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.
For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
Sunny Side Up wrote: For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
No, 40k wasn't that lethal in the past and it worked just fine. Any points of Guardsmen with lasguns couldn't even scratch the paint on any vehicle and it was fun.
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
It has a 2+ save, toughness 8, ignores one point of ap, 16 wounds, and you can't re-roll wound rolls or damage against it. It has the equivalent of 4 heavy bolters, with +1 str and +1 ap, and the magna gun which does like 8-12 damage and ignores invulns. With a character, you can heal 4 wounds a turn and make it hits on 2s. It also works really well with judgement tokens because it makes it auto-wound on a 4+ with 3 tokens (Which I found were realllly easy to deal out) and the auto-wound is a 6 which makes the damage on the gun spill over and kill multiple models. He was reliably killing 3-5 terminators per turn with each land fortress, which he took 3 of.
At 230 points, it's pointed like a Leman Russ Tank Commander, but it's just way better: It's tougher, and it hits way harder. Even he agreed the thing was massively undercosted for what it did.
Edit: They're also transports, so you can make a Pentagon Wars joke about them.
So.... this is a sales pitch for the model?
Right? I was only planning to buy 1, but now that you've pitched it so thoroughly, the only reason I'm buying 3 is that rule of 3 stops me from being able to field more.
Sunny Side Up wrote: 3x 230 = 690 points of vehicles (plus buff characters) to kill maybe 350 points of Terminators doesn't sound great.
It shouldn't take any army in the game more then 350 points of their army to kill an opponents 350 points of models if they sit in the open.
Your math is (way way way) off. *ONE* Hekaton kills 3-5 termies *per turn*. In a 4 turn game thats 12-20 termies or 480-800 pts worth of terminators... *FOR EACH LAND FORTRESS*. 3 Hekatons for 690 points would be killing 1440-2400 points of terminators per game.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Sunny Side Up wrote: But that is why you have / had so many problems with pre-nerf Custodes or pre-Nerf Bodyguard or non-Reroll Knights or Leviathan Tyranid bricks now maybe buffed up Chaos Terminator units sitting on an objective against some armies and simply not caring as the opponent cannot kill it.
That is an infinitely worse problem then any amount of overtuned lethality as 7th Ed. Deathstars or Broviathan, etc.. have shown, as that immediately and competely removes any tactics, interaction and strategy from the game, allowing players to abandon all subtlty and simply score points without the opponent being able to mathematically stop them.
For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
So 1 turn army wipeout should be possible?
Sorry no. Only noobs think 100% point kill in one turn is good. 1/3 is target. 1/2 is bad. 1/1 is insanely stupid and only exists to sell op models with no regard to health of game.
It depends on the game. In Infinity, you can get way more than 100% in one turn if the enemy is playing badly, but it's meant to be deadly. I don't think it works for 40k. If my enemy is bad, I could run my Avatar through them and get a 300% point return in one turn. The issue is that, if they're not playing bad, they could kill my 130 point Avatar with a 30 point dude that had a good anti armor weapon, like a monofilament weapon, for a 430% return if I'm playing bad.
40k doesn't have the same level and depth for the mechanics, though, and nowhere near as much ability to avoid getting shot.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
What rubbish.
Agree, a tanky unit should be tanky and not die to a single under powered unit, that would actually ruin the game. The point of tank is to give up something (damage, speed, other, etc...) to not die, to soak hits, thats kind of the point of many units like Rhinos and why a lot of vehicles are consider bad bc they have no fire power but also are over costed for how easy they are to be blown off the table.
I think if two players both select the most glass-cannon build they can, and both sprint into each other, then sure, one side should fall over by the close of turn 2.
To my mind at least if you were running say DG into Necrons, it should be a 5 turn game where you slowly grind each other down - and actually a lot of stuff should still be up turn 5.
The problem with 9th (which has somewhat been reduced in 2022) is that seemingly every army became a glass cannon whether you liked it or not.
The problem in my eyes isn't the presence of lethality or survivability itself, but how it's implemented. Currently, the approach is to power up a single unit until it breaks the game balance and then you lay into the enemy force or park on an objective. I'd rather see general defensive buffs (e.g. something like the old AP system, the reintroduction of suppressing fire) and the removal of the super buffing a single unit.
The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.
If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.
Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.
It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.
Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.
Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.
Hellebore wrote: The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.
If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.
Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.
It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.
Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.
Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.
I still dont like to give numbers to lethality. What if I wanted an army that was super tough, played the mission well but didn't kill all that well for a few turns bc I want to play the attrition game? I might only kill 1/5 or so a turn, but you wont be able to kill a lot either. That changes the numbers a lot.
Then you have DE with units like RWFs or Reavers, that their entire job is just just get point with no killing power, and you put all your killing power into literally only take a few incubi, a couple characters, and a couple grots for damage, the rest is just paper cuts. Its hard to say X unit should do X, really it should be X unit is design for X and it should do their job within reason of its points cost.
We all know the Land Raider doesn't do ANY of its jobs for its points, yes the Fortress does, but its hard to say if it is too much yet, and honestly if it doesn't die in 3 turns while killing 200pts, is that actually a bad thing? Dont we want the Land Raider type of tanks to live for a few turns and do damage with its guns? Now if it is doing 200pts a damage in a turn, then yeah lets look at it, from what I can see it is not, its 4 shuriken cannons and a couple stronger Las cannons basically (or weaker but Beam). If anything I would want to see the strongest and most popular gun go up in points before the vehicle itself does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/09 03:13:29
Hellebore wrote: The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.
If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.
Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.
It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.
Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.
Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.
I still dont like to give numbers to lethality. What if I wanted an army that was super tough, played the mission well but didn't kill all that well for a few turns bc I want to play the attrition game? I might only kill 1/5 or so a turn, but you wont be able to kill a lot either. That changes the numbers a lot.
Then you have DE with units like RWFs or Reavers, that their entire job is just just get point with no killing power, and you put all your killing power into literally only take a few incubi, a couple characters, and a couple grots for damage, the rest is just paper cuts. Its hard to say X unit should do X, really it should be X unit is design for X and it should do their job within reason of its points cost.
We all know the Land Raider doesn't do ANY of its jobs for its points, yes the Fortress does, but its hard to say if it is too much yet, and honestly if it doesn't die in 3 turns while killing 200pts, is that actually a bad thing? Dont we want the Land Raider type of tanks to live for a few turns and do damage with its guns? Now if it is doing 200pts a damage in a turn, then yeah lets look at it, from what I can see it is not, its 4 shuriken cannons and a couple stronger Las cannons basically (or weaker but Beam). If anything I would want to see the strongest and most popular gun go up in points before the vehicle itself does.
Yeah you're talking about damage denial, which in the previous model is assumed to be balanced against the 1/3rd points.
But you can also balance a unit with lower damage out put and higher damage denial, making it balance out.
Unit destruction is still the main aspect of the game, regardless of the mission being played. They even changed morale to be damage based rather than activation based, further pushing everything to damage.
I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.
Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.
Tyel wrote: I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.
Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.
Honestly I think the army needs 1 rule change and nothing else. At the end of each Battle round remove 1 Judgement Token from each unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/09 21:15:51
Tyel wrote: I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.
Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.
Honestly I think the army needs 1 rule change and nothing else. At the end of each Battle round remove 1 Judgement Token from each unit.
Yeah the judgements seem a bit much at the moment. I understand the proliferation of transhuman-esque rules has been a bit much but the answer is to tone them back, not gak on them.
Everything else about this model just seems like it needs to cost more points. Just leave it undercosted long enough for the irrational to have the inch of space needed to do their mental gymnastics.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/10 00:17:20
artific3r wrote: If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.
Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.
What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?
That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.
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.
While it is admittedly too early to say for certain, I am not at all convinced the Judgment system is going to be quite the big boogyman most are expecting.
The mangarail isn't even the worst thing about it.
Ymyr Conglomerate with maximum Beam weapons will just be dumping like 10-12 MW's onto targets on top of their normal damage. Oh and the Land Fortress gets a 4++ there too, just in case anything could get past the AOC and 2+.
Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).
Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).
You seem to focus heavily on Ymyr here when talking about Beserks without considering how disgusting they'll be in Kronus, which all but makes them Bloody Rose Repentia. Repentia are great units, but they are made crazy powerful from Quick to Anger, Tear Them Down, Sacred Rites, and being able to fight on death all stacking together to give them some disgusting buffs - many of which are exactly the same things that make BR Repentia so damn oppressive. Kronus gives you all of that on more durable models that can get that 5++ just by being near a Kahl anyway.
I feel like Ymyr's army wide invuln benefit is a trap. The ones that get a 4++ save are the 2+ units with Void Armour, so your opponent has to put AP -4 into them for you to have even seen a benefit there, and that goes to AP -5 when the unit is in cover. The units that get a 5++ save can do so in any other League provided you park a Kahl next to them with a Rampart Crest, making this benefit really only about flexibility and decentralization rather than a unique defensive benefit only they can do. The best part of Ymyr is the range boost, and the best part about the defensive buff is that it gives you some modicum of freedom to make other choices, both when list building and during a match.
artific3r wrote: If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.
Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.
What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?
That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.
Basically, this. That the Votann Judgement stuff may not be nerfed because their intent is to be the Paper to Transhuman/Tyranids/similar effects' Rock.
Re: rock paper sissors, a rock paper scissor approach could work fine if every faction had rock, paper, and scissor options. If the factions are either a rock, a paper, or a scissor, then there will almost certainly be issues
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I was thinking about the land fortress more he other day. The question I have is what do the brackets look like and does votann have anything like the guard relentless strat that could boost it back up to top bracket? I know there's the whole using the one model to repair it thing, but I'm wondering, outside of that, how much is it going to take to reduce the effectiveness of the land fortress? Being a mech guard player, I'm painfully familiar with the effects of bracketed vehicles (especially since my typical opponent loves mortal wounds heh)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/10 16:17:40
It brackets at the same rate as other T8, 16W, 2+ save vehicles and they do have a Stratagem that allows it to behave as if it's on its top bracket. It's used in the command phase and lasts until the next command phase.
Vilgeir wrote: It brackets at the same rate as other T8, 16W, 2+ save vehicles and they do have a Stratagem that allows it to behave as if it's on its top bracket. It's used in the command phase and lasts until the next command phase.
Eldar 
Imperial Guard 
Space Marines
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
