Stoobert Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hey I have been dipping my toe in the 40k pond again and saw this post on 3++ today. I'm impressed at the level of effort it takes to come up with something like that and it's deserving of some applause just cause that takes a lot of time and caring. Not being a rules lawyer (I mean that in a good way) myself I don't have a lot of opinion on the content but I'm curious: 1. Do you think this might be adopted as an 'unofficial' FAQ in our local NW scene? 2. Overall, will this help the game be better balanced? 3. WTF is up with GW not releasing FAQ in such a long time themselves? Will this prompt them to do so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 FAQ's abound. Im not certain any one holds all the answers but it is good that people are thinking on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgosaurusrex Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I really like this, and I feel like it should be implemented in our local gaming groups. I don't like the idea of my army's effectiveness changing from event to event based on different ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I really like this, and I feel like it should be implemented in our local gaming groups. I don't like the idea of my army's effectiveness changing from event to event based on different ruling. I disagree with it in several places. Though these are mostly opinion disagreements, not areas where he's definitively wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 There are a couple of things in there that I'd rule differently, just based on personal preference, but I think it's a perfectly solid option, and would be happy to see it get picked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I am a bit lost why he's pro SA and Imperial Knights, but anti-escalation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgosaurusrex Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I am a bit lost why he's pro SA and Imperial Knights, but anti-escalation. I think that if SA is allowed than Escalation should be allowed. The two work well together in my opinion. I feel that Imperial Knights is in a separate category from Escalation and SA, as it is a Codex and not a supplement. I would probably ban Tau before I banned Imperial Knights, lol. (I would never ban an official codex as a TO) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I think that if SA is allowed than Escalation should be allowed. The two work well together in my opinion. I feel that Imperial Knights is in a separate category from Escalation and SA, as it is a Codex and not a supplement. I would probably ban Tau before I banned Imperial Knights, lol. (I would never ban an official codex as a TO) I think it is very unreasonable to ban superheavies for most armies, but allow them for others. Those knights, in example, while not amazing, are still very amazing for their cost and not include-able for Orks, Necrons, CSM, CD, or Tyranids. I very much understand specific complaints about certain units within the escalation supplements, but I don't feel the entire supplement is broken. I will also note that your warhound titan list that uses FW units in escalation is a house rule, as the escalation supplement doesn't not allow FW units beyond the ones posted in that book. It would be very reasonable to limit escalation or super heavy units to a certain max point cost per model/unit. Or to ban/alter certain units that have repetitively had known in-game issues. The Aquilla and Vortex Aquilla remain considerably stronger than the IG baneblade variants (pick one), and often more accurate... An outright ban of super heavies or of D weapons would also be very reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 IMperial Knights are a CODEX. I really don''t think you can/should say no (institutionally, in tournies) to a whole codex that is in fact ACTUALLY a codex and the first NEW army to come out in... geez. I don't even know. While I get VERY concerned when D weapons get introduced into a normal 40K game... It's not ranged. it's kinda like a Thunderhammer only ever so slightly better. stomp seems to be the issue more people worry about. but thats its answer to not getting swarmed interminably by 30 orks and having the most boring game ever. Im not really going to get an army of them or invest in $140 models. But I think we do have to accord a CODEX it's rightful place. Even if it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't really depress me either. I'm just resigned to it. Stronghold and Escalation? No. Its like forcing Cities of Death on everyone. does anyone seriously think that just because its "official" for 40K that we need to have it in our tournies? Nope. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threejacks Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Its kinda sad that Escalation isint being accepted all because of a few of overpowered models mainly the Ranged D weapon Titans.I would almost prefer to see a "ban list" sort of thing than have it all removed but that opens up a new can of worms all by itself. The other thing is VS rules...I know its more in line with the BRB rules in how you have Faq`d them and that's fine however I would prefer to have it were the shield absorbs the entire volley plate regardless of how many models lie under it..this just seems more logical as the incoming round does not change its blast characteristics as soon as it sees how many targets there are to hit. Most of it looks good though:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 IMperial Knights are a CODEX. I really don''t think you can/should say no (institutionally, in tournies) to a whole codex that is in fact ACTUALLY a codex and the first NEW army to come out in... geez. I don't even know. While I get VERY concerned when D weapons get introduced into a normal 40K game... It's not ranged. it's kinda like a Thunderhammer only ever so slightly better. stomp seems to be the issue more people worry about. but thats its answer to not getting swarmed interminably by 30 orks and having the most boring game ever. Im not really going to get an army of them or invest in $140 models. But I think we do have to accord a CODEX it's rightful place. Even if it doesn't thrill me, it doesn't really depress me either. I'm just resigned to it. Stronghold and Escalation? No. Its like forcing Cities of Death on everyone. does anyone seriously think that just because its "official" for 40K that we need to have it in our tournies? Nope. I see "codex" imperial Knights as a way of forcing escalation on everyone. Also, I don't run D weapon escalation units. I've got a banehammer I run when I field my Guard. It's a 410pt tank that has slightly more fire output than a leman russ battle tank. I like it because it gives IG a mobilie transport that does die instantly to S6 barrage weapons (looking at you thunderfire). In terms of durability, it lasts no longer than a trio of leman russ battle tanks would, sometimes shorter. There are lots on non-broken models in escalation. That 315pt necron AA monolith is great if it weren't so overshadowed by the other two - again, no D weapons. The TAU flyer, the "escalation" variant of the Thunderhawk, the stompa, Lord of Skulls and the harridan are all very much non-broken escalation units, especially when compared to non-escalation units of equal point cost. Quite honestly, most of the escalation objections I've seen relate specifically to the 2 necron and 1 eldar escalation units. The only other escalation objections I've encountered either relate to super heavies in normal play or to FW units being added into escalation under false understanding that FW and escalation are synomous. In regards to the 2 necron and 1 eldar units, the easiest solution would be to ban those - that's what people are complain about. I suggest replacing the eldar one with access to the Lynx from FW - it's a non-walker with only one of those revenant weapons, weaker armor and lower hull points. As for the necrons, that one super heavy skimmer at 315pts and 6 hull points is pretty reasonable for normal play. If really concerned about ranged D weapons, try a few games against a shadowsword and get back to me. Try a thunderhawk gunship as an opponent too. Face the aquilla or vortex aquilla. If you try it enough, it becomes clear that the ranged D weapons people stuggle against are only those mounted on the above 3 units (Trancendant C'tan, Tesseract Vault, Revenant). The others can be devastating if you forget your AT, but they are not the same level of threat. I do think abuse puppy is on the right track in allowing look out sir on D ranged weapons. Very reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I owned a shadowsword. I gave it away. I really don't dig that whole world of super heavies in normal 40K. Imperial Knights is an official codex. Okay fine. My official stance at this point is: Codex, codex supplement (see Iyanden etc... for details) and...main rule book. Beyond those strictures: meh. Call me a stick in the mud if you want, but I think the game is pretty fun. i enjoy it a LOT and I don't want to see what happened in Fantasy happen here. And if you think it wont, ask the War Machine players how many of them used to play 40K. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombking Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 And if you think it wont, ask the War Machine players how many of them used to play 40K. I like 40k but they are changing a lot of what the base game was with using the Knights and Escalation stuff and I don't know what to think of it. I mean it is cool that there are Stompas, Small Titans, Huge beasts available but if wanted giant robot/creature slugfest I would be playing a different game. It definitely is not the same thing it was and I am not sure I am ready to dump $100+ for a single big thing just to have an army that is playable. Having been burned out on Car Wars, Starfleet Battles and Battletech for tickybox record keeping I just get all meh about Warmachine even though I do love the models. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimThom Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Tourney organizers can mitigate most lists have one mission be "short handed" where the opponent can remove one selection from your army. Bring the eldar Titan? it will be sitting one game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 I am a bit lost why he's pro SA and Imperial Knights, but anti-escalation. We've had this argument before, I'm not gonna bother re-hashing it. Knights aren't even close to having the same effect on the game as other superheavies. The difference between AV14 with two void shields and AV12 with a 4++ is pretty enormous. Also: no Str D shooting attacks, and in fact rather weak shooting attacks all in all. The Aquilla Strongpoint is a bit of a corner case, but it has enough weaknesses that I'm inclined to think that it isn't too overwhelming. Virtually any damage result you inflict on it will destroy the main gun, it isn't mobile like a superheavy is, you can kill the unit manning its weapon, etc, etc. It would definitely be something I would keep an eye on, but I feel like it may be dealable. Tourney organizers can mitigate most lists have one mission be "short handed" where the opponent can remove one selection from your army. Bring the eldar Titan? it will be sitting one game. I know when I go to a tournament, the thing I want most is to not be allowed to use the models I brought. It cripples tons of lists other than superheavies as well and is just generally really awkward- if you want to ban something, ban it, don't do a weird, backwards, reach-around version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Having been burned out on Car Wars, Starfleet Battles and Battletech for tickybox record keeping I just get all meh about Warmachine even though I do love the models. Car wars. Damn. I remember that game. Anyways, I wasn't promoting WarMachine. Im just pointing out how many of them USED to be WarHammer players. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 I know when I go to a tournament, the thing I want most is to not be allowed to use the models I brought. It cripples tons of lists other than superheavies as well and is just generally really awkward- if you want to ban something, ban it, don't do a weird, backwards, reach-around version. Cripples them, does it. Isn't that laying it on a little thick? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Cripples them, does it. Isn't that laying it on a little thick? If you bring a list with a unit of Terminators in a Land Raider and the other guy takes it away, you're in a bit of a pickle, aren't you? That's ~500pts out of your list that isn't really doing anything anymore. Lots of lists besides superheavies suffer badly when you pull one of their units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Angel Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 lol pull Cortez all his units become non scoring. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 1 We've had this argument before, I'm not gonna bother re-hashing it. Knights aren't even close to having the same effect on the game as other superheavies. The difference between AV14 with two void shields and AV12 with a 4++ is pretty enormous. Also: no Str D shooting attacks, and in fact rather weak shooting attacks all in all. 2 The Aquilla Strongpoint is a bit of a corner case, but it has enough weaknesses that I'm inclined to think that it isn't too overwhelming. Virtually any damage result you inflict on it will destroy the main gun, it isn't mobile like a superheavy is, you can kill the unit manning its weapon, etc, etc. It would definitely be something I would keep an eye on, but I feel like it may be dealable. 1 I don't recall an argument about escalation at all. I recall an argument where you declared escalation synonymous with FW inclusion and complained about lacking a challenge with your army that includes zero models from the actual escalation book. I will also note that the Imperial Knights get a 3++ on their warlord, and can roll, during deployment, to obtain the same 3++ for the other models. I "believe" all the imperial knights are AV13 front, too. As you are supporting void shield generators with the SA book, two void shields remains attainable. Lastly, the destroyed knight has a D in the catastrophic damage as well as the D melee weapon and the Stomp potential. The shooting attacks may be lackluster for a super heavy, but they remain pretty impressive compared to similar number of hull point units (like land raiders and monoliths). 2 So the imperial knight in unbroken, Aquilla is a corner case, but the obelisk, IG baneblade variants, stompa, thunderhawk, lord of skulls, tiger shark, and harridan are all hideously broken? I completely see the issue with the revenant, the transcendant c'tan, and the tesseract vault, but those are the only ones in the escalation supplement that are broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Car wars. Damn. I remember that game. Anyways, I wasn't promoting WarMachine. Im just pointing out how many of them USED to be WarHammer players. =) hmmmm I have 3-4 of those original little black boxes… and more somewhere… OHH what fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 So the imperial knight in unbroken, Aquilla is a corner case, but the obelisk, IG baneblade variants, stompa, thunderhawk, lord of skulls, tiger shark, and harridan are all hideously broken? I completely see the issue with the revenant, the transcendant c'tan, and the tesseract vault, but those are the only ones in the escalation supplement that are broken. Why would you judge the power level of a supplement by its weakest links rather than its strongest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Why would you judge the power level of a supplement by its weakest links rather than its strongest? My point is that the weak links are in majority and the strong links are the outliers. Rather than banning the entire supplement, it would be far easier to ban 3 units in the supplement. The necrons retain retain the obelisk, which is questionably viable, but they get one. The DE and E lose their escalation access, but they can take imperial knights (see allies chart), so now all armies can bring a LoW/superheavy. Meanwhile, you've only the "weak" links and aren't banning an entire supplement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 If you bring a list with a unit of Terminators in a Land Raider and the other guy takes it away, you're in a bit of a pickle, aren't you? That's ~500pts out of your list that isn't really doing anything anymore. Lots of lists besides superheavies suffer badly when you pull one of their units. and you can replace it with something so... Whats the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 My point is that the weak links are in majority and the strong links are the outliers. Rather than banning the entire supplement, it would be far easier to ban 3 units in the supplement. The necrons retain retain the obelisk, which is questionably viable, but they get one. The DE and E lose their escalation access, but they can take imperial knights (see allies chart), so now all armies can bring a LoW/superheavy. Meanwhile, you've only the "weak" links and aren't banning an entire supplement. I really think it an error to ignore the "strong links". These are gamers. and when anyone...ANYONE... Puts money down to compete, they aren't there for their health. Say what one wants, players didn't come to lose. So when you allow something that is CLEARLY a no brainer to take (lets use marbo for example) then people....take it. A lot. Expecting otherwise isn't the way to go IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.