW, before starting to add knights, gigantic monsters and lords, would first make the game fun and playable at the infantry level. So we don't get the AoS treatment, where you start by buying oblitgatory faction terrain, spells and then start looking what kind of a monsters your faction has.
There is always going to be balance issues when you use a single framework for multiple pts level. And the "big kits" GW is focusing on to be cornerstones aren't necessarily lords of war (Ghazghull isnt a LoW for example).
And the game works very well for lower pts, infantry based gameplay. In fact i'd argue that it works best at around 1k with mostly infantry lists.
Armigers is a corner case for me. I think they're small enough to be acceptable. No, yeah, they'd be fine.
Spartans are basically LandRaiders. Except good.
Greater Daemons is also a corner case for me. I could't say yay nor ney at this exact moment.
up until you look how GD are being run in some armies or AoS. And the lists go like take 2-3 bloodthirsters, take 2-3 KoS.
Playing vs 3-4+ knights is not fun, if GW didn't design your faction to easily deal with knights, and on the other side it ain't very fun for the knight player if you are deleting 2 knights per turn and the game ends on turn 2.
we're talking about 40k here, not AoS....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 20:49:31
2020/12/14 20:50:16
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
What makes you feel like the game isn't fun or even playable at an infantry level?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
Counterpoint: The kits existed before the Apocalypse rulebook and had rules in 40k before Apocalypse was ever a thing, as many other posters have pointed out.
And? If the world accepted size of a matched play games makes it impossible or practicaly impossible to fit them in to a regular sized army, then they aren't ment for it. And I don't think people want to see the bad times come back, when GW designed eldar knights and just cut 200pts of their cost and let eldar players take 3 in their for fun casual lists.
Yeah, I do agree with the Tau thing, but that doesn't make the game as a whole unplayable at infantry level.
I very much agree on the big kits thing!
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:50:53
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
2020/12/14 20:53:46
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 20:56:30
2020/12/14 20:53:46
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 20:56:08
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
2020/12/14 20:58:42
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 21:06:31
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
apocalypse is a different game altogether
2020/12/14 21:06:58
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
2020/12/14 21:07:56
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
apocalypse is a different game altogether
Then what about 3k-3999?
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 21:09:09
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Kall3m0n wrote: Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
That you have no sensible reason to call for the banning of lords of war. I recognize that you have a feeling, but there's a reason pathos and logos are two different things.
Kall3m0n wrote: Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
That's a start for a certain format, yes. I think there should also be a format where the Rule of 3 doesn't dominate, so regular tank companies can exist for armies that aren't Imperial Guard.
Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I do agree on that.
Doesn't that format already exist: Apocalypse? You kknow, the format where super-heavies slot in perfectly. ;*
Super Heavys have been "slotting in" to 40k for 30 years, as has been pointed out repeatedly.
2020/12/14 21:10:25
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
EDH bans are because of power level, not because of "fun".
Unbalanced power level lends to "unfun" moments, but I don't think there's major problems in that regard in 40k right now.
If you know your opponent is bringing Magnus to the table, you can play accordingly. If your opponent opens with Island - Mox - Mox - Recall - Time Walk you just... drop your hand and leave the tournament.
I feel that the game is cool right now, even if I play vs the fething Silent King.
The Bloody Sails
2020/12/14 21:12:26
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
I really don't care about the theoretical, I care about the practical. I generaly have problems with understanding the theoretical stuff. A game, where the balance of the game is broken the very moment you roll who goes first, doesn't need the baggage of center pice kits .
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.
2020/12/14 21:16:33
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 21:20:52
Subject: Re:Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
Ask a tau player what he thinks about the state of his army right now. I don't think GW should focus on making it obligatory for people to start their army with a big kit as practicaly something obligatory in their lists, before they make the game enjoyable for playing with regular infantry.
this doesnt prove that 40k isnt playable at infantry level.
I really don't care about the theoretical, I care about the practical. I generaly have problems with understanding the theoretical stuff. A game, where the balance of the game is broken the very moment you roll who goes first, doesn't need the baggage of center pice kits .
what i said is practical.
Just because tau have a bad codex right now doesnt make the game bad at an infantry level.
2020/12/14 21:24:16
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
EDH bans are because of power level, not because of "fun".
Unbalanced power level lends to "unfun" moments, but I don't think there's major problems in that regard in 40k right now.
If you know your opponent is bringing Magnus to the table, you can play accordingly. If your opponent opens with Island - Mox - Mox - Recall - Time Walk you just... drop your hand and leave the tournament.
I feel that the game is cool right now, even if I play vs the fething Silent King.
Yeah, Isochron Scepter and Dramatic Reversal agrees. So does Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation.
As a whole, I totally agree with you there. I don't think super-heavies are over powered. Almost the reverse. I still don't think they are fun to play against. Ever. Unless it's Apoc.
I refuse to tailor my army lists. If someone brings Magnus (which one of my regular opponents often did) I just kill it. That still doesn't make it fun to play against.
If My opponent opens with Moxen, Island, Recall and Timewalk I wait for my turn and go infinite the next turn or stax them out of the game. Since I'm playing Vintage at that point I'm there to do broken gak too.
I agree that the game as a whole is in a good place right now and I'm excited to see what the new codices brings. I just hope they update the model ranges for some armies and give them new units.
Nurgle protects. Kinda.
2020/12/14 21:27:30
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
2020/12/14 21:31:03
Subject: Almost Half a Year - How's your 9th Ed Game?
I will call for their banning from the game as much as I want to. Will I have ANY effect to the game at all? No.
Well, thank you for both conceding the point and missing it at the same time. I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't hurt too much in the long run.
Kall3m0n wrote: Let's compare to the game Magic:the Gathering and the format EDH. Lots of cards are banned because they are not fun and make the games less enjoyable. Is there a lot of people that would love to play with those cards? Yes. Does that change the fact that they are banned, and should be banned? No.
This comparison falls flat as soon as you specify the EDH format, since 40k doesn't actually have "formats" in the same sense, where entire units/categories of units are banned. We can have a separate argument about whether or not 40k should proliferate in to more formats, though, if you like.
Then please enlighten me as to what your point was.
Well, we do have a "format" basis; Points levels. All that needs to be done is to ban certain huge (wounds and/or size) models from lower points.
Banning a model because of it's physical size, regardless of rules, is ridiculous. Right now the majority of broken units in the game are infantry. Your complaint about wounds is bizarre, as you have been complaining for days about the loss of a single wound on some of your own units. Is it that offensive that any other factions have durable units? What would you propose this "wounds cap" to be?
That's your feelings and opinions.
AGAIN: I have never ever said that the super-heavies and equivalent are broken in any way. But I guess you're just too mathhammer to get that.
I have not compained THAT much about a single wound. What I HAVE been complaining about is the loss of FNP. The wound loss is just the icing (or salt if you wish) on the cake when it comes to survivability. Yes, it's way better that it doesn't degrade anymore, but it has lost survivability.
I have NEVER stated that it's "offensive" that other teams have durable units. If some other army gets a vehicle with 9 wounds, 3+/5++ and -1D I wouldn't care.
As a base, 15 wounds maybe?14? Unfortunately I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of every big unit in the game, but that might be a good start. No, that would not be a hard cap, but more of a standard with deviations.
Nice to know my Contemptor is ok with you. If durability isn't your issue with super heavys then why are you only complaining about their number of wounds and not their offensive output? If a model's physical size is the problem then how big is too big? I'm trying to wrap my head around your problem with super heavys beyond "feelings" and "opinions". Sorry if that's too "mathhammer".
Your Contemptor is perfectly fine.
The amount of wounds are often linked with their size.
You are focusing solely on damage output and if they are OP and such.
When it comes to size, a baneblade is too big. Morty and Magnus are too big. The knights are too big. Landraiders and their primaris versions are not too big. Monolith? Not sure. The monolith vault? Too big.
The Bloody Sails 
