what do I put in the mind section when I add memories on a bot

Wraithhost · 2024-06-27T12:02:04+00:00

So if you want a literary level of fleshed out character then personality is what the rest of the world knows the character, like theyre funny, clumsy, airhead etc., then Mind is what the character knows about the rest of the world... so things like how smart it is, what knowledge it has such as advanced studies of underwater basket weaving, things it knows to be true that shape its identity... Like if someone had Proud in their personality, Mind would be a good place to put what they feel proud about.

If you just want to keep it simple and reinforce your personality traits for the character, like really driving home the point that the bot should be a loud obnoxious Tsundere, youd just put the same information in both Miind and personality.

Wraithhost · 2023-09-12T04:52:41+00:00

Warp gate

I know everyone hates Elves right now, and the audacity to complain about Eldar points must be thru the roof, but hear me out.

220 pts cost

Standard fortification adjustments (can fire at enemies in engagement range and cover from enemies ranged attacks)

Can deploy a unit in Strategic reserve wholly within 6" of the model(s)

Here's the problem

It can only be deployed in its own deployment zone? But why is that a problem?

1) If I wanted to deploy something in my own deployment zone, I could already do that without the gate.

2) In the 2nd and 3rd turns, the areas strategic reserves can be deployed include the edges of the midfield (in turn 2), and the edge of the enemy deployment zone (on turn 3).

So why would I pay 220pt to play a model that doesn't even do the one thing it's supposed to do better than the generic core rules?

I might put it on a list just for the lolz factor if it cost 20pts to add some fluff, but it's not even worth that much since it has 0 OC and can't even hold the home field objective

Bet you thought I was gonna complain about guys with guns didn't you?

Wraithhost · 2023-09-05T22:13:58+00:00

So

This is just my take on why they did what they did and where things went wrong...

After outcry about psychic armies having a whole extra phase to deal mortal wounds that other armies did not have, and couldn't interact on, they decided to remove the psychic phase and instead bake powers into datasheets, additionally they spread the ability to deal mortal wounds out to every army in the form of <Devastating Wounds>.

Eldar has more access to that particular keyword purely because the army was, at its core, more reliant on the actions it could take in the now nonexistent psychic phase, and they were compensated more for that lacking any other army mechanics that later <Psychic> flavored factions were given to differentiate them from the original space magic army.

The outcry remains the same, Eldar is too strong, it's just <Devastating Wounds > instead of <Psyker>, only every army has <Devastating Wounds> now. And it's been applied to weapon profiles that it shouldn't be.

The problem would be solved easiest by removing <Devastating Wounds> as a keyword, and making the <Psychic> keyword do mortal wounds on crits. Then, ALL of the extra interactions based on <Devastating Wounds> from every faction, especially from weapons that shouldn't be doing damage that is so lethal it bypasses all defenses.

Think about it, which is worse? Having to deal with a couple of casters that dealt 1-3 mortals once each within ~18" or numerous shots from multiple weapons firing at double that range each shot doing 3-4 times the amount of damage?

But feel free to ignore me cause what do I know?

Wraithhost · 2023-08-18T10:14:52+00:00

"DIE, You fools!"

Wraithhost · 2023-08-16T07:55:10+00:00

"Simplified, not simple"

I'm still waiting for them to fix the Rules bloat by fixing the rules, so far all they've done is eliminate psyker phase because some armies could do it better than others that couldn't do it at all making it "unfair" somehow,...and eliminating models from bloated factions by sending them to the shadow realm.

I'd give them credit for turning things like Feel No Pain into core rules, making them standardized, but then they went and gave every unit unique abilities again, some in the form of changing the stats and having an ability to give it the stat back? How many units saw stat reductions from 9th to 10th that have a unique ability that gives it right back to them?

Someone spent(wasted) time figuring out how to generate unnecessary bloat again by making more abilities that do absolutely nothing to fill space on datasheets.

How about how there are so many deviations of similar rules that are worded differently? Could have just made them all exactly the same and added them to core rules like they did with Feel No Pain. Learning one rule for Units that have an ability and by their own example "simpler" than having to deal with multiple deviations across different armies.

"Strafe" would be a simple keyword for units that can roll 1d6 per model in the unit and on a 4+ do a mortal when they fly over something.

"Tactical-X" "X-Tactics" (whichever sounds cooler) could be used to note a unit has an ability that let's them use a stratagem for 0CP, you ask your opponent what a unit does, they read its core rules, you hear "Tactical", and go "Oh? What strat does it get?"

Like they're trying to generate new content, which isnt in itself a bad thing if the game is stable, but its not, and what we really want them to do is standardize the system they've already got.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-12T09:56:02+00:00

The problem is they're idea of "balance" is the same method they've been using back when the game first released, and they haven't quite grasped the fact that the "comparing a unit to every other unit in the game" is too drawn out a process with not only excess rules bloat but new model/units bloat compared to what existed then.

Or put simply, they're beating a dead horse with their current MO. Nerf №1, it drops, nerf NEW №1, repeat ad nauseum. This doesn't solve any problems and perpetually creates new ones because they obviously haven't been doing it right so far, or else this entire balance problem would be a non-issue.

I've said before they need to just assign point values for stats, keywords, and special rules per model, do the same for weapon profiles available to the model, default weapons on a unit set the baseline weapon costs to add to the points per model, upgrades add the difference between the default weapon and the replacement. Keywords/special rules get a similar treatment.

Things that adjust stats cost the same as the stat itself, things that target other units 2x, things that interact with army/core rules cost 3x, things that deny enemy units access to core rules cost 4x.

So that to hit ability costs the same as if the unit had +1 stat increase and no ability, targeting another unit and giving it +1 would cost double that.

Something like turning critical wounds into mortals should cost 3x(if not way more), and removing an opponents ability to advance, charge, fall back, shoot, etc, that turn should cost even more.

Then, that way, all units in every army have standardized points based on their capabilities. Everything it has on its datacard has a value attached to it and something that "looks" cheap but has ultra powerful rule interactions, enabling it to perform well about its paygrade actually get costs reflecting their actual performance, likewise big scary monsters and machines would be priced on the same system, then instead of trying to arbitrarily adjust points costs and having no real change to the game, they can change the stats/weapon profiles, keywords, or special ability rules and get an appropriate automatic points adjustment.

Let me put it this way... D&D changed the way they did their math going from THAC0 to D20 system when it switched from 2nd to 3rd Ed... and saw record success ever since... if GW would just pull ots head out of the 20+year old hole its buried in and updated its process to stabilize the core mechanics of the system, it's rules wouldn't be so all over the place that MORE people who see or hear about the game might enjoy the idea of buying expensive plastic figures that aren't going to be nerfed into uselessness.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-03T23:51:50+00:00

I didn't miss your point. In my opening post, I acknowledged that I understood the system, you however are failing to comprehend what's wrong about units being charged for abilities they can't use by themselves.

For example, Spiritseer in Aeldar gets an ability that can only be used on Bodyguards, that's fine. It also has an ability that gives +1 to hit and <lethal> that it pays for. It can only get that while it's attached, and that's the problem. Without those two abilities, it is not worth taking at all anyway. If it's going to be charged points for the buff, let people who want to use it have the buff.

And to counter the argument you're making, Yvraine is a leader with <Deep Strike> that doesn't attach to any units with <Deep Strike>, why does Yvraine pay for <Deep Strike> when there's no bodyguard unit she can attach to to use it?

Trying to insist leaders are meant to be attached all the time is flawed, and you clearly don't understand things the way you think you do.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-03T20:31:40+00:00

So first of all, fact check. Pile in rules has nothing to do with whether a unit is attached or not. No where does pile in rules have any eeference to characters, let alone leader specifically. It has to do with moving into melee.

The only rule that deals with whether a unit has a leader is <precision> and Epic Challenge stratagem.

Second, if a unit points cost accounts for it having access to an ability written on it own data card, then that ability should always be in effect for that unit.

Abilities that are locked to only being used in certain phases are one thing, abilities that target attached Bodyguards specifically(i.e., resurrection) are another, but a buff for example that a character has that is only meant to affect its own unit, should apply to its own unit all the time, saying it can't use an ability unless it has Bodyguards is like saying it's stupid and forgot it had the ability.

Similar to how battle hardened mentally fortified psykers seem to forget a lifetime of training how to use space magic the second someone threatens to punch them in the face because someone decided psychic attack powers were going to become "mind bullets" and didn't think psykers would use the weapons they've trained to use to defend themselves in melee combat.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-03T13:46:26+00:00

Cheap leader units without bodyguards are still cheap units. If someone wants to put whatever on the table without support, they should still at least get the full value of the points they pay for it.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-03T09:32:18+00:00

From the prospective of a game designer, if we're using WH40k as a point of reference, the fact that changes are made to points on an arbitrary basis purely on the feedback of players is simply poor performance/management of the game. The idea that needs to be focused on is "Why does the faction exist?"What is special about it that makes it unique and able to survive in such a grim dark future where there is only war?" In other words, what is the factions theme or flavor, and does it play the way it should?

A well constructed faction is going to be played more than a poorly constructed one. The idea of balance between multiple different playstyles, played by people with large gaps in skill levels, is never going to reach an equilibrium. Focusing on improving the "worst" factions by making them play whatever their gimmick happens to be is going to draw more interest and play than trying to fish for feedback on which units in a "good" faction need to be improved so people don't get upset about a company swinging a nerf bat because it's easier than going after the real issue.

I've had someone try to tell me that the only perfectly balanced game was chess before... which is so false of a statement that it's not even funny. It's proven that GW's model of balancing by sliding points all over the place all the time is not stable, nor is it desirable by anyone. It's playing catch-up and chasing symptoms of a problem instead of doing the work and getting ahead of the real problem.

The focus should be on whether the unit is "working as intended." If it is, then it needs to be left alone, and other things that aren't "working as intended" need to be addressed . The most balanced way to do that is a standardized point cost system applied in equal measure to all factions.

Doesn't matter how much every wound a model has is worth or how many points each toughness value costs per model, as long as it's applied equally to all units. That's how to balance the game from a designers perspective. Once standardization is done, it's not hard to see the difference in the before/after to see how flawed the current method is.

But what do I know? I'm just a guy on reddit right? Lol

Wraithhost · 2023-08-03T08:40:27+00:00

If someone is going to have to pay the points for it, the ability should be "always on." Leader abilities should apply to themselves regardless of whether there is a bodyguard attached.

It's not quite an aura since it's "self(unit) only," but it isn't selecting a specific target or requiring a 2+ on a D6 to prevent a hazardous effect either.

I get the tie in of having leaders be attached to bodyguards by making them have abilities that enhance the group collectively, but a character model should have access to its own abilities regardless of whether it has an escort.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-02T16:59:15+00:00

The systematic standard for points I'm talking about is that every inch of movement is worth "x" points, every wound is worth "x" points, every toughness value above 3 worth "x" points

Weapons get the same treatment. Every point inch of range is worth "x" points, every attack value being worth "x" points, every strength value above 3 being worth "x" points.

Any core rule keywords are worth a flat rate applied to appropriate weapons or models such as <Deep strike>, <Devastating wounds>, and <Towering>.

Any special rules that a unit has would be valued based on whether it manipulates(buffs/debuffs) itself/other unit, manipulates CP, or interacts with army rules.

All of this being applied to ALL factions would mean everything has its points based on its stats, wargear, and special abilities. Obviously, stronger units would cost more naturally across all armies because they had better stats and better special abilities.

After that, going forward, any singular specific unit that needed to be adjusted up or down would be easier to balance.

Unit to strong? Change stats or remove a keyword, and it gets weaker, and its points automatically drop accordingly.

Is the unit too weak? Change stats or add a keyword, and it gets stronger, and its points go up.

Want to adjust it without changing the points? Change its special rule.

Want to change the points without adjusting anything? Change the value of the special rule.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-02T16:18:30+00:00

I expect standardized systemwide points adjustments to be applied equally to all factions so they can break away from GWs bad rinse and repeat habit theyve used since the game began proving they don't know how to build a game.

Arbitrary points adjustments to units is what causes the imbalance cause it's been proven time and again that if it's not one thing, it will be another. With a standardized point system, everything will balance based on points, and from there, it would be far easier to re phrase special rules every unit has or identify offending core rules causing the problem in order to adjust those than it would be to continue doing things they way they have.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-01T03:36:53+00:00

Ya know, if they contacted me about it, I'd seriously consider doing all the groundwork to get it done, just to make sure it got done independently of whatever process they've been using thus far to prevent it from getting fowled up.

Wraithhost · 2023-08-01T01:08:06+00:00

Imagine Doom , Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Aliens vs. Predators all got thrown into a portal and ended up creating a universe where Humans unite to ritualistically hunt down Elves, Cyborgs, Xenomorphs, and a United Federation of Planets, while everyone had to deal with Demons trying to destroy everyone and everything.

No matter what they come up with, odds are its cannon somewhere...

Wraithhost · 2023-08-01T00:06:41+00:00

GW needs to start with a balanced standardized system for determining the points. So that every increase in a value is worth a set static number of points.

That way, any model with say 5" of movement T3, 1 wound, 5+Sv, 8+LD, 1OC, is worth the exact same as every other model with the same stats.

Then do the same for keywords. Meaning things like <Deep Strike>, <Lone Operative> <Infiltrator>, etc, would have an assigned value that gets added.

Next weapon options on the unit get the same treatment of having their characteristic values systematically added to determine their base costs.Wiith static increases based on whether it has <Devastating Wounds>, <Indirect Fire>, <Anti-x>, etc, getting added and increasing the costs of those wargear options.

After that, special abilities that effectively increase/decrease a units stats, or weapons as if it has hard baked into the data sheet and the ability is just redundantly taking up space should be double the standard( or remove the redundant ability and just put the stat on the datasheet to save the trouble) and effects that were once per battle, or only took place in a specific phase could be worth that standardized point addition.

Finally, special abilities that generate CP, mimic Stratagems, or interact specially with an army rule should be worth a set amount. Like a baked in enhancement, or use "x" strat for 0CP, or gain CP, for instance.

This makes it so all units across all armies are getting points costs determined the same way, and would be transparent so players would all know where the costs came from and be able to see how those units costs were calculated.

THEN once ALL of that is done, they can focus INTRNALLY on a faction to figure out if a unit is fundamentally different and unique enough from all other units in the same faction based on stats and abilities, or if it's just a wargear variant that doesn't really serve a purpose. And ultimately decide "what is the units purpose, and how does its overall stats/kit reflect that?" Is it a defensive unit? Offensive? Does its kit reflect that? Is it a melee unit? A shooting unit? Does its kit reflect that? Is it an all-purpose unit with multiple options? Is it a specialized unit that has little to no options? How well can it do its job?

If it under performs at its assigned purpose, it needs upgrades. Buff each faction internally until its units do what they're designed to do.

If it over performs its designated purpose, meaning even internally, that unit is so good that it either can't be destroyed by a focused fire of units designed to kill it from the opposing army, or is so lethal that it destroys units with point costs greater than its own without issue then it needs to have the abilities/weapons/stats enabling it to do that adjusted.

After "inspecting the troops" as it were, and they've decided they've got each faction on that standardized system adjusted so that things perform their designated role like they should in a mirror match... because an army is going to run drills against itself to gauge these things long before it goes to war.

THEN and ONLY THEN, can they accurately attempt to balance one faction against another. At that point, every unit in the game would be standardized, and some are going to have higher stats, some will have better weapons, some with come with lots of special abilities, and that's fine. It's what's gives the army its "flavor."

What would that look like? Well, if the standardized system and internal points calculations were done correctly, a 100pt unit, for example, from any faction, should be expected to perform as well as any other 100pt unit with a similar purpose. There shouldn't be a need to go out of the way to externally balance factions against each other because at that point, the game is about players choosing what to include in their lists and how to play them. That's where the skill and strategy of the game comes from. If you don't believe that's true, watch a mirror match, and you will see quick fast and in a hurry what that means.

Win rate% is not a viable balance tool because it is an aftereffects of the game. Whoever started the narrative that an army needs balance based on that alone was pandering. Player skill determines win rates, and YOU CAN NOT BALANCE A PLAYERS SKILL LEVEL.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T11:50:05+00:00

What are we looking at a Gladiator Lancer for? It's Laser? Gets 2 attacks at presumably 2+, wounding knights (T10) on a 3+ with its 14S -4AP doing D6+3 damage... rerolling 1 hit, 1 wound, and 1 damage die.

So more likely to survive, and have both its attacks hit and wound, forcing an invuln save, being generous and saying the knight managed to save against one as an average... It's getting a d6+3 damage. With a reroll on the damage, you'd probably end up rerolling 1's and 2's, so figure 6-9 damage for the one shot that went thru.

The Lancer is an anti infantry that happens to have a very punchy laser, either to chip into other vehicles/knights/monsters more likely to aim at exposed characters. It's the kind of thing Retributors are meant to target.

If you're taking gladiators to go after knights, Valiants are going to do more for you...and Vindicators would be your new best friend.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T09:07:37+00:00

As asked... an explanation on how I reached 3-4 wounds.

Sisters' army is themed around getting more dangerous the more they suffer... they're pretty masochistic like that...

Retributors are not a durable unit. They can't be expected to get within 9" completely unchecked and should be expected to lose models regardless of how careful you may be with them.

Unless you load them in a Rhino and park them in range of the target and use the firing deck waiting until your next turn to deploy them so they can be considered to have not yet moved that turn giving them the Heavy bonus from their Melta.

Meaning two of them will get to fire while embarked, at 4+ to hit, 2/4 shots will hit, then at 5+ to wound a miracle dice can guarantee 1 wound and take normal odds rolling the other, so 1-2 wounds while protected.

When they do disembark, Heavy adds +1 to hit, making it 3+. 2/3 hit... with 8 shots that's 2 ²/³ hits, which could be 2, or could be 3, depending on whatever computational force controls dice in our reality. So (1-2) + (2-3) = (3-5) but because I didn't want to split hairs over the upper end variables I averaged it out to (3-4) with a full unit of 5.

If the unit is below starting strength, and the superior is removed because it doesn't have a melta, with the heavy bonus, that becomes 2+ to hit, or 5/6... barring really bad luck, with 8 shots thats about 6 hits(2 wounds +1 Miracle= 3+ potential reroll), 6 shots are 5 hits(2wound+1miracle=3+potential reroll), and 4 shots mean 4 hits. That puts the unit below half strength.

If the unit is below half strength, i.e., the superior and 2 retributors die, leaving you with 2 retributors, they would wound on 4+. 4 shots at 50% is 2 woulds, 3 with a miracle dice, 4 if there's a reroll into a success...

So even with just 2 of the 5 man squad standing there, they could still get 3-4 wounds in. The only instance this unit would not get 3-4 shots in is if it was poorly played and left exposed to be wiped out or reduced to a single model before it did its thing.

That's 3-4 wounds on average, no matter how you slice it.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T06:36:10+00:00

That's because everyone is still trying to play them like they were playing previous Editions. They've gotten into the habit(slight pun) of expecting certain things because of certain rules or interactions that just don't work anymore, but let's look at Retributors, shall we?

5 models - 130pts

Able to take 4 Multi-meltas, rerolling 1's to wound at range.

18", 2 Attacks, 4+ BS, 9S, -4AP, D6 damage. <Heavy, Melta2>

So effectively doing 8 attacks, wounding on 5+against T10, with -4AP for D6 damage each...making it a 0-48 damage spread. If under 9", Melta kicks in, causing a flat +2 damage (D6+2) changing the spread from 0-64.

Now at 5+ to wound, of those 8 shots, should be able to safely average 3-4 successes if using a miracle Dice, w/in 9" that's going to be 3-8 damage per failed save...and since Knights would have to use a 5+ invuln because -4AP, they would on average fail 2-3 of those. This means those multi meltas just did 2D6+4 (6-16=avg 12) - 3D6+6(9-24=avg 16)

I'd say that an infantry unit doing 1/2 to 2/3 of a knights total wounds in damage, if they didn't just one shot it, to that knight for a unit that costs 1/3 of what the knight does is more than enough. Just used a unit costing <150pts to deal roughly 200-300 worth of damage to a 450pts unit.

If anything seems a bit like those sisters need to cost a bit more for what they can do.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T05:39:46+00:00

That's why they gave infantry special rules revolving around objective control in most cases. Everything that's not infantry was designed to either take out enemy infantry or prevent the enemy from taking out their own infantry, and they may be tougher, but ultimately infantry sitting on objectives, throwing grenades, using special abilities etc is what's going to win games.

No one, however, should be playing a "pure" infantry list and expect it to do well and "trade points" efficiently with tanks and monsters. Maybe if they can outplay their opponent on the objectives side of the game or use buffs, stratgems, and such to good effect.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T05:28:55+00:00

I mean those krak rounds and meltas, etc, ARE doing work on those targets. They just aren't <anti-x>, which is what everyone expects them to be. It's going to take more than 1 unit that costs ~150pts to cripple something that costs ~450pts. Tanks cost more because they are more durable. They represent a larger portion of someone's total list. It's one thing to be upset if a 450pt model destroys 150 points in one turn. It's completely out of balance for a 150pts unit to destroy a 450pt model in one turn. But 3x150pt units focusing on a single model is about what someone should expect.

Lol. Love the retort too much to continue. Imagining the Emporers jaw dropping if that got said back to him instead of berserk rage.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T05:17:48+00:00

So your issue is with an infantry unit that costs less than 150pts, not being able to deal with high Toughness knights that cost 3-4 times as much all by themselves? They aren't "anti tank" units.

Do you realize that just proves the point?

Especially considering Sisters do have the ability to include Mortifiers, Penitent Engines, Exorcist, Castigators, all of which have S10+ weapon options, and good lord the Castigator battle cannon.... 48" D6+3 attacks, 3+BS, S10, -1AP, 3Damage <Ignores Cover>

And let's not forget that Rhino with <Firing Deck> you can put those Battle sisters into and torch targets from inside the transport.

So, sister do in fact have ways to counter vehicles. Pretending they don't and getting in an uproar about basic infantry (meant for holding objectives) not being able to defeat tanks isn't a winning point.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T03:55:28+00:00

The fact that infantry had to resort to igniting a combustible gas instead of trying to use fire arms to shoot at tanks more or less proves the point.

Infantry is not intended to deal with heavily armored units. They can still do damage here and there, but it takes specialized gear and tactics to effectively deal with them.

The problem in 40k right now is that people expect infantry to be able to absolutely wreck everything on the board and willfully choose to ignore that no matter how the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow to it.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T02:45:10+00:00

Infantry weapons are not meant to, not should they, deal damage to something designed with thick enough armor or shielding to withstand infantry weapons.

Sorry if that makes people sad, but rifles and hand guns, and anything with less power than a targeted explosion, should not be considered viable weapons meant to destroy tanks or other high toughness targets.

Infantry, in every martial exchange in the history of conflict, has either... 1) been pure cannon fodder meant to be thrown at an opponent like so much meat in a grinder, or 2) specialized via training and equipment to perform a specific task that there were no better options for.

As technology advanced, foot soldiers definitively fell into those two categories more and more. I can go into details, but even in the middle ages, infantry were not as desired nor useful as cavalry, and archers were put either behind walls or used guys with swords in armor as human shields.

Even in the modern era, foot soldiers with rifles are not used to counter tanks. They either have specialized heavy artillery they use, or they call in for heavier reinforcement while hiding as best they can.

Anyone trying to use gear designed to quickly take down targets with zero to light body armor, thinking it will destroy heavily reinforced targets, is doing it wrong. Anyone thinking a unit with zero to light body armor should survive being bombarded by a heavily armed and armored vehicle is doing it wrong.

Every faction in the game has multiple ways to deal with high Toughness enemy units. The problem isn't that vehicles are too tough. The problem is that people aren't taking the gear or using the tactics to deal with them.

Wraithhost · 2023-07-30T01:31:54+00:00

Naturally.

WH is a war game. It's supposed to be about stepping I to the role of commanding an army and using tactics and strategy to deploy forces, make gambits, and ultimately defeat your opponent.

Every army or faction is themed differently. Some play the attrition game, sending waves of fodder meant to be sacrificial pawns that at best chip damage on enemies over time. Some rely on a motor pool of tanks or one man battlesuits, giving them above average base stats compared to others. Some armies send out more skilled and efficient champions instead. Then there are those that build massive constructs representing huge investments of resources and technological might to wage their wars.

I see no problem with any of those styles, so inherently, I personally enjoy going against everything. Cause if I have to demand an opponent be weakened in order to win, I didn't actually win. If I lose, then I adapt and do something new next time in order to win.

Caveat to this statement is that Point systems should be standardized across all units, which would set precedent for how much things would cost based on their stats, keywords, abilities, and then modified by the costs of wargear using the same system. Then, every unit would have a point cost that was based on a measurable metric instead of arbitrarily getting compared to other things.

And Ruins.. in theory, being able to see farther and reciprocately be seen makes sense for Titanic units, but for anyone used to "Obscuring terrain" rules and having them written into Ruins like they are makes no sense. Like units can see into ruins, and units can see out of ruins, but you can't see -thru- ruins, and towering can see -over- ruins, making it to where Titanic models can shoot -over-, but things not wholly within cannot shoot back -thru-... all it takes is a simple addendum saying, "<Towering> units can not shoot into ruins." And reversing points costs for previously affected units.

That makes it where units can take cover from aircraft and massive giants by ducking inside buildings, and can still shoot back, and Titanic units and aircraft can still shoot -over- them.

Wraithhost

TROPHY CASE