Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If I have to deal with 2-5 wraith knights then so should you.

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

This system (or something equivalent to it) would probably be best if the premise of Traditio's original post is even required. The only problem with that is that not all SHV's are comparable (in points or in stats ).

I'm going to take a wait and see approach to this. So far, there have only been 25 respondents.

If the poll ends up 100 or so people strong and ends in my favor, I am going to reject War Kitten's idea on the grounds that they don't belong in normal games to begin with.

If the poll ends up otherwise...

...

...I may have to question the necessity of War Kitten's proposal in the first place. If superheavies belong in the normal game, what precisely is it that demands a points restriction?

PS:

Furthermore, why should IKs be an exception?

Because some people actually have an Imperial Knight army and deserve the chance to get to use them on the battlefield? Because true Apoc games are few and far between these days it seems? Because their entire frickin' codex is nothing but super heavies?

War Kitten wrote:Because some people actually have an Imperial Knight army and deserve the chance to get to use them on the battlefield? Because true Apoc games are few and far between these days it seems?

This isn't a compelling argument. Some people have multiple wraithknights. Don't they, by your argument, deserve the chance to get to use them on the battlefield?

Some people have multiple baneblades. Some people have multiple stormsurges.

What precisely is your point, War Kitten?

Because their entire frickin' codex is nothing but super heavies?

So what? Allied detachments are a thing.

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:Because some people actually have an Imperial Knight army and deserve the chance to get to use them on the battlefield? Because true Apoc games are few and far between these days it seems?

This isn't a compelling argument. Some people have multiple wraithknights. Don't they, by your argument, deserve the chance to get to use them on the battlefield?

Some people have multiple baneblades. Some people have multiple stormsurges.

What precisely is your point, War Kitten?

Because their entire frickin' codex is nothing but super heavies?

So what? Allied detachments are a thing.

Some people don't like taking allies, so what do they do then? And I'm not sure you're one to talk about compelling points, since you seem to believe that bolters should be able to damage a Warhound Titan.

War Kitten wrote:Some people don't like taking allies, so what do they do then?

Suck it up and run allies anyway.

When's the last time you've seen someone running a pure Legions of the Damned army?

And I'm not sure you're one to talk about compelling points, since you seem to believe that bolters should be able to damage a Warhound Titan.

Is it any less ridiculous, in your view, that Necron gauss guns can?

No to banning them. You've had more than 2 years now to find something to kill those big bad scary superheavies or gmc with. Not our fault you haven't been able to.

While it's true that some need a nerf... looking at you Wraithknight. :p

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:Some people don't like taking allies, so what do they do then?

Suck it up and run allies anyway.

When's the last time you've seen someone running a pure Legions of the Damned army?

So your solution is "Suck it up"? Really? That's pathetic to say the least.

Traditio wrote:

And I'm not sure you're one to talk about compelling points, since you seem to believe that bolters should be able to damage a Warhound Titan.

Is it any less ridiculous, in your view, that Necron gauss guns can?

But Gauss is not comparable.

IllumiNini wrote:So your solution is "Suck it up"? Really? That's pathetic to say the least.

Again, when's the last time you've seen a LotD detachment run without allies?

But Gauss is not comparable.

Yes, it is. It is the basic gun (with otherwise similar capabilities) of a similarly costed troop choice in another codex. It's exactly comparable.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:So your solution is "Suck it up"? Really? That's pathetic to say the least.

Again, when's the last time you've seen a LotD detachment run without allies?

When was the last time someone ran a LotD army period?

But Gauss is not comparable.

Yes, it is. It is the basic gun (with otherwise similar capabilities) of a similarly costed troop choice in another codex. It's exactly comparable.

Gauss is a weapon that flays the target at the molecular level, hence why it gets that Gauss bonus. A bolter is a glorified grenade launcher.

Next you're going to say a lasgun should be able to hurt a Baneblade.

War Kitten wrote:Gauss is a weapon that flays the target at the molecular level, hence why it gets that Gauss bonus. A bolter is a glorified grenade launcher.

Next you're going to say a lasgun should be able to hurt a Baneblade.

This is an argument from the fluff. The fluff can be adjusted however GW sees fit.

Fact is, gauss guns are the basic guns for a basic troop choice in the necron codex. If basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies, then basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies.

Period.

Can see it this way to... "Can't play against heavies? Suck it up and play against them anyway." Since you apply that rationality to having to field allies.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:So your solution is "Suck it up"? Really? That's pathetic to say the least.

Again, when's the last time you've seen a LotD detachment run without allies?

I've never run LotD, so I can't comment. Also, that still leaves your advice of "Buck up and take allies" as being pathetically bad.

Traditio wrote:

But Gauss is not comparable.

Yes, it is. It is the basic gun (with otherwise similar capabilities) of a similarly costed troop choice in another codex. It's exactly comparable.

I don't think they're comparable. If you think they are, would you do us all the favour of doing the comparison and this show us how they are comparable?

IllumiNini wrote:I've never run LotD, so I can't comment. Also, that still leaves your advice of "Buck up and take allies" as being pathetically bad.

LotD always start in reserves.

If you bring a pure LotD army, you auto-lose, because you have nothing on the field on turn 1.

I don't think they're comparable. If you think they are, would you do us all the favour of doing the comparison and this show us how they are comparable?

Look up the stats for the gauss flayer. Literally the only difference between its statline and the statline of a bolter is the word "guass."

And the fact that it comes on a troop selection that's 1 ppm less than a space marine.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:I've never run LotD, so I can't comment. Also, that still leaves your advice of "Buck up and take allies" as being pathetically bad.

LotD always start in reserves.

If you bring a pure LotD army, you auto-lose, because you have nothing on the field on turn 1.

And that's all well and good for LotD, but I'll say the following for a third time:

Your excuse of "Buck up and take Allies." is pathetic at best. Why should people head that advice?

Traditio wrote:

I don't think they're comparable. If you think they are, would you do us all the favour of doing the comparison and this show us how they are comparable?

Look up the stats for the gauss flayer. Literally the only difference between its statline and the statline of a bolter is the word "guass."

And the fact that it comes on a troop selection that's 1 ppm less than a space marine.

If anything, that's just an argument for Gauss weapons to cost more, which is an entirely different topic and should not occur in this thread.

 War Kitten wrote:

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:So your solution is "Suck it up"? Really? That's pathetic to say the least.

Again, when's the last time you've seen a LotD detachment run without allies?

When was the last time someone ran a LotD army period?

But Gauss is not comparable.

Yes, it is. It is the basic gun (with otherwise similar capabilities) of a similarly costed troop choice in another codex. It's exactly comparable.

Gauss is a weapon that flays the target at the molecular level, hence why it gets that Gauss bonus. A bolter is a glorified grenade launcher.

Next you're going to say a lasgun should be able to hurt a Baneblade.

He already has. He had a whole thread where he said every attack should have the Gauss rule by default, with Necrons getting nothing to distinguish their molecule-flaying guns from a glorified grenade launcher.

Matt.Kingsley wrote:He already has. He had a whole thread where he said every attack should have the Gauss rule by default, with Necrons getting nothing to distinguish their molecule-flaying guns from a glorified grenade launcher.

Why should they? Necron Immortals, in a decurion, are 1. cheaper than space marines and 2. very difficult to kill (4+ armor and 4+ Reanimation Protocols is much better than a 3+ armor save).

Why should they be able to kill super-heavies too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, back to the OP:

Superheavies don't belong in the same game as non-super-heavies. Fact is, super-heavies represent models/units of a scale which is simply different in kind from the other units in play.

Thus, superheavies need to stay in games which are properly "for" units/models of that scale, and that game is apocalypse.

Nuff said.

The first superheavy in a list should be more expensive than they are now (except the ridiculously overcosted stompa,) then each additional one cost 25% more, cumulative.

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

I like this. I've never seen someone take a (wraith or imperial)Knight in a 750 point game, but I'm sure there is someone who would do that, and this just solidifies it so they legally can't. Question is, what percentage? Throwing out a random number, 20 percent or maybe 25?

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

I like this. I've never seen someone take a (wraith or imperial)Knight in a 750 point game, but I'm sure there is someone who would do that, and this just solidifies it so they legally can't. Question is, what percentage? Throwing out a random number, 20 percent or maybe 25?

Wraithknights and scatbikes are viable in 750 points games, and I know pretty much for a fact that a friend of mine has done this.

@Traditio:

So not only have you opted to ignore my point/question on your poor allies advice, but you're back on your scale/spectacle argument (which hasn't done as much as I imagine you'd like it to have done for you in the past) as a reason for SHV's not to be in non-Apoc games?

0/10 points there, Traditio.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The first superheavy in a list should be more expensive than they are now (except the ridiculously overcosted stompa,) then each additional one cost 25% more, cumulative.

I would never take a super heavy then. As someone already brought up, say the malcador and/or baneblade. You want me to pay 25% more for something that is already non-competitive in the first place? And with this rule you can't cherry pick so it only applies to say, wraithknights ( ) . That's just changing points cost at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

I like this. I've never seen someone take a (wraith or imperial)Knight in a 750 point game, but I'm sure there is someone who would do that, and this just solidifies it so they legally can't. Question is, what percentage? Throwing out a random number, 20 percent or maybe 25?

Wraithknights and scatbikes are viable in 750 points games, and I know pretty much for a fact that a friend of mine has done this.

Of course they are, WAAC players exist and always will.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

I like this. I've never seen someone take a (wraith or imperial)Knight in a 750 point game, but I'm sure there is someone who would do that, and this just solidifies it so they legally can't. Question is, what percentage? Throwing out a random number, 20 percent or maybe 25?

I was kind of basing my idea off of how WHFB did their force org, where "rare" choices could take up 25% of your points MAX. I would think somewhere around that number for LOW/Super Heavies. It encourages their use at higher points (as it gives more wiggle room in terms of what you can spend on it), while not totally boning over most players. Again, the only possible exception to this might be something like an IK army, where the whole army is nothing but super heavies.

Traditio wrote:
Why do I have the feeling that you are being a liar, liar, pants on fire when you claim that you have or use a Malcador?

Because you're paranoid about "trolls" and didn't bother to look at my gallery (just like last time you questioned my motives and had to apologize)?

You don't paint your own models?

I paint my own models, but I paint the models I want to paint, not the models someone else wants me to paint. And I don't use unpainted models. So if you want to ban parts of my army you can pay for replacements, and that includes having someone else paint them to match the rest of my army.

Traditio wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:He already has. He had a whole thread where he said every attack should have the Gauss rule by default, with Necrons getting nothing to distinguish their molecule-flaying guns from a glorified grenade launcher.

Why should they? Necron Immortals, in a decurion, are 1. cheaper than space marines and 2. very difficult to kill (4+ armor and 4+ Reanimation Protocols is much better than a 3+ armor save).

Why should they be able to kill super-heavies too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, back to the OP:

Superheavies don't belong in the same game as non-super-heavies. Fact is, super-heavies represent models/units of a scale which is simply different in kind from the other units in play.

Thus, superheavies need to stay in games which are properly "for" units/models of that scale, and that game is apocalypse.

Nuff said.

Why shouldnt Necrons have Gauss? Just because they're "troops" or "basic infantry"? If you hadn't noticed throughout their whole Codex they have a grand total of four varieties of the same weapon for 90% of their army, gauss and tesla, saying they should get rid of gauss is like saying Tac and Devastator Squads need to give up the ability to take lascannons or grav or melta guns.

As for superheavies, you have yet to give an actual reason for why superheavies dont belong in regular 40k other than they're "superheavy" and that's not really an excuse, neither is the excuse of "scale" when there are small relatively low power super heavies like the Malcador, Gorgons, and the marine superheavies built on the Spartan chassis. While I agree it sucks to fight a Typhon it's still killable.

You seem to have this chip on your shoulder that all Superheavies are in the same power class as a Reaver Battle Titan, or Eldar Revenant and they're not. Heck the Thunderhawk, my favorite Superheavy ever is a glorified taxicab with ludicrously less firepower than a Warhound and easy as crap to shoot down. I've watched a Devastator Squad with Lascanons wipe a knight out, baneblades are kind silly as well I've watched Orks mob and punch out a baneblade as well.

So other than the fact you seem to have this proverbial "junk envy" against superheavies and necron gauss.. do you have any real reason why they shouldnt exist beyond "they're not what I like so no one should have them!" Arguments?

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Why do I have the feeling that you are being a liar, liar, pants on fire when you claim that you have or use a Malcador?

Because you're paranoid about "trolls" and didn't bother to look at my gallery (just like last time you questioned my motives and had to apologize)?

Fair enough (nice rusting, by the way).

But in all fairness:

You were a liar, liar pants on fire about that unbound ratling army.

I paint my own models, but I paint the models I want to paint, not the models someone else wants me to paint. And I don't use unpainted models. So if you want to ban parts of my army you can pay for replacements, and that includes having someone else paint them to match the rest of my army.

Noted.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Matt.Kingsley wrote:He already has. He had a whole thread where he said every attack should have the Gauss rule by default, with Necrons getting nothing to distinguish their molecule-flaying guns from a glorified grenade launcher.

Why should they? Necron Immortals, in a decurion, are 1. cheaper than space marines and 2. very difficult to kill (4+ armor and 4+ Reanimation Protocols is much better than a 3+ armor save).

Why should they be able to kill super-heavies too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, back to the OP:

Superheavies don't belong in the same game as non-super-heavies. Fact is, super-heavies represent models/units of a scale which is simply different in kind from the other units in play.

Thus, superheavies need to stay in games which are properly "for" units/models of that scale, and that game is apocalypse.

Nuff said.

Why shouldnt Necrons have Gauss? Just because they're "troops" or "basic infantry"? If you hadn't noticed throughout their whole Codex they have a grand total of four varieties of the same weapon for 90% of their army, gauss and tesla, saying they should get rid of gauss is like saying Tac and Devastator Squads need to give up the ability to take lascannons or grav or melta guns.

As for superheavies, you have yet to give an actual reason for why superheavies dont belong in regular 40k other than they're "superheavy" and that's not really an excuse, neither is the excuse of "scale" when there are small relatively low power super heavies like the Malcador, Gorgons, and the marine superheavies built on the Spartan chassis. While I agree it sucks to fight a Typhon it's still killable.

You seem to have this chip on your shoulder that all Superheavies are in the same power class as a Reaver Battle Titan, or Eldar Revenant and they're not. Heck the Thunderhawk, my favorite Superheavy ever is a glorified taxicab with ludicrously less firepower than a Warhound and easy as crap to shoot down. I've watched a Devastator Squad with Lascanons wipe a knight out, baneblades are kind silly as well I've watched Orks mob and punch out a baneblade as well.

So other than the fact you seem to have this proverbial "junk envy" against superheavies and necron gauss.. do you have any real reason why they shouldnt exist beyond "they're not what I like so no one should have them!" Arguments?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So, now that we've established that the Malcador example is not hypothetical, can we resume laughing at the idea that Malcadors are so terrifying in normal games that they need to be banned?

I say no because of the following reasons:

Superheavy vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and D weapons all require rules that go beyond the normal system to accommodate for them. This is most obvious with D-Weapons, since the entire reason they exist is because the Strength scale only goes up to 10.

When you need rules to go beyond your own game system, its a hint that the units shouldn't exist at all. These would be fine in Apocalypse, since Apocalypse is suppose to be whacked out crazyness, so going above the game system is ok, even encouraged. But if the base game was never built to handle these, then they should not be in the base game.

However I'd prefer them to completely overhaul the rules to accommodate for these units rather than just shove them off to Apocalypse. They can be fun, and the game is already due for an overhaul due to the other cluttered rules everywhere (Flyers, Special Weapons, etc, I'm looking at you).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Superheavy vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and D weapons all require rules that go beyond the normal system to accommodate for them.

No they don't, because they are part of the normal system. You might as well argue that vehicles "go beyond the normal system" because they require additional rules that don't apply to infantry units.

Edit: Sorry MechaEmperor7000, I misread and thus misunderstood your post.