10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Restricting Superheavies to the largest game modes would probably be a good move.

 

That said, they are not the root cause of problems with 9th edition. Bonkers lethality and rules layering are the main problems with 9th edition, and those are not a response to Knights and the like.

 

i.e., Squats were """balanced""" against pre-nerf Tyranids and pre-nerf Eldar.

The question about lethality is are LoWs being in the game a contributing factor to the out of control lethality?

 

For example to balance units against a baneblade or knights anti-tank weapons need to be VERY anti-tank.

Then that creates a big gap between ‘standard’ weapons and AT weapons…unless the standard weapons get increased lethality 

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Name a good reason aside from “people want them in normal 40K”

That's the only reason I need.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

That's the only reason I need.

It really isn’t if their inclusion is actually ruining the game.

why is playing apocalypse to use SHs sucks triggering concept?

[tychobi]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

That's the only reason I need.

That is a good reason!  also they are IN the game.  "People" wanting something does not make it so.  Certain Inquisitors who like calling people children seem to have trouble understanding reality.  Reality is Superheavies are an integral part of modern 40k.  They are balanced and fun.  Cute how the only leg to stand on for excommunicating someone else's toys is "realism".  In a parody game about space magic. . . 

[Noserenda]

I mean, ive not seen a good reason to not have super heavies other than "I dont like them" which is absolutely fine in your own games, but a bit ridiculous to enforce on everyone else. 

I mean, i cant say enough that you should discuss your games with your opponents, or find a like minded group to play with, your games will be better for it rather than just assuming any given stranger will bend to your whims while having none of their own. Its bigger than any unit type, the style of the game, your lists, even the type of person you want to hang out with are all important things towards having a good game.
 

[Scribe]

10 hours ago, tychobi said:

Cute how the only leg to stand on for excommunicating someone else's toys is "realism".

 

Thats not the only reason, you just conveniently skipped answering other posts. ;)

 

11 hours ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

No reason to skew things, let them be super powerful and hard to kill.  I just think that they make the models, give them have rules and if people don't want to include them in their games, they don't have to. 

 

This completely ignores the last several statements regarding the subject.

 

Knight Armies could not be feasibly handled by 'normal' lists. Pick up games/players/groups/leagues, exist. As such, if GW is going to included them (and they would prefer to do so, because $$$) then what was their answer?

 

9th edition. Weapons/Damage Inflation to the point where people quite literally have stated that a Primaris with a Bolter, may as well be a Guardsman with a Lasgun, for all the impact the individual profile has on the game.

 

There's 2 reasons right there, to keep SH's out of the game.

[phandaal]

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The question about lethality is are LoWs being in the game a contributing factor to the out of control lethality?

 

For example to balance units against a baneblade or knights anti-tank weapons need to be VERY anti-tank.

Then that creates a big gap between ‘standard’ weapons and AT weapons…unless the standard weapons get increased lethality 

 

I actually do not think Knights contribute to out-of-control lethality, although I do think they are not a good fit for 40k in general. Nobody who wants to play BattleTech in 40k will ever change their minds though.

 

The push to do just a little bit MORE damage and overcome just a little bit MORE defense with each codex is the main driver of 9th edition's lethality spiral. For example, when Tyranids came out and Termagants had beetle pooters that were more powerful than bolters. Or when Mortal Wounds started proliferating off the charts. That probably was not because of Knights.

[DesuVult]

10th should steal rules from HH.  RoW, reactions instead of strats, LoW restrictions, and it's FoC.

 

Reactions will need to be fixed to adjust based on point level though.  They do not scale well in HH currently.  Also put emphasis on Zone Mortalis. 

[Scribe]

Lethality was an issue in 7th, if not 6th. Its only reaching comical levels at this point.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

27 minutes ago, tychobi said:

That is a good reason!  also they are IN the game.  "People" wanting something does not make it so.  Certain Inquisitors who like calling people children seem to have trouble understanding reality.  Reality is Superheavies are an integral part of modern 40k.  They are balanced and fun.  Cute how the only leg to stand on for excommunicating someone else's toys is "realism".  In a parody game about space magic. . . 

They definitely are not integral, nor are they balanced. They literally break the game.

 

no the only leg people have to stand on is basic logic and balance.

 

Why are you so triggered about apocalypse? No one has answered that.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

This completely ignores the last several statements regarding the subject.

 

Knight Armies could not be feasibly handled by 'normal' lists. Pick up games/players/groups/leagues, exist. As such, if GW is going to included them (and they would prefer to do so, because $$$) then what was their answer?

 

9th edition. Weapons/Damage Inflation to the point where people quite literally have stated that a Primaris with a Bolter, may as well be a Guardsman with a Lasgun, for all the impact the individual profile has on the game.

 

There's 2 reasons right there, to keep SH's out of the game.

There's no reason not to include models they make in the game.  If the rules as currently done don't suit your taste--and they don't suit mine either--that's a reason to work on the rules, not take models out. 
 

Mod edit: removed quote of hidden post

Edited October 20, 2022 by Khornestar

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

There's no reason not to include models they make in the game.  If the rules as currently done don't suit your taste--and they don't suit mine either--that's a reason to work on the rules, not take models out. 

 

"Why do Knights not work in Kill Team."

 

There ARE reasons for restrictions like this. Apocalypse was a thing for a reason. How much is a Warhound in Points? A Reaver? A Warlord?

 

This is not about personal taste. I WANTED to play Knights. This is about what is better for the game of 40K.

 

We have Crusade. Why do we not have Apocalypse?

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

1 minute ago, Scribe said:

 

"Why do Knights not work in Kill Team."

 

There ARE reasons for restrictions like this. Apocalypse was a thing for a reason. How much is a Warhound in Points? A Reaver? A Warlord?

 

This is not about personal taste. I WANTED to play Knights. This is about what is better for the game of 40K.

 

We have Crusade. Why do we not have Apocalypse?

I would absolutely use a Knight in Kill Team if they wrote rules for it. 

[Slave to Darkness]

Regarding the argument that super heavys were in 1st edition, the only thing we had was a Baneblade. I just threw some dice keeping it simple, how long will 3 guardsmen armed with lascannons take to  drop a Baneblade in 1st ed and current. 

 

They are OP in current editions, and thats before adding buffs etc  1st ed baneblades were much easier to deal with. People have the minis and they cost a lot of cash so of course they have the right to play with them, if I bought a Titan Im sure as hell gonna use it, but Super Heavys do need taking down a bit.

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

They are OP in current editions, and thats before adding buffs etc  1st ed baneblades were much easier to deal with. People have the minis and they cost a lot of cash so of course they have the right to play with them, if I bought a Titan Im sure as hell gonna use it, but Super Heavys do need taking down a bit.

 

Guess I'm just too much of an elitist to understand that my purchasing power should directly have a negative impact on not only game balance, but also my opponents enjoyment of the game. ;)

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Guess I'm just too much of an elitist to understand that my purchasing power should directly have a negative impact on not only game balance, but also my opponents enjoyment of the game. ;)

Complain to GW then, they made the models. 

[Valkyrion]

Forget the army building rules for a moment;

 

Would a single Lord of Skulls (575 points) win or lose more Combat Patrol games against players that were trying to field all comers?  - Substitute Lord of Skulls for a Stompa or Wraithknight or Baneblade or whatever, I just know that a LoS is 575 and don't have the other books to hand.

 

Would 2 of them win more 1000 point games?

Would 3 of them win more 1500 point games?

Would 4 of them win more 2000 point games?

 

If the answer is something like 'the Lord of Skulls would win except...' then it's possibly balanced? The Lord of Skulls is too powerful to be defeated but cannot hope to claim the objectives, so therefore cannot win unless it kills everything and also claims an objective - the opponent merely has to survive enough units to claim more objectives. 

 

Does it get easier or harder for the Lord of Skulls to win at higher points values? No tailored lists, just a random X point army. 

 

IK and CK have been internally balanced by taking 3 x 150 point ObSecFive units for every 1 x 450 point unit (or thereabouts). I'm talking just pure big super heavies, no help from the little guys. 

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Complain to GW then, they made the models. 

 

I mean, largely thats what this thread, the various articles and youtube diatribes, and the fact they are getting what is approaching $0.00 from me, all amount to.

 

GW is aware of the issues, and threads like this contribute to that awareness. If you want to give me James Workshops email, well...he will lament the day. :p

[Slave to Darkness]

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Guess I'm just too much of an elitist to understand that my purchasing power should directly have a negative impact on not only game balance, but also my opponents enjoyment of the game. ;)

Oh I get your point, luckily my gaming group wont turn up with Knight armys every time, we usually decide if we want a serious game or go nuts before hand so at least we know what were dealing with. If I had said Titan Id use it like I said, but Id sent a text message first askin if you wanna go up against that or not, not everybody owns minis to deal with it and I dont expect them to buy additional units just to compete, Ive been told many times my Chaos armys suck because I dont use dinobots or disco lords, well the minis look like  bad knockoff toys and are expensive so why would I buy something that I think looks worse than the Elephant Man?

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

3 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

Oh I get your point, luckily my gaming group wont turn up with Knight armys every time, we usually decide if we want a serious game or go nuts before hand so at least we know what were dealing with. If I had said Titan Id use it like I said, but Id sent a text message first askin if you wanna go up against that or not, not everybody owns minis to deal with it and I dont expect them to buy additional units just to compete, Ive been told many times my Chaos armys suck because I dont use dinobots or disco lords, well the minis look like  bad knockoff toys and are expensive so why would I buy something that I think looks worse than the Elephant Man?

That's great, and that's all anyone should have to do to field supers.  No reason to take them out of the game entirely. 

[Scribe]

Oh, and @phandaal referencing BattleTech all the time. I will openly admit, thats exactly why I bought a Knight Army in the first place. :)

 

Love it, would love to play it, even know its on the short list of things I would buy into GW again for, but its not worth the bad feels coming from the other side of the table, and I dont want to contribute to what I see as the decline of the game.

[Valkyrion]

14 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

"Why do Knights not work in Kill Team."

 

There ARE reasons for restrictions like this. Apocalypse was a thing for a reason. How much is a Warhound in Points? A Reaver? A Warlord?

 

This is not about personal taste. I WANTED to play Knights. This is about what is better for the game of 40K.

 

We have Crusade. Why do we not have Apocalypse?

 

I asked on here about a Warhound Titan being 2000 points and if it could win a game, and the consensus was no. 

So if me and you had a 2000 point game and you brought an equally ridiculous army like Zodgrod and 350 gretchin, you would win, even though in 'real life' there's no way 300 gretchin could kill a warhound titan. You win because of the rules for objectives and secondary objectives. These rules help alleviate the Lord of War issue, I think. Or at least I think that's what they're intended to do.

 

I don't disagree with you, @Scribe, in general, I think 40k would be better off without the big toys. I think it'd be better without Primarchs and Supreme Commanders too. But there's no way that GW are going to stop people using Knights or the Silent King or Wraithknights or Guilliman, and the big toys are here to stay and I think mourning their inclusion is a Sisyphean task and a waste of your hobby time because they are here to stay. 

[phandaal]

14 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

The Lord of Skulls is too powerful to be defeated but cannot hope to claim the objectives, so therefore cannot win unless it kills everything and also claims an objective - the opponent merely has to survive enough units to claim more objectives.

 

This would maybe be fun as a gimmick once or twice, but not on a regular basis. That is really the problem with Superheavy... heavy games. They are not interactive in the same way that a game of 40k without them would be.

  

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Oh, and @phandaal referencing BattleTech all the time. I will openly admit, thats exactly why I bought a Knight Army in the first place. :)

 

Oh yeah, Knights are 100% GW's version of BattleTech, even down to the way they are described in-universe.

 

No Guts, No Galaxy 

Edited October 19, 2022 by phandaal

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

1 minute ago, Scribe said:

Oh, and @phandaal referencing BattleTech all the time. I will openly admit, thats exactly why I bought a Knight Army in the first place. :)

 

Love it, would love to play it, even know its on the short list of things I would buy into GW again for, but its not worth the bad feels coming from the other side of the table, and I dont want to contribute to what I see as the decline of the game.

So you'd love to field a Knights list but don't have anyone who wants to play against it? Is that basically the situation?  I feel for you but that's hardly a reason to argue for removing them from the game. 

[Sothalor]

No, I think he's arguing that the normalization of things like Knights and super-heavies has a cascading effect on the design space, as things like the nominal survivability of a Knight Paladin tend to skew design of things like weapon lethality so that armies have solutions for things like a super-heavy showing up in a random pick-up game.

 

That has long-tail effects on things like the survivability of conventional vehicles, elite infantry, characters, etc.

 

Basically, GW is trying to make a game framework that accommodates "basic" units as wildly disparate as an Imperial Guardsman and a Knight Armiger. The perception is, there's much more of a potential delta in army composition now than there was in the days of basic 4th or 5th edition, both in variation of Force Organization charts and in what types of units are "likely" to show up. How do you make an army capable of taking on, say, 150 Grots vs 3 Knights or whatever?