Will Grey Knights be fixed by the March FAQ?

[Adeptus]

I think it might be helpful to take a step back and try and work out exactly what the problems are.

 

Psycannons don't suck. They're strictly better than Stormbolters at every range. But they cost too much.

 

We have access to heavy AT weapons in Lascannons on our Landraiders, Stormravens, Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks. Not to mention of course our AT capabilities in close combat.

 

So instead of making the Psycannon better at AT, perhaps a simple points drop would be enough for it. And maybe a reduction in the price of a Dreadnought, or even just in the cost of the TL Lascannon to make it a more attractive option. Or at the very least other options in the same vein could be considered.

 

I also think it's important, wherever possible, to avoid changing rules so as to avoid unintended consequences for Narrative or Open play. Not everyone plays Tournament style games all day every day.

[Waking Dreamer]

Hmm...what points drop would be required for a Psycannon (at current stats) to be a suitable replacement for a stormbolter (2 points) and a pair of fashions (free)?

 

Usually, whenever I'm firing off Psycannons I'd be hitting on 4+ because I'd have been moving to get in range to use them. So effectively its 2 hits per psycannon for me.

[Shagah]

 

So my thoughts on what could be done in the March release (some repeated from our look last year in prep for CA)

Some points changes also required for the below, but will not coming in the March update if what has been postulated is correct.

 

Ranged Special Weapons:

Psycannon: Current profile with the following changes, Rapid Fire 3, AP becomes -2, on a 6+ to hit causes an additional mortal wound.

HvyPsycannon: Current profile with the following changes, Heavy 8, AP becomes -2, on a 6+ to hit causes an additional mortal wound.

Psilencer: current profile with the following changes, Rapid Fire 4, each 6+ to hit causes an additional mortal wound, ordinary wounds ignore invulnerable saves.

Gatling Psilencer: current profile with the following changes, each 6+ to hit causing an additional mortal wound, ordinary wounds ignore invulnerable saves.

 

Mortal wounds are far too prevalent in the game, we don't need more of them. The game just ends up spamming units that can deal MW, same thing that happened to AoS. It's also a super unimaginative way to come at the game, it's boring and every army ends up feeling the same.

 

This shows why people need to math out suggestions. Mathwise, I think your weapons are OP.

 

1. Mortal wound generation happens on the "to wound" rolls of 6, no other weapon I know of does it on the "to hit" roll. You don't generally give mortal wound generation on a weapon that has lots of shots, as you can just spam shots for MW, not even caring about the weapons actual ability to kill outside of mortal wounds.

 

2. If it is on the "to hit" roll, its ability to generate mortal wounds changes depending on if you moved or not (for heavy), or if the target has a negative to hit modifier. This would result in a messy weapon.

 

3. A five man purgation squad with psilencers does 5MW, not including any other damage it might do. That's more than the average amount of wounds a lascannon devastator squad does to a LR, and your wounds spill over making it good verse infantry as well. It would kill almost 15 GEQ models per turn. 50pts+ minimum for this weapon.

 

4. As noted above, psycannons with -2 AP would be good, however dealing mortal wounds and shooting 6 shots would make it again super OP. The required costs for each weapon would make them far and away the most expensive infantry deployable weapon - we're talking 60pts+.

 

 

So to my mind Mortal wounds being too prevalent in the game is a little bit "so what". 

I feel it is quite hard for us to generate many MW compared to a lot of other factions at the moment (just my opinion obviously), although if we had normal Smite then this would be a different discussion. 

You call it unimaginative, again I would say I am trying to achieve something without going too far outside the current game mechanics, again just a differing of opinions, but I do think what you say has merit.

 

So you talk about math, and I admit I had not run any actual numbers before posting this, so was very much "duh! you no doubt are correct!", and now having done a little bit of crunching I think you are definitely correct, painfully so!

 

Ironically your ideas for the new stat lines a couple of days ago I think are great, although you too suggested an extra MW type rule (I know on the to Wound role but you get my point, giving your scathing verdict on this mechanic!), but overall I think they would go along way to not only giving these weapons separate roles, but also making them worth taking in more general play.

 

Out of interest how would you suggest scaling up to the Heavy/Gatling versions?

[Corvus Fortis]

Of which I am well aware. Problem is, every single turn-based game will have this issue. Grey Knights have an 'advantage' of being able to deepstrike pretty much anything they want. They things they can't due to the 50% on the board, can go in metal bawkses, shunt or gate to the enemy quickly. This requires some clever manouvering. Since GK are also pretty elite, the number of drops are lower. 

 

 

Just going: "We need to be able to kill more stuff, so less stuff can hurt us!" just reeks of lack of strategic insight. 

 

I'm not saying GK don't need some help, but more damage really isn't the solution, especially in D3 smites. This would simply overrule the fact there are different spells to cast and people would smite all day and ignore the rest, except for Sanctuary. It would also encourage Voldus play, since he can cast 3 powers, so the rest of your units can smite. It's just not compelling gameplay and adds to the issue of Mortal Wounds being to prevalent in the first place. I'm sure that when you actually play Daemons, you're not doing anything but smiting, since you'll be doing a ton of wounds to everything. 

 

A bit of survivability could do, but I'd rather tone down the bigger issue. People are spamming things that do mortal wounds, which is bad for an elite army such as Grey Knights, since our 1W model is worth multiple for other armies. Maybe we need to use Apothecaries to revive them and have some bonus to this as an elite army. Failing it is a BIG problem, so people chose not to do it. 

 

Some heavy weapons need a clearer definition of what they actually DO. Biggest gripe here is that just upping the damage on a Psycannon sounds silly. You're literally making it an autocannon at that point. It needs a clearer role. ALL anti-vehicle weapons that do BIG damage are either random, or melee on big things that cost lots of points. If you want something anti-vehicle, chances are, that's exactly what you're getting. 

 

Why not have a hit roll of 6 add some AP -3, since that's something sorely lacking. Not sure if it's fluffy, but it does give your incentive to point it at big targets. Giving it flat damage would invalidate pretty much every other weapon though, since it's consistent damage, so people KNOW what to expect. It's exactly why autocannons are immensely popular, and Dark Angels like their Plasma with stratagem and overcharging. Random is scary, because it can whiff badly. Still, it's where big damage SHOULD come from. 

 

 

Every spell fulfills its own role, so d3 smite will not "kill" other spells. I already tend to put most of stuff on Voldus and leave other units to spam smite. I really see no difference.

 

Making Psycannons AP-3 on 6s is good, but will help against heavy infantry, not vehicles. Vehicles and Monsters are survivable first of all because of high W count, Sv is often secondary. H. Psycannon with d2 works perfectly. Why making normal Psycannon d2 instantly break the game and make other weapons worthless? Problem of Incinerator is range, not stats. And psilencer has more shots and d3, which is sometimes better. It also twice as cheap. Last, many other weapons have 2 or 3 damage fixed. Some FW stuff even has fixed 6 dmg, and everyone OK with that. 

 

 

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah I'm firmly against giving any of our special weapons mortal wound triggers. Mortal wounds are way too prevalent already, it should have just been psychic damage and maybe strategems. 

 

As I keep saying, psycannon just needs to be Damage 2. That's it. It can stay the same cost, everything else the same. Just make it Damage 2, and suddenly its an autocannon we can take en-masse. 

 

Psilencer is fine, it's a ranged force weapon that fires mind bullets.

 

Incinerator would be fine, but 8" range is dumb and ruins all flamer weapons. Make all flamers 12", incinerators included. Then we can use them off Teleport Strike.

 

 

If we could only make one change to our Psychic phase, I would happily give up Banishment Smite for set squad powers. It's not even lore-friendly how GK infantry work currently. Our rawest recruits don't fire mind bullets, they hone their powers together to strengthen the squad. GW are lazy and gave all psykers Smite so you don't get the feel bad of running out of powers in Matched Play. It's also extremely dumb and not lore friendly that any Sanctic psyker can take any power. Why should a Strike squad know Vortex?

 

I liked our previous incarnations, where we got set powers based on our squad type. The way I'd break it up;

- 'Hammerhand' on Strikes and Terminators

- 'Astral Aim' on Purgators

- 'Gate' on Interceptors

- 'Sanctuary' on Paladins (as befits their role as bodyguards)

- 'Purifying Flame' on Purifiers (2D6 Smite on a 10+ cast, D6 Smite normally, range reduced to 12").

 

 

'Vortex' and 'Purge Soul' are only available to HQ choices. Brother-Captain knows regular Smite and one Sanctic, Grandmaster knows Smite and one Sanctic, Librarian knows Smite and two Sanctic. Brother-Captain aura changed to 'all friendly Faction: Grey Knight units within 12" of one or more Brother-Captains may re-roll psychic tests'. Represents the lore better, which is Brother-Captains are trained to leverage the psychic strength of their brotherhood to the utmost. Grand Masters retain their re-roll 1's aura, because it represents their greater skill at conventional warfare. 

 

For Dreads/Venerable Dreads/Tech-Marines/Apothecary/Ancients, can choose any power except 'Vortex' or 'Purge Soul'. If equipped with Banner of Refining Flame relic, Ancient/Paladin Ancient gains 'Purifying Flame'.

 

The reason I'd go with the solution above is it neatly sidesteps all the issues we currently have

- Brother-Captain aura + Purifiers deemed too strong, hence the insane 3" (less than a grenade or flamer) of current Purifying Flame? With above changes, its irrelevant (and we have to 'Gate' or waste Command Points on Teleportarium to get them in range Turn 1, and screening chaff still makes it worthless just like regular Smite

- Too much Smite in GK armies? Auto-3 damage against Daemons too strong? Just remove it from everyone except our expensive HQ's, which we can't spam effectively. This is also how you balance Daemons GW, you idiots. You don't give everything Tzeentchian Smite.

- Too much power replication possibility, hence Matched Play restrictions? With above changes, you can trial allowing multi-cast of Sanctic powers, because squads are locked into choices. There isn't a way to spam 'Sanctuary' or 'Vortex' effectively, and 'Hammerhand' spamming only matters if we actually get into melee. Again, I'd be happy with no changes to Matched Play and just the above, but this leaves the door open for such beta rules to be tested (not dumb blanket restrictions like 'nerf the only power worth casting 99% of the time').

- Brother-Captain aura too good because Smite is too good? With above changes, Smite is only happening maybe 3-4 times anyway. Mostly you're getting reliable squad powers happening. Which makes way more sense.

- Librarian getting full Smite and two powers pumps him up to being useful. He could do with a price drop anyway, but besides that, these changes mean he's at least as good as a Sorceror or a regular Marine Librarian.

[Capt. Mytre]

I think it might be helpful to take a step back and try and work out exactly what the problems are.

 

Psycannons don't suck. They're strictly better than Stormbolters at every range. But they cost too much.

 

We have access to heavy AT weapons in Lascannons on our Landraiders, Stormravens, Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks. Not to mention of course our AT capabilities in close combat.

 

So instead of making the Psycannon better at AT, perhaps a simple points drop would be enough for it. And maybe a reduction in the price of a Dreadnought, or even just in the cost of the TL Lascannon to make it a more attractive option. Or at the very least other options in the same vein could be considered.

 

I also think it's important, wherever possible, to avoid changing rules so as to avoid unintended consequences for Narrative or Open play. Not everyone plays Tournament style games all day every day.

 

The psycannon sucks. It is outperformed by the psilencer in every field. It needs a stat change. Read my post a few comments that goes into why this is.

 

The big issue stems from how GW balances the game. Points are costed game wide. They don't nerf assault cannons for one army, they nerfed them for all.

 

When they nerf other armies lascannons, we get nerfed lascannons. We already have increased cost for our Ven Dreads, so it makes it less efficient. We also don't have access to things that make these weapons more power, for example, SM have easy access to re-rolls and various chapter tactics (salamander trait on single shot weapons is insane) that make it more power than any of our units can make it - but since its costed at SM power levels, for us it underperforms.

 

Having our own anti-tank weapons allows us to be unaffected by other armies getting a weapon nerfed. It also allows for better fine tuning of balance, because nerfs and buffs to our special weapons only effects us and doesn't result in domino balancing.

 

Your last sentence is a joke, right? Narrative and Open play can kiss my ass. They aren't balanced and never will be balanced. You can't stop fixing stuff in Matched (which is meant to be as balanced as possible) just because an unbalanced format might get even more unbalanced. If you play that format, you go in knowing it isn't going to be balanced anyway, and people that want to will game the system regardless of any further changes.

 

 

So to my mind Mortal wounds being too prevalent in the game is a little bit "so what". 

I feel it is quite hard for us to generate many MW compared to a lot of other factions at the moment (just my opinion obviously), although if we had normal Smite then this would be a different discussion. 

You call it unimaginative, again I would say I am trying to achieve something without going too far outside the current game mechanics, again just a differing of opinions, but I do think what you say has merit.

 

So you talk about math, and I admit I had not run any actual numbers before posting this, so was very much "duh! you no doubt are correct!", and now having done a little bit of crunching I think you are definitely correct, painfully so!

 

Ironically your ideas for the new stat lines a couple of days ago I think are great, although you too suggested an extra MW type rule (I know on the to Wound role but you get my point, giving your scathing verdict on this mechanic!), but overall I think they would go along way to not only giving these weapons separate roles, but also making them worth taking in more general play.

 

Out of interest how would you suggest scaling up to the Heavy/Gatling versions?

 

 

You can't solve a problem if you keep adding to it. You have to draw a line somewhere. If they draw it now and then change MW generation later on in codex updates/FAQ's, such as Biovores (IIRC), its better than 40k devolving into AoS.

 

My one didn't deal mortal wounds on the to wound roll, it was after they had failed a save. It effectively gave the weapon a damage value of 3.5 - however, since it was a mortal wound, I realised that it would then spill over to other models, meaning it would have increased infantry efficiency. I fixed that by just increasing the damage by 1 if you roll a 4+ on the a D6 per successful unsaved wound.

 

As for the heavy versions, they would be heavy (ie, not assault like the infantry ones). I'm not sure of the exact stats, as I can't really be bothered working out what would be balanced, so consider this just flavour:

 

Heavy Psycannon

Heavy 4 S10 AP-3 3dmg

Note: If this weapon makes an unsaved wound, roll a D6 per unsaved wound. On a 4+, that unsaved wound deals 1 extra damage.

60-70points

 

Gattling Psilencer

Heavy 12 S5 AP0 2 dmg

Note: Increase the AP value of this weapon to AP -3 against INFANTRY/CAVALRY/BIKE units. Invulnerable saves cannot be taken against this weapon.

50 something points

 

@Reclusiarch Darius

 

You've seen the chart, why do you ignore it? Increasing the damage to 2 on psycannons makes the psilencer irrelevant. The psilencer is only better than the psycannon against light infantry, which is a role already filled by stormbolters, and medium infantry by ~1.5%. Are you really going to go get a psilencer when you get get a psycannon that has a far more versatile?

[STTAB]

I'd never looked at the space marine Librarian. The re-roll to charge is appealing as I'm just going with a GK warlord. I'm almost finished building out my list so I'll keep that in the pocket for the future.

 

I'm holding off going for a full / majority GK list untill things calm down and we know what's happening with beta smite and if there is going to be some improvements to GK.

 

GW would certainly sell a lot more Grey dudes if they handle this well.

 

My fantasy addition would be an interceptor character with buffs that don't overlap... All our food hq choices re-roll to hit and I'm not interested in the brother captain range buff. Re-roll to wound or a +1 to hit would be cool but I'd really like a defensive buff... How about;

 

Teleportation master. In the opponent's shooting phase Inceptor master potects models wholly within 6" by opening a portal to return incoming fire to the firing unit on a wound roll of 1.

 

Wandering off topic and into fantasy land but it would be cool to have the chance of your opponent shooting himself.

[Gentlemanloser]

Can't quote Capt, I know they're only Beta rules, but the FW 40k rules for the Custodes Contemptor Achillus has thier Dreadspear deal 1 Mortal wound on any melee Hit roll of a 6+ on the turn they charge.

[Capt. Mytre]

Can't quote Capt, I know they're only Beta rules, but the FW 40k rules for the Custodes Contemptor Achillus has thier Dreadspear deal 1 Mortal wound on any melee Hit roll of a 6+ on the turn they charge.

 

FW is rather unique with their rules, given they aren't made by GW proper. There's a fair few rules that only exist in FW. As you said, they are beta rules and also only comes into effect in melee. You can't spam "melee" given the unreliability of it and factoring in the state of melee this edition.

[Schlitzaf]

Cpt is basically saying what I would say, my only contention is that Psilence be -1 AP base that become -2 AP vs targets. And either get a points reduction/increase as needed. And for those curious an Autocannon in C:CSM is 15. So a ‘Twin’ version be in the 30ish range. That all said. Semantical arguments, that are nitty & gritty aside, he has laid clear the issues better than I have. And yeah. I just wanted to mention Hammerhand* was chosen, because it was the power all GK had back in the day. And on BrotherCpt, if he added +1 (and double) damage to Smite be opanion then?

 

And second question, if Characters (HQ ones atleast) got realSmite (that became 2+1d3 vs Daemons). And BabySmite was made its own power. So you got 4 Casts of Smite and 4 BabySmite + 4-5 Powers. (4-5-6-7), for 13 casts average each turn. On that note, if BetaRule was kept. And Smite became the following

 

Coven/Brother Smite = 1 Damage Smite

MiniCharacter Smite = only a 1d6 dice for Smite Cast

ReaSmite = current

 

Each with own tracker and so on. Be everyone’s opanion?

[Adeptus]

The psycannon sucks.

Stop thinking in such binary terms.

 

The Psycannon doesn't suck. It's just too expensive.

 

It doesn't need to change it's role to become a dedicated AT weapon. We just need access to other AT alternatives.

 

Your last sentence is a joke, right? Narrative and Open play can kiss my ass.

I was initially angry at your arrogant and dismissive attitude, but after a little while it just made me sad.

 

Trying to play balanced competitive games of 40K isn't like trying to smash a square peg into a round hole, it's like trying to carve a turkey with a sledgehammer. It's like trying to hammer nails with a meringue pie. It's using a tool that is manifestly unfit for the purpose. And to disparage other forms of play as irrelevant, or as acceptable casualties in the pursuit of the impossible dream of a balanced 40K is so blindingly selfish and shortsighted that I don't even know how to address it.

[Capt. Mytre]

 

The psycannon sucks.

Stop thinking in such binary terms.

 

The Psycannon doesn't suck. It's just too expensive.

 

It doesn't need to change it's role to become a dedicated AT weapon. We just need access to other AT alternatives.

 

Your last sentence is a joke, right? Narrative and Open play can kiss my ass.

I was initially angry at your arrogant and dismissive attitude, but after a little while it just made me sad.

 

Trying to play balanced competitive games of 40K isn't like trying to smash a square peg into a round hole, it's like trying to carve a turkey with a sledgehammer. It's like trying to hammer nails with a meringue pie. It's using a tool that is manifestly unfit for the purpose. And to disparage other forms of play as irrelevant, or as acceptable casualties in the pursuit of the impossible dream of a balanced 40K is so blindingly selfish and shortsighted that I don't even know how to address it.

 

 

 

Cool story.

 

Give us lascannons for infantry. Make us SM with a few random extras. Great.

 

Don't balance the game around the most balanced mode, balance the game around the least played, not balanced mode. Cool.

 

Right. Ok.

[Waking Dreamer]

Do you need points for narrative and open play or is it power levels?

 

Why can't you just house rule narrative and open play because it is the least strict of the 40k game modes to begin with?

 

People spend money on plane tickets and accommodation to participate in matched played and acquire global rankings across multiple tourneys...balanced it will never be, but damn TOs and GW better not stop working to try and get it to that...

[Gentlemanloser]

Power levels are inherently unbalanced. The nothing you can do to even try to fake balance.

 

Open. Well open is the antithesis for balanced play.

 

That being said, we've had some great narrative games, using match play rules and piunts of course.

 

And we've got a 2060 one set up next. Or nid player just bought two 35 quid kits to kitbash a bio titan out of. One who's legs will actually support the body.

 

We're going to play some narrative cloverfield style games. Or army's versus just the bio titan.

 

We win if we kill it before game ends. He wins of its still alive.

 

But actual open play and power levels. Lol. We won't touch those with a barge pole.

[Adeptus]

Cool story.

 

Give us lascannons for infantry. Make us SM with a few random extras. Great.

 

Don't balance the game around the most balanced mode, balance the game around the least played, not balanced mode. Cool.

 

Right. Ok.

Why do you approach the conversation with such an adversarial, black or white attitude? It's like you're deliberately trying to piss people off.

 

Here's the ugly truth: If you want a balanced game then BY DEFAULT you want homogeneous forces. The only way the game is truly balanced is if EVERYONE runs exactly the same army. Every step you take away from that increases the imbalance of the game. You want a balanced game AND interesting and uniquely individual forces? You can't have it. Stop trying.

 

Hoping and waiting for GW to balance 40K for you is a waste of everyones time. They can't do it and even if they could, they don't want to. The best you can hope for is a robust community built tournament system that includes strict composition rules.

 

As I've said before, and will continue to say, 40K is not now, and has never been, and will NEVER be, a competitive game. It can be played competitively if you wish but it is a system manifestly unsuited to that task, and your experience will be wholly negative. If wilfully subjecting yourself to negative experiences is your thing, then fill your boots, but don't come in here whining because 40K plays like 40K.

[Gentlemanloser]

40k is a competitve game and nothing else.

 

Its not suited to be anything other than competitive.

 

Even open is based around win / lose coditions against an opponent.

 

You want a non competitive game? Use something like inquisitor with minis.

 

You can achieve great balance with non homogenous armies. Starcraft is a great example.

 

If everything in 40k was based on the same point cost scale, it would be much easier to balance.

[Capt. Mytre]

40k is a competitve game and nothing else.

 

Its not suited to be anything other than competitive.

 

Even open is based around win / lose coditions against an opponent.

 

You want a non competitive game? Use something like inquisitor with minis.

 

You can achieve great balance with non homogenous armies. Starcraft is a great example.

 

If everything in 40k was based on the same point cost scale, it would be much easier to balance.

 

Don't you get it? Unless the game is perfectly balanced, you may as well throw in the towel and give up.

 

/s

[Gentlemanloser]

Anyone know when the march balance pass will be out? Anyone seen any leaks yet?

 

I think we'll all settle down somewhat with something a little more concrete to go on.

[Capt. Mytre]

Anyone know when the march balance pass will be out? Anyone seen any leaks yet?

 

I think we'll all settle down somewhat with something a little more concrete to go on.

 

If they aren't doing point changes, I'm not sure what they will do. Even when you adjust the stats for various things, they probably also need to have a point adjustment to fine tune it. Honestly, GWs method is so poorly thought out.

 

I'm expecting to be let down again, either through lack of changes or lack of meaningful changes. Especially if previous balance passes are anything to go by. Safer thinking IMO.

 

Can't wait to be told to wait for CA when we don't get anything here lol.

[Holier Than Thou]

 

Anyone know when the march balance pass will be out? Anyone seen any leaks yet?

I think we'll all settle down somewhat with something a little more concrete to go on.

 

 

If they aren't doing point changes, I'm not sure what they will do. Even when you adjust the stats for various things, they probably also need to have a point adjustment to fine tune it. Honestly, GWs method is so poorly thought out.

 

I'm expecting to be let down again, either through lack of changes or lack of meaningful changes. Especially if previous balance passes are anything to go by. Safer thinking IMO.

 

Can't wait to be told to wait for CA when we don't get anything here lol.

Yep, we'll probably be ignored again and then the same people who've told us to wait will again tell us to wait for Chapter Approved, then wait for the September FAQ, then wait for March 2019...........

[Danarc]

 

Anyone know when the march balance pass will be out? Anyone seen any leaks yet?

I think we'll all settle down somewhat with something a little more concrete to go on.

 

 

If they aren't doing point changes, I'm not sure what they will do. Even when you adjust the stats for various things, they probably also need to have a point adjustment to fine tune it. Honestly, GWs method is so poorly thought out.

I completely agree with you.

And, even if I’m hoping for some valid changes I am quite sure that we will not have anything again. Damn.

[Adeptus]

40k is a competitve game and nothing else.

 

Its not suited to be anything other than competitive.

 

Even open is based around win / lose coditions against an opponent.

Win/lose conditions? You mean like the highly competitive games of Yahtzee, Tiddlywinks or Tic Tac Toe?

 

Oh yes, very competitive.

 

I maintain that the majority of the problems with 40K stem not from the rules themselves, but from the expectations that players put upon them.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yes.

 

I take it you never watched Wargames?

 

For shame! :P

 

Shall we play a game?

 

Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?

 

Edit. And those expectations are to have a balanced competitive game? Hardly unreasonable.

[Adeptus]

Yes.

 

I take it you never watched Wargames?

 

For shame!

No, was it a TV show? I shall look it up

[Gentlemanloser]

Old movie. But referenced recently in Ready Player One.

 

Guess I'm showing my age. ;)