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.

Hecaton wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do

Tyranids and Eldar *cough*

When playtesters don't get full rules like d3+3 dark lances nor are asked about point costs value testers have is dubious. Without full rules nor point costs even best playtesters can't give anything of value even if GW were inclined to listen.

The interesting thing is, that the playtesters said that durning their test runs with the non updated weapons, aka old liquifires, old dark lances etc they still found DE a very powerful army. I think that this a degree shows how GW can over and undershot an armies rules.

Karol wrote:
The interesting thing is, that the playtesters said that durning their test runs with the non updated weapons, aka old liquifires, old dark lances etc they still found DE a very powerful army. I think that this a degree shows how GW can over and undershot an armies rules.

TBH you had people like me taking 8-10 raiders all of late 8th and early 9th which mix results. It wasn;t the raider and new Dark lance that was really the issue even though goon thought so, it was the under costed Incubi, characters, and DT Liqs. After those changed yes DE was still doing great but Raiders went up at that point too and players went 100% coven, bc GW for some reason has been pushing coven hard since 7th. Also my 10 DT DC Raiders list in 8th/early 9th was never meet with hostility at all, 30 Shots with +1w -3ap, and 3D, then 13 Hexrifles at 2D, and that was only 1500pts, I still had 3 Ravagers lol. If i did this now it would actually be WORST, even with lances. With D6's being trash (D3+3 is a lot but it should be and Lacannons needs this treatment too), I can see why GW was on the side of DE for the Lance/raider thing, and I am too.

Dudeface wrote:
my point was there's fairly often a thread about a unit/weapon/strat/faction is way too OP and inevitably draws attention stating that the game isn't playable, or is too unhealthy, other people can't compete etc.

My point is people are not saying those things. They are expressing positions with less hyperbole and more nuance, that are then being unfairly characterized as more extreme.

Which mean it comes down to language interpretation. Being not okey with w40k rules is being equaled to wanting the GW DT team to die, or at least watch their families die. While saying one has fun in 9th, is more or less the same as saying I own GW stocks pay more money for books, models etc pay pigs.

From my expiriance that is how all arguments look like nowadays, not just in w40k. And God help those that try to be in the middle, because as the proverb says "the one who sits on the fance gets his ass .... by both sides".

Karol wrote:
Which mean it comes down to language interpretation.

So just like the vast majority of human interactions then. If you're not willing or able to understand nuance and shades of grey in a discussion it may not be the discussion for you.

In the end it boils down to people wanting the factions they play to be fun, maybe they care for stuff their friends or family play, and that is it. Took me an entire edition to understand that, because before that I thought that people were okey with stuff being on a rotation.

That is why, well plus because of me being me, I like interactions to be structured, limited in vogueness, with a limitation on outside interactions to maximum. Main reason why I love sports so much. The rules themselfs say that you can't talk to the opponent durning match, and they limit what you can say or do before and after it. If GW was like professional wrestling it would be perfect game for me.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
TBH you had people like me taking 8-10 raiders all of late 8th and early 9th which mix results. It wasn;t the raider and new Dark lance that was really the issue even though goon thought so, it was the under costed Incubi, characters, and DT Liqs. After those changed yes DE was still doing great but Raiders went up at that point too and players went 100% coven, bc GW for some reason has been pushing coven hard since 7th. Also my 10 DT DC Raiders list in 8th/early 9th was never meet with hostility at all, 30 Shots with +1w -3ap, and 3D, then 13 Hexrifles at 2D, and that was only 1500pts, I still had 3 Ravagers lol. If i did this now it would actually be WORST, even with lances. With D6's being trash (D3+3 is a lot but it should be and Lacannons needs this treatment too), I can see why GW was on the side of DE for the Lance/raider thing, and I am too.

The Lance thing is just going to go down in history because TTT said "we didn't playtest it that way".

I think it contributed a little - but the general undercostedness of Incubi, Wyches, kitted out characters etc was more considerable in those early days.
DT liquifiers was clearly just a mistake of compounding buff on buff that isn't perhaps obvious if you are still mentally in the old system. Hence why we had lots of DE playing dakkanauts in those first couple of weeks claiming "this shouldn't work, because you can do the same in 8th and no one does." Buff the strength, buff the range, switch the mortal wounds to be on hit rather than wounding, and oh look, a monster that on average gets you a 100% points return into intercessors.

And then GW decided to nerf this, but weirdly reduced the cost of Talos (which were already becoming meta, I think due to Ad Mech), Grots & Haemi, so Covens became the thing to run. (5 point increase to Cronos didn't really bother, since with DT they were still bonkers.)

Karol wrote:
I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.

It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.

There's a gradient there. The vast majority of "bad" units are not so sub-optimal to their counterparts like they were in the past.

Something that's 10% worse than the best can be overcome by smart play and sometimes a little luck. It's only when you attend a 5+ round tournament and hit one of the regular top players that it could become an issue.

It gets exacerbated if you lean into it too hard. Taking one Qlas predator? Probably won't affect most games. Taking three? You'll notice unless the dice and targets favor you.

Overall the state of the game is a chaotic mash that kind of works. It's going to take a lot of slight and careful adjustments to address the myriad of other things hidden under the surface. That is if 10th doesn't put everything into a tail spin.

That is only if the opponent takes a same win rate army. If you take a non optimal list vs a better army, or worse better army and a optimised build, you never win. It is just not possible, and the game often turn in to. move here move there, your army can't mathematicly do enough dmg to my army for me to max out secondaries turn 2-3 etc. If a necron or sob player sits in front of a marine player the game is done on the level of seson rules, before even a single dice is rolled.

In mirrors or when bad people with bad armies play against each other, it maybe less a thing. Or at least it would have been, if GW didn't intreduced hard counters and skews to the game. And the worse the army and player, the bigger impact it has. A best in the world player, can take a less optimal army, ad mecha are a good example of that, and beat stuff like tyranids or eldar etc. A regular bloke that takes ad mecha vs a tyranid army will just get destroyed, unless the tyranid makes his list bad on purpose and plays bad on purpose too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.

It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.

There's a gradient there. The vast majority of "bad" units are not so sub-optimal to their counterparts like they were in the past.

Something that's 10% worse than the best can be overcome by smart play and sometimes a little luck. It's only when you attend a 5+ round tournament and hit one of the regular top players that it could become an issue.

It gets exacerbated if you lean into it too hard. Taking one Qlas predator? Probably won't affect most games. Taking three? You'll notice unless the dice and targets favor you.

Overall the state of the game is a chaotic mash that kind of works. It's going to take a lot of slight and careful adjustments to address the myriad of other things hidden under the surface. That is if 10th doesn't put everything into a tail spin.

It's also worth noticing that the nephilim secondaries play a big role in why tournament play is fairly balanced right. For crusade, BRB matched play and tempest of war these have no effect and least here on dakka these game modes are just as popular as nephilim.

This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

They are extremely strong yes, the more I am playing and learning about them the more it sucks more a lot of armies. I played into a couple armies that did well into them, but then into Marines, Quins, and a couple others its was a nightmare for the other player. LoV is going to poo on like 80% of the armies.

Nerfs I want to see after some games with them

Judgement: Instead of auto 6's to wound, make it "Count as the hit roll dice" aka a 4 to hit is a 4 to wound.
Iron Master: block needs to be once a game not turn. That fact it is once a turn is pretty insane to me.
Beam: Should not auto hit each unit after the first, should still need to roll to hit and to wound.

These 3 changes will put them in a much better balance spot, after that see what units are a problem and then adjust points, but IMO the rules needs to change first no matter what.

ZergSmasher wrote:This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

Careful now, I've been informed people don't say these things and instead present nuanced arguments about specific items of debate.

I've always assumed these kinds of thread are a general catch all "this faction is broken on release" thread, while also pointing out one thing massively egregious within the faction.

Like the Tau Hammerhead one. I thought it was to both point out the Railgun was stupid and also generally complain about release Tau.

Obviously anyone planning to come in and do some bad faith arguing would interpret the thread to what benefits them most.

I've just realised today the LoV bikers are the same points cost as CSM bikers.

3 CSM get 14 S4 AP0 D1 shots. Melee is 13 S4 AP1 D1.

3 LoV get 9 S7 AP1 D2 shots per bike, plus 6 S5 AP1 D1 when in close. Melee is 9 S4 AP0 D1.

Similarish (but I'd prefer the LoV statline in CSM), then the LoV bikes get a pre game move, obsec, better upgrades (why don't CSM bikers with a Plasma Gun get +1W/A).

Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

They are extremely strong yes, the more I am playing and learning about them the more it sucks more a lot of armies. I played into a couple armies that did well into them, but then into Marines, Quins, and a couple others its was a nightmare for the other player. LoV is going to poo on like 80% of the armies.

Nerfs I want to see after some games with them

Judgement: Instead of auto 6's to wound, make it "Count as the hit roll dice" aka a 4 to hit is a 4 to wound.
Iron Master: block needs to be once a game not turn. That fact it is once a turn is pretty insane to me.
Beam: Should not auto hit each unit after the first, should still need to roll to hit and to wound.

These 3 changes will put them in a much better balance spot, after that see what units are a problem and then adjust points, but IMO the rules needs to change first no matter what.

Agree on the nerfs, although I would possibly nerf Judgement to "a unit can only gain one token per turn", avoids the easy enough combo of putting 3 tokens on one unit and deleting it with the Railcannon in turn 1. I would also remove the condition that units performing actions getting tokens automatically. For a Tau player, this is just hideous; the only way to get +1 to hit in my army makes it easier to delete? If my Stormsurge drops his anchors then that makes him easier to destroy. If I have the *audacity* to move my Tidewall then somehow that makes your guys more angry?

Valkyrie, I agree. It seems likely that there needs to be more of a limit to the judgement counters. Overall they seem like a bad idea in general though, because they punish the other player for playing the game.

From what I've seen it appears that refusing to play the objectives and actions to later turns and focusing on fighting will simply result in your army being wiped anyway.

honestly i don't think they would be overly strong if they didn't get hammer of the emperor on steroids. I think there are work arounds for their incredible durability, they have a good balance of being slow/ needing to give up shooting to be fast, but auto wounding on 4s with how easy it is to apply judgment tokens is a bit much. give some other buff for grudge tokens but just scaling auto wounds screws over some armies like knights with zero remedies or ways to balance currently.

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Dudeface wrote:

ZergSmasher wrote:This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

Careful now, I've been informed people don't say these things and instead present nuanced arguments about specific items of debate.

Who said that? Seems like an equally unreasonable portrayal, just in the opposite direction.

 Nevelon wrote:


Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.

If they can't decide the game turn 1, with the speed and secondaries they have the LoV will struggle against armies with easy to do secondaries and same fire power and better speed. They will punish the hell out of armies like marines though. If someone plays bloody rose or Necron the LoV look weak.

the problem with core rule changes, judgment tokens, or pre emptive nerfs to core units can end up really bad for a faction which has fewer then 10 different unit types, and that is counting characters. Without hyper efficient tokens the LoV are just really slow tau, without their version of hyper landraider, they will struggle in to any good army. What is really worrying is that, a bit like GK, the army seems to be one of those where one would want to play at least 3 units of bikers, and potentialy more if it was possible.

Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .

I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?

 Nevelon wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.

Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.

Yes they are slower, they do give up a lot actually, the issue is their damage is so good (the more I play the more I see this) that you giving up things doesn't matter.

1) Can't advance then shoot or charge
2) Can't advance past 8" on many units
3) Has limit number of units, actions takes away damage for sure
4) Limit units and numbers also means locking screens, compile with being slow (Warriors for example) they basically dont have screens after T1 other than the bikes
5) Limit MW defense
6) Bad secondaries, and honestly a couple are actually punishing to the LoV player
7) Slow means no counter moves, hard to get around terrain, etc... without Bikes and Vehicles

But then you look at their damage.... a HLF can kill UNITS by themselves. Test into Quins it killed 3 Skyweavers and a Starweaver, 2nd on killed 2 Skyweavers and a Voidweaver. Into BT 2 killed 16 Crusaders, 5 VGVs, and 6 other marines at random locations (all with 5+++), and this is without the supped up killing version.

Hearthguard doing 10-12 MWs and 18+ saves.
Warriors Ion 1 CP stratagem to deal 6 MWs and 7-8 2D wounds.
Champion (if even taking) literally able to erase characters without a wounds limit per turn/phase and whole units, and even more so in GTL with Uthar.
Beserks ignore counter offensive bc you dont care if they go 2nd
Auto hit/wound Magna a turn in GTL on a 6, on average 2.3 from 3 Fortresses, and even more if in Warriors, completely removing units, outside of GTL still able to get 2 most the time if spending CP.

It really starts to add up. My turns 2 has been Bikes shooting to add JT and soften up weak units, Ion warriors deals 6 MWs an an addition 6-7 saves, Hearthguard deals 10-12 MWs and an additional 20 saves, HLFs both shoot killing units or heavily hurting multiple, Charging with 5-10 Beserks mopping up units, Hearthguard also trying to charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?

2/3 of the army wont be out till Nov, I am 100% guessing Warriors, a couple characters, and bikes will already be fully ready to go, but a list with just 18 Bikes, 3 characters, and Warriors isn't impressive, it wont be till mid November we will see the rest painted and on tables with limit results (number of games), it wont be till late Nov and Dec we really start to see the numbers get insane, January is going to be off the rails with them if no Dataslate.

Using harlequins as an example is a bit disingenuous.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Using harlequins as an example is a bit disingenuous.

"Using the S tier army is disingenuous" ... I also used Marines as an example, its what i have played again, sorry but I can only play against so many things in a short amount of time, and no it isn't bc they are one of the best armies right now. I would like to play into Daemons if I can, but I dont know anyone with them and my TTS times are limited.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?

Are we only talking people who are playtesters or know playtesters or generaly tournament players around the world. Because the first group can do it a lot sooner. The rest, assuming most books get leaked to the general public a month to a few weeks in advance probably do it after a weekend or week of heavy testing, if they already have parts of the army. And there is stuff which even to a noob is clearly mind blowing good, when an army is both powerful and undercosted. What I do know is that boxs were being cracked to paint stuff last week. Assuming stores closer to GW production line get stuff sooner and the people can know the store owners better. I would say that having a ready army to play a week to 10 day after release of a zero to new army is normal. Happened with SoB here.

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .

I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount

Showing up and just not using core mechanics of the army defeats the point in multiple ways.

Asmodios wrote:

ccs wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against

Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .

I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount

I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.