The things the are, that shouldn't of and all those between

[chapter master 454]

mods feel free to let loose meltas anytime...I feel this one might get spicy since we had a good few warning bonks from crozius up in News in the calgar thread.

 

Preface: I am a heavy armour lover, I love Imperial Knights as my favourite faction above all despite the gameplay dissonance I get from them due to be a stat-check army...I like clever play but also I cannot hold back my love for big stompy robots and big armoured TREADED tanks.

 

There were a good few bolt rounds sent flying so I decided to make this because hey, I like making the spicy threads for fraters to let fly in in hopes to keep things civil and not have another thread get the emperor's peace. This thread may die so others may live. The discourse was around the idea of some factions shouldn't exist within the tabletop space, mainly focused on Imperial Knights (and thus by extension Chaos Knights too) and how they shouldn't exist as a faction due to being a one note army where they are all stat-check and not much else. Now, this got heated with comments that can be best paraphrased as "skill issue" being hurled hither and tither.

 

This is actually an interesting topic as this complaint can be considered valid. 40k is a rather massive game now, now old enough to have ether had or be past it's middle life crisis the game has come a long long way from the distant past of the 80s (that's knocking 50 years boys...IS THAT A GREY HAIR?) and so we have had factions come, go, come back and lore be written and re-written and re-un-written to then be un-re-re-un-re-written. It's a beautful mess of lore, factions and characters. From the beginning we had the Space Marines, Imperial Guard (-simpson meme about being cold and dead because I call them astra miliwhatsit-) along side chaos, eldar and orks...things like necrons were still called chaos androids and railguns were a far off future. As the game as evolved and progressed, we have seen things come and go, though as of late to the issue of some: a lot more coming than going and what is going is what they wanted to stay.

 

Factions being added as been a constant factor of 40k. Necrons debuted in full in 3rd editions then skipped 4th to reach their full form in 5th. Squats got got before just showing up again full and healthy again in 9th (with what I consider the best april fools GW did next to the 'Eavy Metal sprayer). Even before this, the time between 4th and 7 saw many factions show up, even tau sprung up I believe somewhere at the tail of 3rd edition I believe...or was it 4th. We saw the Harlequins and Adeptus Custodes make their appearance from lore to table as well, along with other new sub-factions appearing like the Ynnari and the big stompy themselves: Imperial Knights. The Knights would later see the creation of chaos knights as an index before getting their own range and so chaos knights became their own. We have even seen within the time of new factions being added other venerable factions receive updates and refreshes, Dark Eldar I recall got one in 5th (and now looking for another in 10th...calm down now...Ultramarines only just got their 205th character release, have some manners) and more recently we've seen Sisters of Battle become less lethal hitting projectiles of metal into glorious emperor blessed plastic.

 

But this does come with some...issues. While each faction is unique and wonderful in their own way, it could be called into question why?

Harlequins and Custodes are supposed be the very best of the best. A single custodes capable of soloing an entire squad of marines as a warm-up, Harlequins are so skilled they sandbag battles by making them into plays and games. Ynnari were clearly an faction meant to bring about the great end of 40k and give us the age of sigmar version of 40k...and looking back I wonder if maybe some people would of preferred that future...

Imperial Knights certainly wrinkle feathers however as often they are pointed at as the poster boys (and girls) of non-games as unless you packed your 20 pack of lascannons, you may find it hard to cut them down with aught but bayonet, lasguns and a rather zealous commissar behind you. The faction is nothing but armour, and heavy armour at that which takes anti-tank to bring down so if you don't have it, it becomes a game of survive which just doesn't feel fun.

 

However I would counter point this, just to add a note about that matter; does that mean skew lists are bad then? After all, if all armour is bad then all infantry is bad then too because if I didn't bring my chaff de-chaffer 9000 (with add-ons) then I may as well not play ether as I now roll dice...watch models get picked up and yet similar to how no damage might happen to knights...taking 20 out of 200 still looks like I did nothing. So that would imply Orks, Guard and Tyranids are bad factions as that is kind of their signature thing...hordes. The guard are known in lore for winning not by superior firepower...they win by having more men than enemy does bullets, and orks similarly just don't care while tyranids are kind of just hungry.

 

The question thus to be fielded: does any faction in the game not deserve to be here? and if so how would you write Ynnari out of the lore :D

Further: what units do you feel shouldn't of existed (and we aren't talking Primaris purely here, what units got made and you can only think: why?)

 

Reminder: be civil, nice and remember these are just opinions and not ironclad facts people will discuss. I will not mourn this thread, I've made a good couple based on spicy topics and seen equal measures of them get actually discourse and I've seen a good measure get the emperor's peace. Be kind, pleasant and remember:

This is about plastic build-a-soldiers in a silly fictional future setting that was based off satire. Though...power armour super-humans rocking a guitar that melts brains is pretty metal!

[N1SB]

I think ever since 8th ed's shift, everything can kill everything mentality, I think nothing should be verboten now.  I do hear what Brother Eye is saying, like for example Imperial/Chaos Knights are inherently skewed by design.  Still, I'm okay with it, as I've had this idea: sometimes I think of an army (including mine) as NPCs.

 

What you're describing, Brother Eye, is where every army is balanced as a Player Versus Player game.  But having made Narrative lists surrounding like all Nurglings as Troops in 8th and Triple C'tan, which are very skewed, my own meta, my friends, actually ask to play against them.  They know it's NOT a normal game...that's the attraction.

 

The comparison I make is imagine a multiplayer video game.  Normally it's PvP.  However, that game has extra, BONUS game modes, like a Horde Mode (against said Nurglings) or a Boss Fight Mode (like the above Triple C'tan).  There IS a condition: people in the meta get that's what those armies are.

 

Sometimes when I play such armies, I think of myself as a Game Master for a RPG, like D&D, players fighting a giant monster.

 

They say you need your opponent's consent, but it's beyond that, it's like your meta's consensus.  It's a shared understanding.

 

It is not unique even with Games Workshop games.  I would point to Blood Bowl.  It's supposed to be a sport, which are usually regulated, balanced, referee'd, for fairness.  Anyone who's played it knows it's hilariously not, like anyone who plays a Halfling Blood Bowl team is the real hero.  That works because everyone gets it.

 

I think because 40k has become increasingly tournament focused with frequent Balance Dataslates that this might look out of place now.

 

And thus, I think this discussion is meaningful.  We're creating that recognition now.  The Guardsmen fixing bayonets to charge a Chaos Knight Titan that Brother Eye described, they're the equivalent of the Halfling Blood Bowl team, and thus the real heroes.  Honour the charge they made.

[ThaneOfTas]

Frankly I think that there are two seperate questions here.

 

1. Does the introduction of inherently heavily skewed factions such as Imperial Knights have a negative impact on game balance?

 

2. If the answer to the previous is yes, should those factions be removed.

 

For me, I tend to give a tentative yes to the first question, and an emphatic no to the second. Skew lists are inherently a bit unbalanced, that can be either for or against the one playing that list, however it's hard to argue otherwise.

 

That being said, it is incredibly poor hobby etiquette to advocate for the removal of another hobbiests faction from the game. Have some respect for the time, effort and money that your fellow hobbiests have put into their armies.

 

As for what should be done instead, I saw a very similar discussion on Reddit a couple of days ago where there were a few suggestions, my favourite being a partial return of the vehicle damage chart. Not necessarily with the AV facing systems of <8th ed/heresy, however where there is a possibility of meaningfully damaging a vehicle without outright killing it.

 

Bracketing vehicles in 10th is just not meaningful enough, and in my experience (as someone who hasn't played a large amount of 10th, but has played against knights for most of what he has played) just doesn't actually come up that often, by the time that a vehicle is about to hit its bracket, it normally goes down that turn anyway.

 

when you shoot at an infantry squad and take out say a quarter of the squads health, then the squad is shooting back at roughly 3/4 effectiveness. Being able to take some weapons on a knight offline would provide a similar result.

[siegfriedfr]

GW has made it painfully clear that selling models is their top priority. This is why we got flyers and knights in a game format that cannot handle them.

 

Anyway, i believe that the inherent flaw of 40k is that lethality and wounds are too high, and should go down across the board. 

 

Also an infantry- only format ala Boarding Actions/ Zone Mortalis should be the baseline of 40k, and not just a barely updated afterthought. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:14 PM by siegfriedfr

[gaurdian31]

I started in 3rd and have a friend who plays guard and loves tanks. I've been playing against tank heavy armies for a long time and I would never begrudge that friend playing them, even if they are a hard army for me to play into as I love having infantry on the board, mostly because money wise I feel I get more worth out of multiple smaller models than one big model. Also infantry looks cooler to me. When Knights came out I bought into them as they were basically really big infantry and a low model count army. I don't think they cause that much of an issue, but my views are a little skewed since I have been playing against heavy armor since I started. Heck back then most of my units couldn't even hurt tanks unless they got behind them or in melee so the fact that I can damage them even with a bolter now is much better.  I think all of the factions that are here deserve to be here. I do hope GW does a better job of supporting non-marine factions in the future, especially daemons. Give us back our codex or at the very least Crusade rules! Sorry for the rant.

 

TLDR: Heavy armor has always been in the game, now there is more of it but at least there is a chance for any weapon to do something to them instead of just anti-tank specific weapons. Also all current factions deserve to be in the game and supported.

[ThePenitentOne]

7 hours ago, siegfriedfr said:

GW has made it painfully clear that selling models is their top priority. This is why we got flyers and knights in a game format that cannot handle them.

 

Anyway, i believe that the inherent flaw of 40k is that lethality and wounds are too high, and should go down across the board. 

 

Also an infantry- only format ala Boarding Factions/ Zone Mortalis should be the baseline of 40k, and not just a barely updated afterthought. 

 

Just want to respond to this before I get to the larger theme of the thread.

 

As a publicly traded company, it's true that everything that GW does goes through a strict cost/ benefits analysis in order to ensure adequate shareholder returns to sustain the company. But I think you may be underestimating the number of people who wanted both aircraft AND knights in the base game. As one of those people, I assure you, we exist, whether you believe/ acknowledge that fact or not. 

 

Since wounds and lethality are opposites, both of them being too high requires a bit more explanation. If wounds were too high, there would not be enough lethality... So if lethality is a problem, then everything having too many wounds CAN'T be a problem. That may just be me not understanding your meaning here, so I welcome any clarification.

 

And I LOVE Boarding Actions, and DO wish it got more updates, but I don't want it to be the "Baseline" game. There are a thousand and one infantry baseline games (though most of them won't last a decade and they don't have a 10th of GW's marketshare). I think the thing that makes 40k stand out is that it ISN'T a baseline infantry game, and I believe if you make it one, the game will hemorrhage players until the company starts to struggle. Many people play this game because it gives them the spectacle that other games (even those with arguably superior mechanics) cannot.

 

In fact, I think I resist the idea that there needs to be a "Baseline" version of the game at all. I think the game should make it VERY clear that there is no one right way to play 40k, and that if you want a game that has only one right way to play it, you might consider looking elsewhere. I think that since 8th, GW has been trying to do this, and I think that the increase to the playerbase is an indicator that it is working.

 

To the main topic:

 

I've always felt that the game would benefit from a "Tournament Edition" - so that people whose primary concern is winning have a game mode that favours that priority. This is not to say that I want non-Tournament mode games to become LESS balanced; I think the status quo IS balanced enough for non-Tournament game modes. And in fact, since neither Knights nor Aircraft heavy are breaking the tournament scene, I'm not even sure that Tournament Mode needs more balance... But I suggest it as a way of getting players who want more balance to leave the big beautiful sand box that is Crusade escalation campaigning alone. The cult of streamlining has already taken its toll on that sandbox IMO with things like the decimation of psychic rules... But provided it goes no further, I can live with it.

 

The new Crusade rules for Knights, with pilots able to use different Knights, are super cool, and they make me consider knights as more than modelling projects. I love the idea of a lowly Armiger Pilot growing into the next Canis Rex over the course of a campaign. I think any rule that would make that less common or more difficult to achieve is a rule that should be considered quite carefully prior to implementation, because personally I believe that the cost will almost always be greater than the benefit.

 

Balance in Crusade is an ephemeral thing. I think that, yes, GW should take reasonable steps to do their best with it... But a single Battle Honour or scar given to the right or wrong unit has the potential to influence balance FAR MORE than any of the interminable points up dates that it seems like we have to deal with every month or two. Maybe there aren't as many of these as it feels like to me (because I hate them), but I much prefer 9th's philosophy of "These updates are for matched play only, because we know that if you're a Crusader, you've probably earned enough Honours or Scars or play enough asymmetric or custom missions that a few more points here and a few less there won't have anywhere near as much impact on balance as these Core elements of Crusade do."

 

I remember in 9th when GW nerfed ALL aircraft because of problems with Ork aircraft spam, and I got to say "Ha! I can still play Imperial Guard aircavalry because those were matched play updates only." Those were the days.

 

 

[jaxom]

I'd like to offer up the 3rd edition Daemonhunters codex as a positive example of how to handle deploying niche faction (I consider them niche at that time). Their codex included rules for your opponent ("you have a character who is low-key possessed and they release a daemon when killed" or "have some free daemons" for example) and missions reflective of when and why the Grey Knights would deploy as an army (purge daemonic presence, assassinate/exorcise daemonhosts, or close a warpbreach).

 

I think it was a really great way for players on both sides of the table to engage with what made the faction fun and different.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

I have four IK and they stay mostly in the glass cabinet. GW should have done a separate game for IK and used a smaller model size more akin to Battletech. Then it could have been a blast using them. Right now it´s a hassle of even removing these gigantic models out of the glass cabinet.

[siegfriedfr]

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

As a publicly traded company, it's true that everything that GW does goes through a strict cost/ benefits analysis in order to ensure adequate shareholder returns to sustain the company. But I think you may be underestimating the number of people who wanted both aircraft AND knights in the base game. As one of those people, I assure you, we exist, whether you believe/ acknowledge that fact or not. 

 

I do believe you as a model collector want Flyers and Knights on the tabletop. I also believe the problems it creates for the gameplay are a secondary concerns to you, as you admit further down the thread that you see a game of 40k as more of a spectacle with an inferior ruleset (your words more or less).

 

My stance is clear : if it creates problems of balance, then it shouldn't be in the game, no matter if there is less "spectacle". GW stance is : "can we sell it in enough quantityt to justify the investment ? ". No worries, GW stance isn't likely to change.

 

That said, Apocalypse is a much better ruleset for Flyers, Knights and Superheavies. But regular 40k just isn't. I daresay, never will be.

 

 

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

Since wounds and lethality are opposites, both of them being too high requires a bit more explanation. If wounds were too high, there would not be enough lethality... So if lethality is a problem, then everything having too many wounds CAN'T be a problem. That may just be me not understanding your meaning here, so I welcome any clarification.

 

I think i just conflate those 2 things into one : wounds and lethality evolve hand in hand within the 40k ruleset. Less lethality would also mean less wounds necessary.

 

Case in point : primaris marines and their 2 wounds / the big wounds upgrade for 10th edition for every vehicle/monster to counter the high amount of AP and S available to everyone (except the Crudace-nerfed Tyranids).

 

 

2 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

And I LOVE Boarding Actions, and DO wish it got more updates, but I don't want it to be the "Baseline" game. There are a thousand and one infantry baseline games (though most of them won't last a decade and they don't have a 10th of GW's marketshare). I think the thing that makes 40k stand out is that it ISN'T a baseline infantry game, and I believe if you make it one, the game will hemorrhage players until the company starts to struggle. Many people play this game because it gives them the spectacle that other games (even those with arguably superior mechanics) cannot.

 

In fact, I think I resist the idea that there needs to be a "Baseline" version of the game at all. I think the game should make it VERY clear that there is no one right way to play 40k, and that if you want a game that has only one right way to play it, you might consider looking elsewhere. I think that since 8th, GW has been trying to do this, and I think that the increase to the playerbase is an indicator that it is working.

 

When i say baseline, i mean the 500-750 pts bracket of a 40k game should have a no-vehicles/characters rule. Such a mode would be more newcomer friendly, requires less handling for quick beer and pretzel games, and would feel a less daunting task for people who want to start a new army but don't want to commit to vehicles/big centerpieces immediately.

 

This does not invalidate the existence of bigger games, or even apocalypse games.

 

In fact, i think there should also be a no-flyer rules until 1750 points, and that Apoc should be the fully and continuously supported mode for games > 2500 pts.

Edited Wednesday at 05:26 PM by siegfriedfr

[sitnam]

3 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I have four IK and they stay mostly in the glass cabinet. GW should have done a separate game for IK and used a smaller model size more akin to Battletech. Then it could have been a blast using them. Right now it´s a hassle of even removing these gigantic models out of the glass cabinet.

 

I mean they have Titanicus/LI, but I don't think that appeals to those who:

 

A. Don't care for the Heresy setting

B. Dont care for the scale.

 

The attraction of Knights for most collectors is their size and scale.

[Focslain]

3 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I have four IK and they stay mostly in the glass cabinet. GW should have done a separate game for IK and used a smaller model size more akin to Battletech. Then it could have been a blast using them. Right now it´s a hassle of even removing these gigantic models out of the glass cabinet.

This is kind of what Adeptus Titanicus is supposed to be, the issue is that it's a specialist game so might not have a shelf life of more then three years.

 

2 hours ago, siegfriedfr said:

When i say baseline, i mean the 500-750 pts bracket of a 40k game should have a no-vehicles/characters rule. Such a mode would be more newcomer friendly, requires less handling for quick beer and pretzel games, and would feel a less daunting task for people who want to start a new army but don't want to commit to vehicles/big centerpieces immediately.

This is what combat Patrol is turning into, most of the more recent CPs don't have heavy vehicles or monsters. So GW is moving towards that, which is good cause those CPs tend to be the harder ones to deal with. 

[jaxom]

Question for y'all because I want to get an idea of where people are at. Absent of mechanics, gut feeling, how many Space Marines with krak grenades does it take to kill a Knight (armed with big chainsword) in close combat assuming the Marines got the drop on it (like maybe in a city fight)? And how many Marines are not living through that fight?

[chapter master 454]

Hmm...some interesting takes here. Going to wade back in just to stir the pot politely with some counter points and thoughts.

 

One: the matter of balance. I see the concept that if it upsets balance, it shouldn't exist...lets see...seigfredfr...interesting comment there. However, I counter-point then that infantry have also caused issues in the game and thus shouldn't exist. The conscript masses, the ork hordes of 30 boyz with 4+ cover saves of yore (back in 5th, if 50% of the unit wasn't visible, that entire unit got a 4+ save akin to a invulnerable. Not the game but similar...want to cut through 30 ork boyz with a 4+?), Imperial Guard infantry spam has been recurring in fact with the recent flavour being recon having guardsmen walking around with a 3+ save which I feel is funny since I believe admech in 9th were running around with infantry packing a 2+ due to similar layering of defences.

So...infantry cause problems and so shouldn't be in the game. But that isn't true now is it and we both know that however always good to point that using extremes isn't a good foundation of an argument. Knights are actually an army that suffers from various issues, however being powerful isn't one of them. While yes, they sidewinder anyone who thinks they can leave home without some lascannons but they do have the rather glaring issue that the advantage of being a giant walking machine of death the size of a small build also comes with the disadvantage of being a giant walking machine of death the size of a small building. While they have been given boosts to allow movement around boards, that was patched onto them after some time and is a symptom of terrain rules, we see the issues knights would have in other factions fighting to get their super-heavies onto the board and move them around. This mobility issue comes with a number of challenges and makes move-blocking knights far easier, in fact it is rather silly how easy it is to sand-bag a knights progress as action economy is the 2nd and biggest issue. Yes, I have my 4 big scary boys but that's 4 units that have to do a lot of lifting of positioning, board control, objective taking and enemy clearing.

 

However I do note, seems that a certain faction is getting away with nary a look, mention nor thought...maybe because infantry privilege extends to more than just terrain...

Adeptus Custodes. The stat-check infantry army that asks if you brought enough elite infantry killing tools isn't getting any sort of flak I notice. Suppose I did load the question towards knights and they were the ones taking heat but still, the golden boys by all rights are due some licks I would think or are they a perfectly balanced army that should exist, despite the fact they are getting dangerously close to being "Knights but good luck with damage gates called model count". 2+ armour saves, 4++ as standard and their melee power is just...nigh unmatched. With terrain making any staging you want possible, I would of thought the Custodes should catch some heat since these are the infantry that invalidate infantry. There isn't an infantry unit in the game these boys can't shred, being it your 20 strong chaff, to the elite terminators of the deathwing (that example is from experience...5 deathwing terminators...poof...gone...like after meal mints). These guys walk onto the board, can hide far more easily than knights, can tank hits far better than knights and yet knights catch the heat.

I wonder if this is because of the toughness value. Suppose rolling 6s to wound makes a difference but all matters aside...that isn't different when your opponent's 2+ save just bounces all your standard issue bolter rounds.

 

Remember: I'm the defender of heavy armour on the table. Baneblades, Knights, Land Raiders, Rogal Dorns and all armour that takes claim to be the big guns are my love. I want for nothing but to have armour on the table. I remember running the cheapest captain possible and 2 scout squads in 4th just so I could field my land raiders over anything else. To this day I still yearn to put armour on the table over boots. So remember I am being the contrarian here for sake of debate and because it is my position. Its a wonderful discourse we are seeing here and happy to see it be civil.

 

Oh and to address Legions Imperial and Adeptus Titanicus: I know it may seem odd but I have zero interest in those games personally for multiple reasons. Cost, no-one else to play with and just not really enamoured by the game play. Adeptus Titancus does tickle me but ultimately...no-one to play with and as mentioned likely a limited life. On top of that, the spectacle isn't the same. It doesn't have that level of gravity when the models are the size of marines or dreadnoughts...it doesn't quite hit the same as a knight model in 40k does. Its the same idea to seeing a real forge world titan, even just a warhound. Yea, the AT or LI models are the same design but...it isn't the same in nature of it all. It's about having big toys.

[ThePenitentOne]

@siegfriedfr

 

I'm gonna reply this way, since I haven't figured out how to split a quote block so I can reply to a piece at a time.

 

To your first response: I agree that Apocalypse provided better support for both Flyers and Superheavies. I also agree that there should be a game play mode that does exclude certain units in order to provide the closest thing to balance that GW can provide; those excluded units could be things like the most egregious of named characters in addition to flyers and superheavies. I DON'T think such a game mode should necessarily be linked to game size though, for reasons I'll get into in discussions of your other responses.

 

However, I need to clarify what I said, because your simplification of what I said glosses over the most important points I was trying to make.

 

Personally, I can't say whether GW's rules are inferior to other rulesets, but it is a thing other people say in forums ALL THE TIME. The reason I can't testify is that most other wargames bore me to tears because of the limits of their model ranges- I find most factions in other wargames too similar to each other, and I find most other wargames also have too few factions. My argument has always been that the best rules will never sell me on a game if I don't love the model range, and no other games company even comes close to GW.

 

I think that the absence of a supported play mode that enable the use of these models would financially damage the company so much that it would trigger stock sell-off which would spiral the company closer to insolvency. Again, there can exist a play mode that gives you what you want while another play mode gives me what I both want, and believe is essential to the continued existence of the company that gives us the game.

 

And of course, the kneejerk reaction will be to say "40k did just fine before flyers and superheavies" which, to a certain extent is true. But it's also true that the range was much, much smaller and easier to support back then with both fewer factions, fewer models in each, fewer specialist games which ALSO had fewer factions with fewer models per faction. I know the sale of Marines finances ALL of GW, but you start chipping away at the peripheral elements of the Games Workshop phenomenon, and there could be unintended consequences which end up impacting the company's output.

 

Your second response does clarify the point of view, and I get what you're saying. 

 

Your third response also clarifies your point of view, however I think I still have to disagree, because I love the whole Kill Team + Leader + Transport sized army. One of the coolest army lists I ever came up with was an Inquisitor leading a 5 strong Death Watch kill team and a Watchmaster leading another 5 strong kill team and all twelve of the models packed in a Blackstar.

 

A similar design would be an Inquisitor, a Retinue of 6 Agents, and 5 Scions packed into Chimera. Both of these are cool little rapid-response, troubleshooter forces. It makes sense for a leader and a team to load into a transport to get stuff done. But forces this small would fall into the points range that you want to restrict to infantry models. I just feel like that really limits the scope and narrative potential of low point games.

 

So again, an infantry only mode? Fine with me. Limiting it exclusively to small point games while also limiting small point games to use that mode exclusively? Hard pass.   

[ThaneOfTas]

1 hour ago, chapter master 454 said:

However I do note, seems that a certain faction is getting away with nary a look, mention nor thought...maybe because infantry privilege extends to more than just terrain...

Adeptus Custodes. The stat-check infantry army that asks if you brought enough elite infantry killing tools isn't getting any sort of flak I notice.

You are certainly correct that in this particular round of these discussions that Knights are the boogey man this time and as such are the target of choice. However part of the reason that I always try and defend the Knights right to exist as a faction is because as someone with a sizable Custodes force, I really, really get sick of seeing people make exactly these arguments about Custodes as well. Hell with Custodes they tend to come from both sides with talk of both balance and lore reasons why my army shouldn't exist.

 

I think thats a load of personally. Plenty of other factions have had systemic balance issues and questionable lore justifications for being major enough players to get a model line, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist.

[Evil Eye]

Knights are a tough one; they're very cool models and I think they have a place in the game, but a full army of them in "regular" 40K as a thing that the system has to be built around as a common occurrence is something that doesn't quite work to me. Then again I am vehemently opposed to everything-can-kill-everything as a mechanic, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

To my way of thinking, excluding, "squatting them entirely" as an option (which I genuinely wouldn't want to see) there's a few options I can see for making Knights work in a theoretical improved 40K that alleviates the inherent skew of having a supposedly indomitable demigod of steel and zeal that has to not be completely broken whilst still feeling like Knights (not being vulnerable to small arms), and honestly I think you could combine a few of them.

 

1: Rework Knights so they're not an army but aren't squatted either; rather, they're an allied force you can take as part of another army. This would allow Knights to be appropriately powerful but not something you have to build your army around, though for people who want to field a force of stompy mecha that would be a bit disappointing.

2: Rework the rules for Knights such that whilst they can't just be shot to death by shootas or lasguns or whatever, they can still be harmed by things smaller than monstrous creatures. One thing I think could work is having rules for infantry being able to pull a Death Or Glory style attack on the things, being presumably armed for the occasion with special issue melta bombs (or anti-stompin' bommz, some weird biomorph that sprays quickly-replicating metal-eating phage cells, etc) so that if your anti-superheavy guns are taken out, you can still take the buggers down via a shockingly brave/stupid charge. It wouldn't be completely outside the realms of in-universe possibility either given how infantry with anti-armour weapons can thoroughly ruin the day of IRL tanks even now, and all they're really need to do is cripple the thing's legs. It could even have a special leadership penalty to the rest of the army (or bonus to the opponent) if a Knight is destroyed this way.

3: Pull a 3E Necrons with Phase Out and have it so utterly tabling the army isn't necessary to claim victory; whilst obviously very hard to kill, the loss of a single Knight is obviously a major blow. As such, in an army composed entirely of Knights (and Armigers) if a certain percentage of the army is destroyed, they are forced to retreat to preserve their precious and borderline irreplaceable steeds; this way you could still make them very hard to kill, but you don't need to worry about getting rid of all of them to claim victory.

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

7 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

 

However I do note, seems that a certain faction is getting away with nary a look, mention nor thought...maybe because infantry privilege extends to more than just terrain...

Adeptus Custodes. The stat-check infantry army that asks if you brought enough elite infantry killing tools isn't getting any sort of flak I notice. Suppose I did load the question towards knights and they were the ones taking heat but still, the golden boys by all rights are due some licks I would think or are they a perfectly balanced army that should exist, despite the fact they are getting dangerously close to being "Knights but good luck with damage gates called model count". 2+ armour saves, 4++ as standard and their melee power is just...nigh unmatched. With terrain making any staging you want possible, I would of thought the Custodes should catch some heat since these are the infantry that invalidate infantry. There isn't an infantry unit in the game these boys can't shred, being it your 20 strong chaff, to the elite terminators of the deathwing (that example is from experience...5 deathwing terminators...poof...gone...like after meal mints). These guys walk onto the board, can hide far more easily than knights, can tank hits far better than knights and yet knights catch the heat.

 

 

I do think that Custodes are extremly unfun to play against in casual games and their rules are one of the reasons why I think they should be squatted back. However, I think that it's just an unavoidable result of trying to translate the fluff to the tabletop. And I would say that they still are not as elitly elite elite as they should according to fluff. The main problem is thet thay are so above any one else in therms of power inuniverse. I also don't like the fluff introduced to expand them into a full fledged faction. I think it paints a ridiculous picture of security of the Sol System only to give them something to do, what in turn undermines the idea of making them more active outside of it. Similar problem is with GSC. They are usually set as hive world rebelions relying on mass of untrained militants and this is simply not tranfarable to the tabletop in wh scale. Instead of urban uprising they are figthing field battles as if they were a regular army. For me this faction is another mistake. I would also throw in Votann, because there's not a single model I like in their line.

 

[ThePenitentOne]

6 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

 

I do think that Custodes are extremly unfun to play against in casual games and their rules are one of the reasons why I think they should be squatted back. However, I think that it's just an unavoidable result of trying to translate the fluff to the tabletop. And I would say that they still are not as elitly elite elite as they should according to fluff. The main problem is thet thay are so above any one else in therms of power inuniverse. I also don't like the fluff introduced to expand them into a full fledged faction. I think it paints a ridiculous picture of security of the Sol System only to give them something to do, what in turn undermines the idea of making them more active outside of it. Similar problem is with GSC. They are usually set as hive world rebelions relying on mass of untrained militants and this is simply not tranfarable to the tabletop in wh scale. Instead of urban uprising they are figthing field battles as if they were a regular army. For me this faction is another mistake. I would also throw in Votann, because there's not a single model I like in their line.

 

Ooof!

 

So I don't have a lot of experience with Custodes- I bought their dex in 9th because I wanted it for the SoS components. This isn't to say that I was totally uninterested in Custodes- they are very interesting in Torchbearer Fleet armies, which include Mechanicus, Custodes, Greyshield Primaris and Firstborn Marines of any given chapter. It is these Torchbearer Fleet Armies (which only existed in the 9th ed ruleset) that always cause me to speak up in defense of any of the Indomitus lore that people hated, whether that was the introduction of Primaris or the efforts of the Custodes beyond Terra. These armies were a lot of fun- they had a built in campaign structure as the fleet fights its way across the galaxy to get to the Firstborn Marines that the Greyshields are meant to reinforce, and then spend time bonding with their chapter to learn its unique battlefield tactics to finally becoming full members of the host chapter.

 

The problem was that Torchbearer Fleet armies were a Crusade-based narrative army from White Dwarf rather than a fully integrated part of the game, so most 2k Matched play pickup gamers either never knew those rules existed or chose to ignore them so they could instead chase meta-hotness and WIN MOAR in pick-up games. And while I try to suppress it in casual conversation to preserve the peace, there is a part of me that feels that people who CHOSE to ignore that don't really have as much right to complain as those who embraced the Torchbearers have the write to continue enjoying them and making the most of the cool narrative play rules they were given.

 

As for GSC, again, the thing that makes it "feel" like the type of army represented in the lore is playing through the Day of Ascension Crusade rules. If all you're doing with them is playing 2k Matched play stand-alone pick up games, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A REVOLUTION! If you want it to feel like a revolution, play Crusade, escalate from 500 points to 3k, infiltrate instituions, Seed the Stars, fight the Ascension battle when your're ready. If you're not willing to do that, that's fine... But it doesn't give you the right to use  "This doesn't feel like a revolution" as an excuse to suggest the removal of the faction from the game. The reason it may not feel like a revolution to you is not that rules for having a revolution don't exist, it's that you are choosing not to use those rules.

 

The GSC are an army that is almost custom built for Crusade.

 

And then you go on to throw Votann under the bus because YOU don't like their models? 

 

Maybe I'm just reading too much into the juxtaposition of your thoughts on the Votann with your statement that GSC were a mistake, and you're not actually suggesting the removal of Votann from the game. I hope this is the case because I prefer to see the best in people. But there ain't a whole lot of good to see in someone who says stuff like "Well, I don't like the look of these models, so no one should be able to use them."

 

Again, hopefully I've misinterpretted you and you can clarify your position for me. 

Edited 22 hours ago by ThePenitentOne

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

12 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

As for GSC, again, the thing that makes it "feel" like the type of army represented in the lore is playing through the Day of Ascension Crusade rules. If all you're doing with them is playing 2k Matched play stand-alone pick up games, OF COURSE IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A REVOLUTION! If you want it to feel like a revolution, play Crusade, escalate from 500 points to 3k, infiltrate instituions, Seed the Stars, fight the Ascension battle when your're ready. If you're not willing to do that, that's fine... But it doesn't give you the right to use  "This doesn't feel like a revolution" as an excuse to suggest the removal of the faction from the game. The reason it may not feel like a revolution to you is not that rules for having a revolution don't exist, it's that you are choosing not to use those rules.

 

My complain was more about how the army behaves on the tabletop. It should feel right no matter the game mode, opponent's army or the battlefield. If GSC need to play one particular game mode against particular opponents, then in my opinion it's not helping their case. However, I think that playing crusade doesn't fix much, because it mainly provides narrative around your battles in which the army plays largely the same as in pickup battles.

I don't play solitaire, so I don't realy understand Your comments about whta I want or don't want to do.

Also, the only right I need to voice an opinion about what I think should be removed from the game is having an opinion formed.

 

Quote

And then you go on to throw Votann under the bus because YOU don't like their models? 

 

Maybe I'm just reading too much into the juxtaposition of your thoughts on the Votann with your statement that GSC were a mistake, and you're not actually suggesting the removal of Votann from the game. I hope this is the case because I prefer to see the best in people. But there ain't a whole lot of good to see in someone who says stuff like "Well, I don't like the look of these models, so no one should be able to use them."

 

Yes. I would like to remove Votann, because I don't like their models. Of course, if anyone else also would like to remove them due to how they look, it is a welcome support, but in general I base my opinions on my reflections on a subject. When it comes to aesthetic, I don't understand why my opinion should be informed by someone's else dislike of the Votann.

I don't understand why are You so shocked. Complains about rules or fluff aren't that much less subjective and aesthetics are as important to both the game and the setting. Looking at miniatures is the main and the most time consuming way of interacting with the setting. I don't like how Votann look, so I consider them a bad release. I don't like them, so I don't enjoy interacting with them. I think that many of their models don't fit the setting, so for me they are detrimental to it, because they hurt the aesthetic and how the game looks. On top of that, I am not really thrilled with GW milking the nostalgia cow and I genuinly think that the setting has matured past the dwarves in space.

The Votann aren't the only thing I would like to remove from Warhammer, because I think it looks bad and hurts how warhammer is perceived. 

All the babycarriers like paragon suits, dreadknights or invictor? Pruned.

SM Desolation squad? Nothing personal, comrade.

Mechanicum 8th edition wave? Boom, gone.

SM grav tanks? Nuked.

OP asked for our opinions, so I am giving mine. I don't need anyone's persmision to hold it or voice it.

 

[Jukkiz]

in my silly opinion. 

The most imperial armies could be infused into one, like good ol´ days. Why we need 5 codexes at this point when something like inquisition, deathwatch and IG work together?  We could yeet SoB and Mechanicum there too, though i doubt we need more darn loyal 32s etc.

Imperial side needs shrinking, not bloat. Chaos needs 5 books, that´s it, the 4 big bad and undivided. 

Any xenos don´t need subsection/faction books either. Just lump A/eldar into their own and Harlequins be optional side elites like they were. Same with Drukhari. 

Necrons, orks, tyranids, tau work well already as one codex armies ayways. 

[chapter master 454]

31 minutes ago, Jukkiz said:

in my silly opinion. 

The most imperial armies could be infused into one, like good ol´ days. Why we need 5 codexes at this point when something like inquisition, deathwatch and IG work together?  We could yeet SoB and Mechanicum there too, though i doubt we need more darn loyal 32s etc.

 

I find this one funny to visualise. That book would be a girthy tome of legend, page count into the thousands and referring to it would be akin to looking up lost lore. :D

 

 

Anyhow. I will reinforce one comment of a frater here

6 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

 

OP asked for our opinions, so I am giving mine. I don't need anyone's persmision to hold it or voice it.

 

 

This is exactly right. I did ask for your opinions and to voice them fully as a means to help what looked like a lot of frustration that was building and was boiling over in the calgar thread in news as while it did eventually stray onto knights, the actual spark for this was ultramarines getting more support when they of all factions at this point could do with far far far less. I remember when we got Cronus and Telion added, it was so silly. At that point we only have Shrike, Lysander, Korsarro and He'Stan. Pedro was there too but Iron Hands got snubbed of the big 5 who are codex compliant. To me it was so utterly bizarre that the Ultramarines had a tank commander who had a knack for bringing tanks back to life like a techmarine was ultramarines and not Iron Hands, Telion a master sniper who was known for taking out enemy leaders beyond standard ranges was ultramarines and not Raven Guard (and within his lore, he also gets noted as having trained calgar. He's old as heck. Would of been cool for him to have trained shrike instead as a raven guard character). And it wasn't like ultramarines didn't have characters already, they got Cato Sicarius fully interred now as a full character model instead of a name for a model, they had Tigerius and Cassius too so with Calgar (and his honour guard which this new release is re-doing) they had almost as many characters as all other chapters combined in the same book and were on par with space wolves and blood angels for roster.

It was certainly a thing that sparked annoyance and also, we also saw similar bickering over the Primaris divide relating to how Calgar was being put back into terminator armour over his oddball Gravis armour.

All of this recent stuff really does show one thing though: GW listens and is watching and willing to change course and all this anti-primaris sentiment as certainly not been an echo chamber thing on forums, it is quite clear there isn't as much love for a good chunk of the range as GW would of wanted which is funny to me...it has all the makings of the Transformers when they killed Optimus Prime and then gave us Rodimus Prime, which later got reversed by reviving optimus though...in later writing there has been some service towards this rather ill-fated generation.

Can't be argued anyway you look at it, this whole era of marines has been a complete mess for GW and I would actually attribute their ability to not of lost full control thanks to the various factions we have getting love during this time. Tau Kroot got a great refresh, Votann models still look great and we keep seeing a lot of new models be regular slam dunks...though I won't say ALL of them are great...some fall short to be nice to them.

 

As to comment on Ayatollah's note about nuking Votann and certain other elements: you would very rapidly lose what makes 40k 40k. I think a lot of people often forget part of what makes this whole thing so fun, cool and amazing is just how utterly silly it is. That clown sauce that gets put into the game via daft elements is what makes the cool cooler, the grim grimmer and those moments of hope to be crushed so much sweeter. Space Marines were in fact the silliest of our warriors, Ultramarines were just straight romans effectively, Emperor's Children ran into battle with Guitars (you could say they pioneered the Power Axe!) and the Imperial guard were just straight raw copies of various real life militaries through history ranging from WW1 Germany to the utter parody regiment that is "opps all rambo" catachans. Part of what makes these factions so fun is the silly factor that is present, and while some are more present than others...the fact remains that in contrast to standard far-future settings, we have guys still building trenches with basic shovels we'd recognise in the real world. The subtle element of 40k is it has that jab, that ribbing at the idea that war won't really change much and that is equally funny as it is sad and it is why the comedy of factions is needed to juxtaposition the straight soul crushing depression that the setting should instill yet we look to it for stories of hope despite how often it is always utterly crushed.

 

40k is not a nice place. But it is also an incredibly silly place. For all the grandiose units like titans that stride onto battlefields, you have to laugh at how silly they are in concept but it's that silly element that makes them cool.

Are Votann a bit silly to have dwarves in space? Yea. But we have Space Elves who have 3 flavours: got WAY too into astrology and healing crystals, the one who got WAY too into bondage and...other not safe for work hobbies and literal clowns...like actual clowns. You want to tell me...that Votann are too silly while there are literal Space Clowns crushing around between the veil of reality and cosplaying as various characters of their history and tell me...Votann are too silly...or that a Warlord titan is totally serious and not a daft idea for a weapon of war within what people would call "super serious war".

 

Again, opinions are your own and in the same vein, I can have my opinions on yours and neither of us need really do much more than acknowledge the other and move on in this instances as ultimately, we are having a serious debate over plastic formed into silly shapes that we roll dice over...we sometimes even paint the plastic :D

 

Silly is good. Never forget 40k is heavy on satire to the point it often gets lost.

[HeadlessCross]

On 9/17/2025 at 8:42 AM, jaxom said:

I'd like to offer up the 3rd edition Daemonhunters codex as a positive example of how to handle deploying niche faction (I consider them niche at that time). Their codex included rules for your opponent ("you have a character who is low-key possessed and they release a daemon when killed" or "have some free daemons" for example) and missions reflective of when and why the Grey Knights would deploy as an army (purge daemonic presence, assassinate/exorcise daemonhosts, or close a warpbreach).

 

I think it was a really great way for players on both sides of the table to engage with what made the faction fun and different.

As someone that liked playing that codex, I do have to note that Grey Knights were an awful army even against Daemons. 

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

 

My complain was more about how the army behaves on the tabletop. It should feel right no matter the game mode, opponent's army or the battlefield. If GSC need to play one particular game mode against particular opponents, then in my opinion it's not helping their case. However, I think that playing crusade doesn't fix much, because it mainly provides narrative around your battles in which the army plays largely the same as in pickup battles.

I don't play solitaire, so I don't realy understand Your comments about whta I want or don't want to do.

Also, the only right I need to voice an opinion about what I think should be removed from the game is having an opinion formed.

 

 

Yes. I would like to remove Votann, because I don't like their models. Of course, if anyone else also would like to remove them due to how they look, it is a welcome support, but in general I base my opinions on my reflections on a subject. When it comes to aesthetic, I don't understand why my opinion should be informed by someone's else dislike of the Votann.

I don't understand why are You so shocked. Complains about rules or fluff aren't that much less subjective and aesthetics are as important to both the game and the setting. Looking at miniatures is the main and the most time consuming way of interacting with the setting. I don't like how Votann look, so I consider them a bad release. I don't like them, so I don't enjoy interacting with them. I think that many of their models don't fit the setting, so for me they are detrimental to it, because they hurt the aesthetic and how the game looks. On top of that, I am not really thrilled with GW milking the nostalgia cow and I genuinly think that the setting has matured past the dwarves in space.

The Votann aren't the only thing I would like to remove from Warhammer, because I think it looks bad and hurts how warhammer is perceived. 

All the babycarriers like paragon suits, dreadknights or invictor? Pruned.

SM Desolation squad? Nothing personal, comrade.

Mechanicum 8th edition wave? Boom, gone.

SM grav tanks? Nuked.

OP asked for our opinions, so I am giving mine. I don't need anyone's persmision to hold it or voice it.

 

"Setting has matured" LMAO, nothing about 40k is mature outside the prices we're expected to pay. You must've been fun to talk to when Tau first came about.