List of the "Problematic" units?

[arnesh88]

I've only recently started using Battlescribe for writing lists. For Horus Heresy, they were still having some problems with Rites of War, and only recently have the RoWs that I use are functioning.

[OttoVonAwesome]

I don't believe there are problematic units at all. If you are building "Thematic" armies that intentionally underperform and don't include any heavy hitters that's kind of your problem and you should be expecting more one sided uphill battles and try to take joy in defeat by measuring the successes you do have with that list. Narratively weaker forces go up against superior forces all the time and even a doomed battle can be fun.

 

Competitive 30k is totally fun and a different beast alltogether from 9th editions meta and no one should be discouraged from making competitive lists. I mean you can make what you think is the cheeziest most mathematically superior list and then get hard countered by another guys list and watch him struggle against the next guys. The best thing you can do in a group is to encourage both styles of play have casual nights with unit limits if you want while running a competitive league and occasionally meet in the middle for narrative play.

 

If there's a guy you think is a problematic player craft a list to shut his down just refusing to play against him is kinda weak especially if it's something like oh he uses a telepathy librarian. You can't go grow as a player by just refusing a challenge.

[Valkyrion]

It's not so much that things are problematic and that's bad, it's how it changes the landscape of the game in the future.

We've seen in 40k how damage has escalated out of control and 30k needs to avoid going down that road. 

It could start off really simple, like giving Bolters Breaching (6+) so that a TAC or Horde list could target dreadnoughts to a reasonable degree. But then Plasma Guns need Breaching (3+), and Autocannons need Rending (5+) and if Autocannons have Rending (5+) then Storm Cannons need Rending (4+), and if Storm Cannons have Rending (4+) then Omega Plasma Arrays need to be Ordnance and if they are Ordnance then Laser Arrays need to be Destroyer and so on down a rabbit hole of increasing damage.

 

This could be avoided by making contemptors T6, or 3+ save, or 6++ atomantic, or 3 wounds, or 350 points.  Just one of those changes makes a huge difference. 

 

 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

One thing I do take heart from in 30k is that I believe there’s very few of the over performing units that can’t be fixed with a simple points increase. In other words, they’re not so egregious that their rules need rewriting, their rules are ok, they’re just undercosted for what they do. 
 

Compare that to 40K where rules are so over the top a price increase can’t fix them and they have to be rewritten all the time and it’s in a much healthier place. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Escalation has always been a thing in 40k games, but the question for every edition is what the end point for escalation looks like.

 

1st edition of heresy had a lot of good units. Praetor, warmonger, mos, siege breaker, Damocles, contemptors, mortis contemptors, terminators, veterans, rapiers, termites, support squads, drop pods, dread pods, dread claws, javelins, land speeders, outriders, sabres, lightnings, xiphon, plasma preds, laser vindis, sicaran arcus, almost every barrage tank, Spartans, leviathans, fire raptors, and most lords of wars. There's definitely more that I missed. 

 

All these units were at very least capable of doing their role and could trade into most of the other stuff listed.  The end point of escalation was a lot more broad, unless you faced heavy skew. 

 

2nd has an almost 40k gap. There are a lot of units that are so bad that you've signed the game away by taking them with the rest of the unit pool being very rock paper scissors. And that ends up warping which units are taken, because only certain types of units can deal with other types. Undercosting stuff compounds on that more.

Edited February 17, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, MARK0SIAN said:

One thing I do take heart from in 30k is that I believe there’s very few of the over performing units that can’t be fixed with a simple points increase. In other words, they’re not so egregious that their rules need rewriting, their rules are ok, they’re just undercosted for what they do. 
 

Compare that to 40K where rules are so over the top a price increase can’t fix them and they have to be rewritten all the time and it’s in a much healthier place. 

The only way we'll see changes is if people start playing 30k competitively. Which the exodus of 40k may bring. It's a better gaming system overall. Everyone in the competitive scene will just play knights and Custodes however and you would just see more buffs to the legions rather than nerfs.

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

One thing I do take heart from in 30k is that I believe there’s very few of the over performing units that can’t be fixed with a simple points increase. In other words, they’re not so egregious that their rules need rewriting, their rules are ok, they’re just undercosted for what they do. 
 

Compare that to 40K where rules are so over the top a price increase can’t fix them and they have to be rewritten all the time and it’s in a much healthier place. 

 

Lack of FAQs is definitely a part. We got a slew of non-expanded units who's points make no sense (like the arquitor compared to the Scorpius, or outriders compared to sky hunters) and just dropping those to a sane level would be a breath of fresh air.

 

Not to mention an actual faq and errata pass on the rules. The amount of shots from fury and zooming flyer interceptor was a good start, but there's so many more things that can use a decisive "this is how it's played" to get around lengthy interpretation discussions. Wound allocation and engagement range, disembarking from deepstrike, intercepting disembarked units from a destroyed deepstriking transport, do world eaters ignore disordered charges, do death guard really get to walk out of combat, does "remain stationary" and "not moved" mean the same thing for death guard, which initiative value do you use for rallying in mixed units, etc...

 

I don't know why these questions and issues have been sitting for 8 months, or made it into the release version. Before bligh passed we got pretty good FAQs/updates to old rules, and then it was just maintenance mode. Remember LACAL getting refreshed in 2016 with a rebalanced and compiled army list? 

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

The only way we'll see changes is if people start playing 30k competitively. Which the exodus of 40k may bring. It's a better gaming system overall. Everyone in the competitive scene will just play knights and Custodes however and you would just see more buffs to the legions rather than nerfs.

Sorry but that is completely wrong. 40k is not some balancing paradise. 

Quite the opposit actually. The Votann got nerfed before even one dice was rolled. Constant new FAQ and even wirse DLC to play the game.

40k is a horrible dumpsterfire.

 

Claiming that competitive play would improve the balance is utter nonsense. 

Decades of 40k show that very clearly. 

GW pushes on purpose some models and when the margin on sold units is reached they nerf them and push another unit. 

 

About the game itself I won't start. Let's just state that I don't like most design choices they made in 40k.

 

Quote

Everyone in the competitive scene will just play knights and Custodes however and you would just see more buffs to the legions rather than nerfs.

And thats why we despise these kind of players.

They ruin the game for everyone involved. They start to minmax their armies, crush their opponents and have the audacity to complain afterwards why GW let them do that. 

And because they are very loud the may be heared and GW starts tinkering on the rules and all of the sudden Pete McFluffplayer has a monstrous army in his hands and don't know why.

 

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

 

2nd has an almost 40k gap. There are a lot of units that are so bad that you've signed the game away by taking them with the rest of the unit pool being very rock paper scissors. And that ends up warping which units are taken, because only certain types of units can deal with other types. Undercosting stuff compounds on that more.

Exactly this. One could play almost every unit in the game in 1ed but in 2ed there are already so obvious differences in power level of the units that one can only shake their head in disbelief. 

Because we were spared this ever turning wheel of power which grinds through the 40k meta for years because we got our rules from a very slow (painfully slow) team of designers. Now GW took over and it feels like a bucket of icewater because we didn't go through this nonsense the last 10 years.

At least those of us who left 40k for good. 

3 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

One thing I do take heart from in 30k is that I believe there’s very few of the over performing units that can’t be fixed with a simple points increase. In other words, they’re not so egregious that their rules need rewriting, their rules are ok, they’re just undercosted for what they do. 
 

Compare that to 40K where rules are so over the top a price increase can’t fix them and they have to be rewritten all the time and it’s in a much healthier place. 

Also true. 

 

5 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

This could be avoided by making contemptors T6, or 3+ save, or 6++ atomantic, or 3 wounds, or 350 points.  Just one of those changes makes a huge difference. 

Again I agree.

Contemptors must change so you don't need to play a maxed out list which can handle them. But quite frankly they have to change a lot of units who underperform right now.

14 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I don't believe there are problematic units at all. If you are building "Thematic" armies that intentionally underperform and don't include any heavy hitters that's kind of your problem and you should be expecting more one sided uphill battles and try to take joy in defeat by measuring the successes you do have with that list. Narratively weaker forces go up against superior forces all the time and even a doomed battle can be fun.

 

Competitive 30k is totally fun and a different beast alltogether from 9th editions meta and no one should be discouraged from making competitive lists. I mean you can make what you think is the cheeziest most mathematically superior list and then get hard countered by another guys list and watch him struggle against the next guys. The best thing you can do in a group is to encourage both styles of play have casual nights with unit limits if you want while running a competitive league and occasionally meet in the middle for narrative play.

 

If there's a guy you think is a problematic player craft a list to shut his down just refusing to play against him is kinda weak especially if it's something like oh he uses a telepathy librarian. You can't go grow as a player by just refusing a challenge.

Disagree.

If someone brings a maced out list to a casual game they are the problem. 

I mean you are right in that we shouldn't refuse to play against someone because of one model. I guess nobody does that anyway, but it must be fun for both sides. And if someone can't controll themselves why should I bother to play against them? I certainly won't buy models so I can compete with them. 

 

Competitive gaming ultimately means you can't take most models in the game. I don't see the fun in it. Giving every ounce of brainpower to win a game is ok though. 

Tinkering on your list as well but to a degree I'd say. 

 

Beat is to talk to each other anyway. If someone wants to play angry lists and the opponent knows that and wants it to nothing to complain from my side  

[Brofist]

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

2nd has an almost 40k gap. There are a lot of units that are so bad that you've signed the game away by taking them with the rest of the unit pool being very rock paper scissors. And that ends up warping which units are taken, because only certain types of units can deal with other types. Undercosting stuff compounds on that more.

This is my main beef with the current edition. There are so many obviously undertuned or frankly, poorly tuned, units.

Most will never be addressed, of course

[Dark Legionnare]

21 minutes ago, Brofist said:

This is my main beef with the current edition. There are so many obviously undertuned or frankly, poorly tuned, units.

Most will never be addressed, of course

Yeah, probably mine too. On top of the absolute poor effort for most of the legacies PDF stuff. (Still looking at you leman russ vanquisher cannon firing range... wat....) the escalation facet caused by not-well-thought-out changes is pretty glaring.

My go-to example since 2.0 inception has been:

• GW: We've removed suspensor webs from vet squads.
  • Okay, well, now why would you take the couple HVY weapons the squad can if you can never move and have some form of not-snap-shooting like suspensors offered at half range?
    • GW: Oh, you're right, okay, vets have relentless now.
      • Okay. Wait, nemesis rifles' only mitigating drawback feature is they're "heavy"... and now the squad has relentless...

[Stitch5000]

10 minutes ago, Dark Legionnare said:

Yeah, probably mine too. On top of the absolute poor effort for most of the legacies PDF stuff. (Still looking at you leman russ vanquisher cannon firing range... wat....) the escalation facet caused by not-well-thought-out changes is pretty glaring.

My go-to example since 2.0 inception has been:

• GW: We've removed suspensor webs from vet squads.
  • Okay, well, now why would you take the couple HVY weapons the squad can if you can never move and have some form of not-snap-shooting like suspensors offered at half range?
    • GW: Oh, you're right, okay, vets have relentless now.
      • Okay. Wait, nemesis rifles' only mitigating drawback feature is they're "heavy"... and now the squad has relentless...

Kinda waste of that WS 5 if you are gonna have them shooting?

[Dark Legionnare]

7 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

Kinda waste of that WS 5 if you are gonna have them shooting?

Not really, I'd say. That WS5 doesn't need to be an "aggressive" bonus, just being WS5 is a huge defensive bonus too.  A squad decked out with guns, that also has the 2.0 HUGE survivability buff of being WS5 is very strong.

If you took weapon masters and were tooling them out well for melee in 1.0, then suspensor webs made the hvy weapons "assault", so you could fire them, pistols, and or any assault weapons you may've taken, like volkite chargers, and charge in.

In 2.0, with relentless, you can fire whatever weapons you want and still charge. (As long as its the same unit targeted with both, same rules as 1.0)

Edited February 17, 2023 by Dark Legionnare

[SkimaskMohawk]

You also don't need to sit back and shoot with vets if you give them snipers. You can pod or termite them in and use the snipers as a reliable source of pinning tests with only 5, and really threaten with reactions. Another 5 power weapons in the rest and you have a really annoying infantry bully unit in their backline for 270 + transport. Or just rhino them up a bit. 

 

 

[arnesh88]

I think they needed one of those "half-way" rules, like Breaching or Inexorable, for Veterans, and a change to Nemesis Bolters. Give Veterans a rule that allows them to charge even if they fired Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapons, and give Nemesis Bolters 5+ rending if they stayed stationary. "360 no-scope" shouldn't exist on tabletop games, unless that game is being tongue-in-cheek by design :P

Edited February 17, 2023 by arnesh88

[oldhat]

5 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

The only way we'll see changes is if people start playing 30k competitively. Which the exodus of 40k may bring. It's a better gaming system overall. Everyone in the competitive scene will just play knights and Custodes however and you would just see more buffs to the legions rather than nerfs.

 

Why would people play Knights? This isn't 1.0 anymore.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 minute ago, oldhat said:

 

Why would people play Knights? This isn't 1.0 anymore.

Have you actually played with any of your knights this edition? They are absolutely brutal to deal with. They make amazing allies. A Seneschal with Thermal Cannon is ment. Bring a couple armingers to nuke AV or sweep tactical squads off objectives, if you choose to ally in a full allied detachment. They also can't explode and ignore half the damage chart.

 

A Las-impulsor is S10 AP2 heavy 2 instant death and Sunder, perfect for a Questoris wanting to get into combat. 

[Astartes Consul]

You know, it is encouraging that a four-page thread has still settled on only about four units that are definitively OP. If you look at it that way, it is quite encouraging in a way?

 

Do think the point about the number of poorly performing units in 2.0 v 1.0 is a really good one! But I'm still hopeful that we'll soon get some idea of how the next round of official rules are going to be released and will be able how much scope for a rebalance their might be.

[SkimaskMohawk]

This is clown world right? A world where contemptors are deemed not a big deal, while knights are considered "brutal to deal with".

 

A questoris is 380 base.

 

It has a very good invul save now, but is still a vehicle and takes d3 extra hull points from any explodes results. 10 las average 2.475 hull points per turn against a knight and 3.61 against a contemptor, but you can get two contemptors for the same cost. It takes roughly three turns for those las to kill a knight, but four to kill the contemptors, without taking into account any potential spike from explodes result.

 

The knight moves 2" faster than the dread and gets the same +1 to charge. It's speed is offset by the fact that two contemptors apply twice as much pressure, as they're in more than one place. 

 

In combat, the knight loses its invul. Its weapon skill is lower, with the same initiative and attacks. Its stomp attacks offset the low base value, but also come in at I1. It's base weapon is str 10 ap2 shred, which is worse against every non vehicle unit barring gal vorbak and custodes. Even at max stomp, double weapon, and charging, a questoris averages 4.98 compared to the the double contemptors 5.48. The knight also can't sweep. In the infamous equivalent points face off, two contemptors with a fist+chainfist crush it on the charge. In fact, one contemptor alone is able to solo it, even if the knight charges it.

 

The knights one claim to fame is the thermal cannon with its unit deleting large blast. It barely has to sacrifice combat output and can use it's range+movement to always threaten some infantry. But that's it. There's other ways to get quality large blasts, other ways to get quality melee, and a good amount of them don't give Price of Failure. 

 

Now take everything I said and reapply it to the armiger; it's more expensive, more vulnerable to taking damage, and has worse melee output with the upsides of getting into melee faster and having a longer ranged gun. But it can also get pinned, and swept. With only stubborn ld7 to give you any hope; you charge it into 20 tacs and they win combat easily with an average 3.9 wounds to it's 1.66. It literally either dies or gets swept after two rounds of combat. Against tacs. With no overwatch or fury taken into account. You can have an 800 point unit of 4 armigers locked down by the tely librarian forcing the LD test on insane courage. 

 

I'm also not sure what isn't exploding in this magical world, because both knights and armigers explode on death. 

 

Also the las-impulsor is trash. You trade out the only good part of the knight for a 12" weapon. That still doesn't solve it's dreadnought problem. 

 

 

[oldhat]

SkimaskMohawk nailed it. Knights took a major over-correction because they were too good in 1.0.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

52 minutes ago, oldhat said:

SkimaskMohawk nailed it. Knights took a major over-correction because they were too good in 1.0.

Wouldn't know what he says. He's been blocked for months. I've been playing knights, and I can tell ya they are really good and still on the over powered side.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea so for anyone else who didn't play 1st, here's what knights used to do.

 

They ranged from 335-385 for any versions with melee (since the questoris now can't go double ranged).

 

They used to move 12".

 

Their avenger Gatling used to be ap3. Their thermal cannon used to be str 9. Their rapid-battlecannon used to be 72" and AP3.

 

They used to hit almost everything at worse on 4s.

 

They used to reduce enemy WS to 1 off a leadership test.

 

Their melee weapons were destroyer. Each hit would just roll on a custom chart. On a 2-5 they'd do a pen+d3 hull points or d3 wounds (and count as str 10). On a 6 they'd do d6+6 hullpoints or d6+6 wounds, ignoring all forms of saves.

 

Their stomp used to lay down d3 small blast templates. The first had to have it's edge touching the knights base, but the rest could be placed within 3" of the previous one. Once again, there was a chart. 2-5 was a str 6 ap4 hit or pen. 6 removed the model or scattered the vehicle d6" and caused an explode. The combination of the blasts tagging stuff out of combat and potentially removing anything they touched was a signature night move.

 

Their explosion was far more lethal, putting the apocalyptic mega blast down, scattering it, and always doing a D/2 center and at the high end having a 10/3, 5/4 fall off. It was often used offensively after driving the knight into the opponents lines and already hitting with D attacks and stomp. This was the main reason why the malcador got nerfed. 

 

They didn't give up VPs on death

 

In return for losing all that and going up in points, they gained a 5++ in the facings their 4+ doesn't cover and got an extra hull point. 

 

So no, the knight is not still overpowered. Its solid now; you shouldn't feel bad about taking it like some of the terrible LoWs, but it's job is done better by two dreads for no risk. And to paraphrase someone from earlier on; most armies are able to kill a knight in one turn. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Noserenda]

Yeah all the knight players i know just resigned themselves to not playing Knights in 2nd ed 30k, which i guess was the intention tbh, well that and selling a few more armigers. Armigers do benefit from being immune to a bunch of AT stuff by dint of bad rules writing though :D 

Regards the row over the last few pages; playing competitive 30k is great, playing narrative 30k is great, playing competitive 30k and pretending you are being narrative is great too ;) The important thing is you are your opponent are both doing the same thing, if you are trying to force them to "git gud" or bitching about their list/model choices not matching your sole vision thats not cool. 

[Gorgoff]

21 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Wouldn't know what he says. He's been blocked for months. I've been playing knights, and I can tell ya they are really good and still on the over powered side.

But also made the very bold claim that the "average army list" can kill "several contemptors a turn" which is a puzzling because at the same time you seem to think that knights are OP. I'd say an army which can  kill several dreadnoughts a turn easily can kill several knights because they are worse.

A questoris is 380 base.

 

It has a very good invul save now, but is still a vehicle and takes d3 extra hull points from any explodes results. 10 las average 2.475 hull points per turn against a knight and 3.61 against a contemptor, but you can get two contemptors for the same cost. It takes roughly three turns for those las to kill a knight, but four to kill the contemptors, without taking into account any potential spike from explodes result.

 

The knight moves 2" faster than the dread and gets the same +1 to charge. It's speed is offset by the fact that two contemptors apply twice as much pressure, as they're in more than one place. 

 

In combat, the knight loses its invul. Its weapon skill is lower, with the same initiative and attacks. Its stomp attacks offset the low base value, but also come in at I1. It's base weapon is str 10 ap2 shred, which is worse against every non vehicle unit barring gal vorbak and custodes. Even at max stomp, double weapon, and charging, a questoris averages 4.98 compared to the the double contemptors 5.48. The knight also can't sweep. In the infamous equivalent points face off, two contemptors with a fist+chainfist crush it on the charge. In fact, one contemptor alone is able to solo it, even if the knight charges it.

 

The knights one claim to fame is the thermal cannon with its unit deleting large blast. It barely has to sacrifice combat output and can use it's range+movement to always threaten some infantry. But that's it. There's other ways to get quality large blasts, other ways to get quality melee, and a good amount of them don't give Price of Failure. 

 

Now take everything I said and reapply it to the armiger; it's more expensive, more vulnerable to taking damage, and has worse melee output with the upsides of getting into melee faster and having a longer ranged gun. But it can also get pinned, and swept. With only stubborn ld7 to give you any hope; you charge it into 20 tacs and they win combat easily with an average 3.9 wounds to it's 1.66. It literally either dies or gets swept after two rounds of combat. Against tacs. With no overwatch or fury taken into account. You can have an 800 point unit of 4 armigers locked down by the tely librarian forcing the LD test on insane courage. 

 

I'm also not sure what isn't exploding in this magical world, because both knights and armigers explode on death. 

 

Also the las-impulsor is trash. You trade out the only good part of the knight for a 12" weapon. That still doesn't solve it's dreadnought problem. 

You know?

I guess you play a lot against Custodes against whom they are nice but against legions contemptors are better. 

 

@SkimaskMohawk 

 

The bigger problem for the game at the moment is the lack of FAQ support though. 

 

Edit: spelling 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Gorgoff

[Dont-Be-Haten]

@Gorgoff so, if I brought a 3k knight house against you at locals you wouldn't have a problem with playing against it? We're talking Porphyion, 7 total  Heverlins and Warglaives, with 2 questoris knights against your standard list? Or would you want me to let you know in advance I was bringing a knight list?

 

If you answer "No" to playing against it, or "yes" to wanting some advanced notice I think that would be a telling argument that knights are better than you think/giving credit for. In a vacuum of competition they still perform at high levels especially as allies.

[SkimaskMohawk]

We're talking full skew lol. Every skew list has an advantage without advance notice. That's the entire nature of it; you invest solely in a single statline and bet your opponents list lacks the resources to make effective tradea. This has been a fact of playing 30k for 10 years, and 2nd didn't change it at all.

 

I'm having hard time putting my bewilderment into words. There are so many contradicting claims and illogical comparisons:

 

• Claiming 2-3 dreads are easily dealt with by most lists.
• Claiming that knights are overpowered and taking 2 armigers and a knight (3 units) as allies is a highly performing, competitive choice. 
• Not applying the same counter arguments raised against 2-3 contemptors (~425 points) to 3 knights (~780 points). 
• Claiming that anyone wanting to be warned 3000 points of full-skew knight household proves knights are overpowered.
• Claiming that full-skew armoured spearhead should be viewed as more problematic than 2-3 contemptors.
• Not understanding that full skew is always a problem.
• Not doing any analysis on contemptors compared to the units he claims are overpowered or problematic.
• Refusing to ever consider an equitable volume of dreadnoughts in comparison to his counters or other overpowered units.

It's just been a series of logical gaps; there's no honest way to claim dreadnoughts being easy to deal with, while simultaneously claiming knights make high level, competitive, allies. Even if it was just gut feelings that were presented as fact, the doubling down page after page turns it into bad faith.