So with the 7th edition coming out and some of the rumors Ive been hearing and seeing online, and with the Imperial Knights being released as a standard codex, do you think supper heavy's will be a standard in a normal 40k game. (with out escalation or anything)
If so I would like it just for the fact that turn 1 will have carnage from the word go. Granted I can see the negatives with it, but it doesn't bother me all that much.
They aren't going to be standard in my local meta anytime soon. We do have a guy who owns one, but he hasn't been able to get it into a kill team tournament yet. That is gonna be a rough day though when he figures out how.
No, only because the majority of what I've seen that is treated as "standard" are the games that reflect what is played competitively. Won't stop people from playing them (especially the Knight) but it does keep them from popping up constantly.
And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking. Using a 100% natural brick. I don't care if they want to play something like that, I just need to ability to either field a Lord of War of my own to match, or make sure I actually have the models necessary to not get steam rolled and make it a waste of everyone's time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saevus wrote: They aren't going to be standard in my local meta anytime soon. We do have a guy who owns one, but he hasn't been able to get it into a kill team tournament yet. That is gonna be a rough day though when he figures out how.
Good luck with the rules pretty much banning vehicles with armor values over a certain amount (I think the combined value of the three facings can't be more than 22) and the model needing to be under 200 points pretty much prevents that from happening.
They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". You know, that little paragraph everyone ignores at the front of the rulebook that talks about how the game should be played in a way that is fun for -both- players? The same one that allows you to house rule and homebrew because the core rules are only a framework for an enjoyable experience? That one? Yeah, that's why you should be slapping LoW on the table without at least a warning to your opponent.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be legal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
Your opponent should know of all the books you plan on using and why. This avoids any surprises and informs the opponent what kind of game to expect. So If you then say im using imperial armour 438, they will ask why and you say because I plan on using this.
Just like you say which army you plan on using, so too should you say which special or out of the ordinary units you will be using.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
You do understand that some armies can't properly make "Take all Comers" lists anymore, right? Sure it's fine to say that if they play Tau or Eldar but they play Orks, or Nids you might as well be kicking them in the crotch and then blaming them for not wearing a cup just in case you decided to do that.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
You do understand that some armies can't properly make "Take all Comers" lists anymore, right? Sure it's fine to say that if they play Tau or Eldar but they play Orks, or Nids you might as well be kicking them in the crotch and then blaming them for not wearing a cup just in case you decided to do that.
It's funny that people always bring up nids in these discussions. Nids can make some of the best flyer heavy lists in the game, which most LoW can't even touch.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
You do understand that some armies can't properly make "Take all Comers" lists anymore, right? Sure it's fine to say that if they play Tau or Eldar but they play Orks, or Nids you might as well be kicking them in the crotch and then blaming them for not wearing a cup just in case you decided to do that.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
Being angry when someone brings a model that is allowed is in poor taste. Just add it to the list of things you need to be able to deal with when making your list.
You do understand that some armies can't properly make "Take all Comers" lists anymore, right? Sure it's fine to say that if they play Tau or Eldar but they play Orks, or Nids you might as well be kicking them in the crotch and then blaming them for not wearing a cup just in case you decided to do that.
It's funny that people always bring up nids in these discussions. Nids can make some of the best flyer heavy lists in the game, which most LoW can't even touch.
Unless they took something like a Vulcan Megabolter.
And just because the Nids are flying doesn't mean they can do anything to the LoW (I think the Crone has the best chance at it but who brings 2-3 Crones to every game "just in case"?). A fair number of LoW have pretty good armour values, and would be supported by a full army, which could help ground those Nids if need be.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, that's why you should be slapping LoW on the table without at least a warning to your opponent.
Again, you were warned. LoW are part of the game now. It's just like bringing sufficient AA to deal with flyers now that they're part of the standard game, you know the threat is out there and you have to decide how much, if any, effort you want to put into countering it.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be legal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
And that is completely false. Facing a Malcador or even a Baneblade without "warning" is going to be easier than facing screamerstar/Riptide spam/etc without your opponent telling you their list and letting you tailor to beat it.
Emathews2715 wrote: So with the 7th edition coming out and some of the rumors Ive been hearing and seeing online, and with the Imperial Knights being released as a standard codex, do you think supper heavy's will be a standard in a normal 40k game. (with out escalation or anything)
If so I would like it just for the fact that turn 1 will have carnage from the word go. Granted I can see the negatives with it, but it doesn't bother me all that much.
read the current wd, chambers states 40k games are going to get bigger as time goes by....
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, that's why you should be slapping LoW on the table without at least a warning to your opponent.
Again, you were warned. LoW are part of the game now. It's just like bringing sufficient AA to deal with flyers now that they're part of the standard game, you know the threat is out there and you have to decide how much, if any, effort you want to put into countering it.
Right, like I was "warned" that a person would drop a Triptide list with Eldar accompaniment. Just because it's an option in the game doesn't mean you should have to be constantly on guard against it. It's a game, some level of respect and communication from the other person should be warranted.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be legal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
And that is completely false. Facing a Malcador or even a Baneblade without "warning" is going to be easier than facing screamerstar/Riptide spam/etc without your opponent telling you their list and letting you tailor to beat it.
Those tanks? Sure. A god-dang Reaver Titan or a Reverant with my Sisters army? Not a fuggin' chance I'd even get close enough to smack it with a melta, much less a melta-bomb before I was nuked off the board.
There a large difference between the attitudes of: "I want to bring a hard list" and "I want to bring the hardest, cheesiest thing I can without warning you and crush your skull with it and then dance on your dessicated corpse". I'm fine with the first one, it's the second one that puts me right off. You want a challenging game? Sure, I'll bring the best I can and we'll have a go. You want to ROFLSTOMP my army back into the materials it was made out of for your amusement because you can't be curtious enough to let me know that this wasn't going to be the kind of game that WASN'T going to have a Reverent Titan in it? Well then, I may as well play because the first two turns are going to be me picking models back up and then shaking your hand and it's a waste of everyone's time.
Frankly I'm all for options, but I think there needs to be a line in how they're used. And anytime someone starts hammering the "I WIN" button so hard it's threatening to break that line has been crossed. And honestly I firmly believe that it's crossed everytime someone decides to not give their opponent a fair warning that they're slapping a Super Heavy down on the board.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hell, you know what else talking you your opponent like a decent human being instead of something to crush and move on might do? Result in them bringing theirLoW and the two of you duking it out Pacific Rim style.
But I guess giant robot/monster fights have do be done "on accident" instead of intentionally in this day and age for some reason.
ClockworkZion wrote: Right, like I was "warned" that a person would drop a Triptide list with Eldar accompaniment.
Exactly. You know that those things exist, and that's your warning. Whether or not you choose to play against a list that is much more powerful than your own is an entirely separate question, and not one that is specific to superheavies. What matters is the overall strength of the list, not whether it gets that strength through an overpowered superheavy or just overpowered conventional units.
And honestly I firmly believe that it's crossed everytime someone decides to not give their opponent a fair warning that they're slapping a Super Heavy down on the board.
And, again, fair warning has been given: superheavies exist and can be used.
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". You know, that little paragraph everyone ignores at the front of the rulebook that talks about how the game should be played in a way that is fun for -both- players? The same one that allows you to house rule and homebrew because the core rules are only a framework for an enjoyable experience? That one? Yeah, that's why you should be slapping LoW on the table without at least a warning to your opponent.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be legal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
My sisters are unable to deal with land raiders may I borrow your hysteria fueled brick?
By the way the knights aren't as strong as some seem to think nor are they lord of war.
Peregrine, I equate that to be a "fair warning" as much as I equate you having legs being a warning that you plan on kicking me in the crotch.
There is a line between "being prepared" for things and "maintaining a state of paranoid hyper-vigilance" for things. The first is common sense, the second is a sign that you are either suffering from paranoia, or PTSD. And frankly, from what I gather from your posts what you're proposing is we all wear tin foil hats and toss common deceny to the wolves because we've all been "warned".
I'm sorry, but I just can not agree. For starters, I look awful in tinfoil hats, and secondly I just can't agree with the idea that players don't treat each other like reasonable human beings and just take their own enjoyment and place it so much higher on their priorities list than their opponents that their opponent might as well not be there.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how a game can be "fun" when people do that to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: My sisters are unable to deal with land raiders may I borrow your hysteria fueled brick?
No, because it's not real. I was being fairly sarcastic and a little angry more than hysterical. And Sisters can deal with -a- Land Raider or two reasonably well (Dominons with 4 Meltas, possible in a TL-Multi Melta Immolator for good measure) it's usually what's inside the Land Raiders that causes me the most issues, especially since GW basically nerfed Repentia back to the stone age.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a line between "being prepared" for things and "maintaining a state of paranoid hyper-vigilance" for things.
It's only "paranoid hyper-vigilance" if you start from a ridiculous assumption that superheavies aren't part of the normal game and you will never see them without fair warning. In the real game, as published by GW, preparing for superheavies is no more paranoid than preparing for flyers or preparing for MCs.
GW's growth strategy is clear. They aim to increase sales by introducing new categories of units for people to buy.
In 6th edition we have seen the rules rewritten to support fortifications, aircraft and super-heavy vehicles as parts of standard, sub-2,000 point games.
The codexes are being re-organised to encourage players to buy more rulebooks in physical and digital formats to "complete" their army.
For example, IG players may need to buy their core codex plus Tempestus Milites codex plus Imperial Knights codex plus dataslates to field the entire army they want.
I expect over the course of the next few years, GW to introduce similar super-heavy models, sub-factions and accompanying models for all the armies.
As long as these new things are options, the game can be played at whatever level you want, and it's good for everyone. If you want big games, you can play big games. If you want fortifications, you can play fortifications.
The thing is that GW need to try and get all this new stuff into every player's hands, so they have written the rules in a way that encourages people to start using all this extra stuff as standard units for any pick-up game.
There are various issues with that, however the core point remains that GW's objective is to sell more books and model kits within 40K (rather than by developing different games). Therefore it is inevitable that super-heavies will become "standard", and there will be a danger of friction between players who like or don't like that development.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a line between "being prepared" for things and "maintaining a state of paranoid hyper-vigilance" for things.
It's only "paranoid hyper-vigilance" if you start from a ridiculous assumption that superheavies aren't part of the normal game and you will never see them without fair warning. In the real game, as published by GW, preparing for superheavies is no more paranoid than preparing for flyers or preparing for MCs.
How many armies exactly can bring all the tools to handle vehicles, troops, flyers/FMCs, superheavies/GMCs, andMCs? I don't know that many who have the tools to fit all of that into a list and have it work honestly. And that's the problem. You want to put a LoW on the table without warning, you might be screwing over your opponent and wasting everyone's time just because you didn't take a moment to go "Hey, I'm bringing a Reaver, is that cool?"
I'm not against these things as part of the game, I'm against blaming the person who was caught unable to handle it because their codex just don't have the tools (or points them in such a way that they don't fit into most lists) to be ready for every single thing the game offers all at the same time, all the time. Not every book can do that and that's a flaw in the game that we really need to accept because for the time being it's not going to change (I do hope it changes in the future though).
ClockworkZion wrote: How many armies exactly can bring all the tools to handle vehicles, troops, flyers/FMCs, superheavies/GMCs, andMCs? I don't know that many who have the tools to fit all of that into a list and have it work honestly. And that's the problem. You want to put a LoW on the table without warning, you might be screwing over your opponent and wasting everyone's time just because you didn't take a moment to go "Hey, I'm bringing a Reaver, is that cool?"
But why do you single out LoW for special permission/warning? Why not assume that LoW are standard, and demand advance warning for flyers or for horde armies?
ClockworkZion wrote: How many armies exactly can bring all the tools to handle vehicles, troops, flyers/FMCs, superheavies/GMCs, andMCs? I don't know that many who have the tools to fit all of that into a list and have it work honestly. And that's the problem. You want to put a LoW on the table without warning, you might be screwing over your opponent and wasting everyone's time just because you didn't take a moment to go "Hey, I'm bringing a Reaver, is that cool?"
But why do you single out LoW for special permission/warning? Why not assume that LoW are standard, and demand advance warning for flyers or for horde armies?
Frankly I think communication is something that should be done in general before a game so both players get the most out of it. I'm really big about not being a dick and trying to skull crush your opponent just so you can feel good about yourself. There is being a strong player, and there is being a dick, and people who try to give themselves an advantage by being unclear about their lists before the game is set up are being the latter, not the former.
The reason I'm mentioning LoW specifically here is because this is a thread about LoW. It's like asking why I don't talk about cookies in a thread about blueberry muffins. Yes the cookies (every other combination in the game) probably deserve mentioning too, but the topic was about blueberry muffins (LoW) so I'm going to talk about the muffins.
It's happening, yes, and only because GW wants to sell super-heavys because they can make them more expensive. There's no thought as to how it will affect gameplay.
The issue being generated here, regarding whether a person should or should not be ready to face anything across the table (and here we're talking pick up games, not narrative events or tournaments where expectations are different) seems to be based entirely on the idea that your list is written before you meet your opponent. And should not be changed.
I think if we put that idea to one side, and approach things from a step further back in the process. Yes, that process will take slightly longer but I believe that it's worth the extra effort.
1. You arrive at your chosen gaming location and find someone who wants a game.
2. You both decide on a points level and then write your list. Knowing that because things like flyer heavy lists, super heavies or very competitive builds can be difficult to deal with (and the emphasis is about 2 people enjoying the game not just one) you declare that is what you want to play with.
It seems like this is the step where everyone gets stuck. Why is there some sort of mental block about telling your opponent what you're planning on using? Is there a fear that an unscrupulous opponent will then tailor their list to beat you? I suspect most people do not have the model collection to do so for every eventuality, and if they did probably did not bring all of said models with them every time they turn up to play.
Added in to this is the idea that you too can write a list that is influenced by your opponents theme or army. So you both have that advantage if you wish to use it.
That this level of discussion and agreement before a game begins is somehow onerous or even disagreeable in anyway I find ridiculous. This game is all about the social contract between two players (at any level) and an honest discussion about what you want to play with should not be beyond reason.
This argument as stated does not apply only to super heavies, but since that is the newest "threat" to emerge from the changes in the game, having been most recently introduced, it is understandable that this should bring up similar arguments to the introduction of flyers etc.
As already mentioned I have just decided to add a heft dose of Melta into my army just for the reason of dealing with the Super Heavies and Knights that are cropping up all over the place. Already in two games I took x3 squads of Deep Striking Storm Troopers with Meltas who made short work of an enemy Baneblade thanks to some good rolling and Vendetta Support. Just have to adjust to the new meta of the game, refusing to play someone for bringing something that is legal and allowed in my eyes is kind of a low blow as that peson paid money to use the model in standard games. Accusing it as "op" and "cheese" right off the bat is also in my eyes a poor excuse, as I have seen people who take a Super Heavy LOSE more often then not due to the points sink they cause.
My Necron flyer list wants to see your super heavy points sinks on the board. My GKs are scared of the Phantom titan list list someone bought. My Mids lists I am sure will do ok if I can make grounding tests. Like anything there are + and - to them.
Reanimator wrote: Is there a fear that an unscrupulous opponent will then tailor their list to beat you?
That's a concern, but the biggest factor is reluctance to hand your opponent veto power over your list. It's the FW "debate" all over again, where a group of players declares that they know better than GW and the rules they don't like are banned unless you beg them for special permission first. Meanwhile those same people declare that their choice of units is of course indisputably acceptable, so of course they can just show up with their standard list and expect to find a game.
You say a reluctance to hand someone veto power over your list. They ultimately have that anyway. The issue as I see is that people (on both sides of the argument) want to be able to play the way they want to, but without the risk of being denied that opportunity.
Take two examples:
Player A wants to bring a super competitive list and have a really challenging tactical game. His list is legal but aimed at giving the opponent a very tough tactical challenge.
Player B has brought his "softer" list that represents his desire to tell a story of a lost band of marines denied equipment support so has deliberately omitted certain units.
Both players want to play the game on their terms. Both have a reasonable expectation of doing so because both lists are catered for by the games mechanics. Neither is right to expect the other to conform to their idea of what they want to play.
The problem therefore- is as you said peregrine- neither wants to give the other the chance to deny them the opportunity to play the game they want.
This only remains a problem however- if the idea of not compromising for the other player is stigmatised. If player B says he does not want to play A because he's going to get stomped- he's not wrong to do so. Nor is A for refusing on the grounds that he won't get the tactical challenge he wants.
Forcing either side to conform however creates an unnecessary divide. If you don't want to play someone because their playstyle or army doesn't fit what you want then I see no problem with that. Just play someone else who does.
Clearly, if your options for opponents are limited then a compromise will need to occur, but knowing this is your situation should prepare you for that.
Reanimator wrote: You say a reluctance to hand someone veto power over your list. They ultimately have that anyway.
Yes, in theory. But in practice it's considered TFG behavior to refuse to play against a list without a really good reason (as in the game is a complete mismatch, not just that you don't like something in your opponent's list), and even then you're expected to be reluctant to refuse to play. That's why people who want to ban FW/superheavies/etc always invent some justification for how the unit they don't like isn't part of "real 40k", instead of just saying "no thanks".
Player A wants to bring a super competitive list and have a really challenging tactical game. His list is legal but aimed at giving the opponent a very tough tactical challenge.
Player B has brought his "softer" list that represents his desire to tell a story of a lost band of marines denied equipment support so has deliberately omitted certain units.
But what does this have to do with superheavies? Player A could be a Tau Riptide spam player with nothing but codex units, while player B could be my fluffy DKoK with a Malcador.
Not that this kind of situation is going to happen in a pickup game. If you have a list where you've deliberately made weak choices to reduce your chances of winning then pretty much any pickup game is going to be a one-sided slaughter. A list like player B's only works if you're playing against a regular opponent and made special arrangements (preferably in the context of an ongoing story-based campaign) far in advance.
n0t_u wrote: My sisters are unable to deal with land raiders may I borrow your hysteria fueled brick?
No, because it's not real. I was being fairly sarcastic and a little angry more than hysterical. And Sisters can deal with -a- Land Raider or two reasonably well (Dominons with 4 Meltas, possible in a TL-Multi Melta Immolator for good measure) it's usually what's inside the Land Raiders that causes me the most issues, especially since GW basically nerfed Repentia back to the stone age.
I thought Repentia had always been disappointing, shame because I would have enjoyed fielding them. However, I enjoy using flamers in every unit and exorcists, should I have to give up my enjoyment in the game just to deal with landraiders?
A full knight army I would agree with you on, I've been considering starting one up myself but I first made sure to ask everyone in the group I play with to check if they'd be alright with it first. So they easily have a lot of prior knowledge for it, though quite a few of the lists would have given the knights a run for their money to begin with so they were all alright with it some even looking forward to the challenge or being fairly confident they would have no trouble with them.
My point is a couple of them are fairly within the capabilities of almost all the armies, a full army however I agree on as some have no way to deal with that amount of armour at first glance. The knights have their own glaring weaknesses, such as being large targets unable to really hide. Their invulnerables are also direction based chosen at the start of the enemy shooting phase, make it hard for them to pick which to your example from before you could add a second squad (because you'd have two anyway for redundancy) or you could spread out the unit enough that it could hit two facings. Flyers, like the sisters they have little to no way to deal with these; in fact they have less answers to fliers than a pure sisters list would have due to the lack of massed fire and the fact that they basically just have 2 heavy stubbers each to shoot at them. A lot of the flyers against a pure knight list would likely get free runs around the board taking shots at them. Their size is also a weakness, for example say you get into a ruin they're outside of. It's multiple floors but has windows on the base, you can see and shoot at its legs but if you position right under the upper floor TLOS the knight cannot see you back. Faster MCs (Like the Wraithknight) if they can catch them could also be good I think, I'm not so sure on that. I'd probably be more worried about the Lancer but that's going to be FW anyways.
They're tough, but they are not the invincible death machines people have been making them out to be. I'd be more worried about some of the other super heavies coming into standard. They likely will and I can see the eventual solution to it being simply to get your own super heavies, there may perhaps be something for infantry but the bottom line is they'd want to see the other supers more.
The current problem with superheavies is that some armies have endless options for them, many of them quite good, while others have very few, which may all just suck.
The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.
What FW and GW need to do is try and make it so that every faction has about as many choices as Imperial armies do with regards to lords of war/knights (with the same applying to out of codex units/mini-lists from slates, FW, and supplements) and do more to fix the imbalance between GCs and SHVs.
I mean, a generic Iron hands/Clan Chapter master can be easily built to take on and destroy a Heirodule bio-titan for less than half the points while a Revenant may take an entire army to beat down.
Kain wrote: The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.
Though it should be noted that most of the Imperial "options" suck and you'll never take them unless you just want a cool model.
Kain wrote: The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.
Though it should be noted that most of the Imperial "options" suck and you'll never take them unless you just want a cool model.
Oh yes, for every Shadow sword or Grey Knight Thunderhawk there's a Malcador which will serve you best by getting itself killed close to something important of import to the enemy or a Marauder that can't really kill anything of importance.
Totally called it. This is no different from flyers or anything else.
Give players a chance to put cheesy gak on the table and watch them lap it up. I'm as guilty of that as any though, but hey, this game isn't competitive whatsoever so why pretend otherwise
Reanimator wrote: You say a reluctance to hand someone veto power over your list. They ultimately have that anyway.
Yes, in theory. But in practice it's considered TFG behavior to refuse to play against a list without a really good reason (as in the game is a complete mismatch, not just that you don't like something in your opponent's list), and even then you're expected to be reluctant to refuse to play. That's why people who want to ban FW/superheavies/etc always invent some justification for how the unit they don't like isn't part of "real 40k", instead of just saying "no thanks".
Player A wants to bring a super competitive list and have a really challenging tactical game. His list is legal but aimed at giving the opponent a very tough tactical challenge.
Player B has brought his "softer" list that represents his desire to tell a story of a lost band of marines denied equipment support so has deliberately omitted certain units.
But what does this have to do with superheavies? Player A could be a Tau Riptide spam player with nothing but codex units, while player B could be my fluffy DKoK with a Malcador.
Not that this kind of situation is going to happen in a pickup game. If you have a list where you've deliberately made weak choices to reduce your chances of winning then pretty much any pickup game is going to be a one-sided slaughter. A list like player B's only works if you're playing against a regular opponent and made special arrangements (preferably in the context of an ongoing story-based campaign) far in advance.
I disagree with all 3 points.
1. You've stigmatised someone not wanting to play someone else's version of the game. If that keeps happening people will continue to get heated about being made to feel obliged to go along with the other players desires ahead of their own. If people feel like they can't walk away without playing how the other person wants then they will develop the expectation that someone else needs to play their game I order to not be tfg. That's unfair. If you don't want to play a certain way then why should you have to? (Exception regarding player availability not withstanding).
2. The examples I have we're just that. Examples. They could be as you described. Or any other combo. The point is not that super heavies deserve this sort of treatment more than any other. Just that no one play style, competitive, LoW, narrative etc deserves to be held as the standard to which the other player should be expected to conform. Doing so effectively puts one person in control when it comes to setting the social contract. Which is again unfair.
3. Pick up games can have a narrative element if that's what you want to play. You don't need a campaign or an overarching story in order to tell your own story with the game. Yes, you will need to discuss what that story is with your opponent before the game. But that's what I'm getting at. That discussion about how you both want to play the game is what people some to be shying away from. No one person in that discussion should feel compelled to play the way the other person wants if they have a different idea.
I can't imagine Revenant Titan vs fluffy Kroot list to be fun for either side. At all.
I'm not opposed to Superheavies in a game, but the problem (surprise) is Escalation and the lack of balance. In the same way Triptide or Taudar are a problem.
At least we all have a Void shield generator ri- oh...
liquidjoshi wrote: I can't imagine Revenant Titan vs fluffy Kroot list to be fun for either side. At all.
I'm not opposed to Superheavies in a game, but the problem (surprise) is Escalation and the lack of balance. In the same way Triptide or Taudar are a problem.
At least we all have a Void shield generator ri- oh...
I kind of wish there was a Kroot codex, mini-list or supplement.
Man... it feels wierd agreeing with Peregrine.. but yeah.
Escalation is a Supplement, meaning it's part of the game, and in random PUG games should be expected.
In a standard Pickup game of Warhammer 40,000, you should really expect to see anything in the following list:
Spoiler:
Note, the above list is currently out of date. Not included are: Codex: Militarum Tempestus, Altar of War and Dataslate: Rising Leviathan III)
You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:
Spoiler:
From some 37-38 Army Lists.
That is the game, and if just going into a store and shouting 'anyone want a game X points', that's what you are asking to play.
Furthermore, for Escalation I honestly think it's fine, with one condition. - No ranged StrD weapons.
Melee StrD isn't that bad, and of course is on a 'regular' army list anyway, it ranged D that causes problems and wrecks what vague illusion of balance there is in the game.
in my local meta im going to say.. yes and no. will they become a standard. this i dont doubt, everyone and their mum either has a knight or a wraith or even a few ascended ctan are out n there (and at least three big stompas). howerver unless your playing the local escalation league you dont see them take the field. flyers are now a lot more standard in high point games with lots of ravenwings and vendettas and nightscythes. and as a result i think its only a matter of time before we see it, but it wont be soon. its just "waiting for its moment"
Superheavies are becoming increasingly "standard". But at this point, I think in most gaming groups the gentlemanly thing to do is tell your opponent you'd like to use units from a supplement beyond the rulebook and codices.
Regardless of what a "standard" game is to GW, I think enough gamers consider a "standard" game to be rulebook + codex that it's just the better thing to do to tell your opponent that. I'm sure a lot of gamers don't even know what all the FWIA books contain, I sure as hell don't know the rules for the majority of FW's models. If it happens to be a tournament, then it's up to the organisers to either ban or not ban the supplements.
We can go around throwing around terms like "TFG" all day and night and it doesn't do anything beneficial, at the end of the day the gentlemanly thing to do is to ensure the game is fun for both parties and if that means, in your local meta, that you tell your opponent you are using a non-standard unit and perhaps work around it to make the battle more interesting.
Hell, if you see your opponent plonk down an army that is totally ill suited to taking on your army and it's not a competitive game, I don't think it should be out of the ordinary to say before the game starts "oh, hey, you're really ill equipped for this, perhaps we'll count those dudes with flamers as meltas, or maybe I'll swap this unit out for something else since you have little means of killing it (or whatever)". "List tailoring" doesn't always have to be a bad thing, you can also use it to make sure armies are properly matched.
If somebody has brought a riptide heavy tau list or a revenant just to stomp the other person through unfair advantage then they are highly likely to be a poor person to play against even with a fluffy list. I'm not saying everybody who uses that sort of list or plays that sort of super heavy is a douche, just the sort who take actual pleasure in stomping over much weaker codexes rather than earning their victory through tactics and list building.
Denying a game because you have no counter to a particular unit, be it riptides or revenants or anything in between is one thing, refusing to play because it makes the job harder (rather than unachievable) is completely different.
Ovion wrote: That is the game, and if just going into a store and shouting 'anyone want a game X points', that's what you are asking to play.
Furthermore, for Escalation I honestly think it's fine, with one condition. - No ranged StrD weapons.
Most of us have the lines we've drawn (I think people like Peregrine who say EVERYTHING is fine are probably the rarity).
You just said "you should expect anything from anything.... oh, except ranged D". So you just drew your own line of what you think is balanced and what you think is not. That's why, IMO, you should just talk it out with your opponent instead of EXPECTING people to want to play the way you want to play. Hell, if your opponent is apprehensive about playing against your army, explain why the unit you want to take isn't actually that powerful (unless what you took was a Revenant, then you're just an arse ).
No, I said you should expect everything if shouting 'anyone want a game'.
If I go to a store and say 'Anyone want a 1500pt game' and my opponent plonks down Eldar with a Rev Titan that has the Pulsars, I'll still play him, just to see if I can actually do anything against that list - but I won't expect it to go well.
I then added that I think that even with all of the insanity in the above images I posted, overall it's mostly fine and remains pretty fun.
Apart from Ranged StrD, which takes the fun away a bit in non-apoc games, because it's lethality is greater than its cost.
So in our local gaming group, with have that singular house rule of no ranged StrD in non-apoc games. (And even before Escalation, we had a house rule of 0-1 Apoc units - max 50% of army w/ no ranged StrD anyway)
But if I go to the local store (or for some reason I go to my local GW) and ask for a random game I understand it's a possibility, and am prepared for and accept that risk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Spoiler:
Superheavies are becoming increasingly "standard". But at this point, I think in most gaming groups the gentlemanly thing to do is tell your opponent you'd like to use units from a supplement beyond the rulebook and codices.
Regardless of what a "standard" game is to GW, I think enough gamers consider a "standard" game to be rulebook + codex that it's just the better thing to do to tell your opponent that. I'm sure a lot of gamers don't even know what all the FWIA books contain, I sure as hell don't know the rules for the majority of FW's models. If it happens to be a tournament, then it's up to the organisers to either ban or not ban the supplements.
We can go around throwing around terms like "TFG" all day and night and it doesn't do anything beneficial, at the end of the day the gentlemanly thing to do is to ensure the game is fun for both parties and if that means, in your local meta, that you tell your opponent you are using a non-standard unit and perhaps work around it to make the battle more interesting.
Hell, if you see your opponent plonk down an army that is totally ill suited to taking on your army and it's not a competitive game, I don't think it should be out of the ordinary to say before the game starts "oh, hey, you're really ill equipped for this, perhaps we'll count those dudes with flamers as meltas, or maybe I'll swap this unit out for something else since you have little means of killing it (or whatever)". "List tailoring" doesn't always have to be a bad thing, you can also use it to make sure armies are properly matched.
I agree you should try and ensure that the game is fun for everyone, but people not knowing all the rules or armies in a PUG match isn't an argument for not using it.
I don't really know what's in the Dark Angels book or most of their rules (they have termis and plasma and stuff right?), I'm also not really familiar with Legion of the Damned, or 90% of the Space Marine Chapter Tactics.
And even though I play an army out of the Grey Knights Codex, I'm only familiar with 3 models in there (Coteaz, Jokaero and Dreadknights), which is really my own fault, but I don't really like Grey Knights... soo that's that.
And that's just from 'standard' books, let alone the IA stuff.
But that doesn't mean I won't play against those armies, and it doesn't mean anyone else shouldn't either.
Someone not knowing what an army or model(s) are shouldn't prohibit anyone from playing the game.
Ovion wrote: No, I said you should expect everything if shouting 'anyone want a game'. If I go to a store and say 'Anyone want a 1500pt game' and my opponent plonks down Eldar with a Rev Titan that has the Pulsars, I'll still play him, just to see if I can actually do anything against that list - but I won't expect it to go well.
I then added that I think that even with all of the insanity in the above images I posted, overall it's mostly fine and remains pretty fun. Apart from Ranged StrD, which takes the fun away a bit in non-apoc games, because it's lethality is greater than its cost.
So in our local gaming group, with have that singular house rule of no ranged StrD in non-apoc games. (And even before Escalation, we had a house rule of 0-1 Apoc units - max 50% of army w/ no ranged StrD anyway) But if I go to the local store (or for some reason I go to my local GW) and ask for a random game I understand it's a possibility, and am prepared for and accept that risk.
So you should expect anything... but you agree that StrD line over which things are bit much (beyond "fine")?
I mean, I pretty much agree that if you walk in to a store and don't know the local meta, you should expect to face anything given GW (IMO, stupidly) don't place limits on things. But I also think it's equally fair that if you walk in to a store toting a bunch of super-heavies to expect to occasionally be told "no thanks"... hence the part about actually discussing and compromising.
but people not knowing all the rules or armies in a PUG match isn't an argument for not using it.
I think you kind of grabbed the bull by the tail with my 1 sentence. I didn't mean to say ignorance is the only argument for not wanting to play against it, just pointing out that before we start calling people TFG for being apprehensive it's worth noting some people don't know what a Malcador or a Lifta Dropper or a Vampire Hunter is other than it's something big you just plonked down on the table.
Yes, Ranged StrD is just not balanced at all. Even with the poor balance inherent to Warhammer 40,000.
Melee D is limited by needing to get to melee, and partially mitigated by how few targets it can hit with it at a time (rarely more than 1-2).
Ranged D is indiscrimate and brutal, usually templates (often large templates), and ignores all saves, and generally cheaper than it deserves to be. Even in Apoc I think it's a little OTT.
Though I honestly think, if it allowed Invun Saves and had a straight AP value instead of ignore-all-armour (being it's almost all AP1/2 anyway), then it would be alright.
As to getting a bit irritable at the ignorance of armies argument... I see it a lot, and it's one of the worst arguments I see for no Forgeworld, or no this/that/other.
Ovion wrote: You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:
Spoiler:
I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.
Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.
Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.
Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.
Kain wrote: The current problem with superheavies is that some armies have endless options for them, many of them quite good, while others have very few, which may all just suck.
The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.
What FW and GW need to do is try and make it so that every faction has about as many choices as Imperial armies do with regards to lords of war/knights (with the same applying to out of codex units/mini-lists from slates, FW, and supplements) and do more to fix the imbalance between GCs and SHVs.
I mean, a generic Iron hands/Clan Chapter master can be easily built to take on and destroy a Heirodule bio-titan for less than half the points while a Revenant may take an entire army to beat down.
GW's plan clearly will introduce Super Heavies (and aircraft, and forts) for all armies as they go along, though it may take time.
Yes, the IK was GW's way to ease up the presumed future inclusion by default of Escalation/LoW so you can turn up for a regular game and your opponent can play a superheavy "just because".
Sadly it's as Peregrine states, but it shouldn't be. The fact this game demands you to hash out with your opponent what is and isn't allowed/wanted for a game is bad enough but I could certainly see somebody demanding to be allowed a superheavy because "it's in the rules".
Ovion wrote: You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:
Spoiler:
I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.
Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.
Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.
Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.
I'm just worried this latest Codex Tempestus thing (which seems to be seperate to guard?), and whatever they plan to bring out over the next 3 months doesn't change the FoC any further.
I'm having enough trouble trying to update the allies matrix, let alone having to redo the FoCyet again
Ovion wrote: You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:
Spoiler:
I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.
Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.
Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.
Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.
Yeah, the funny thing is, 2nd edition was really just a few tweaks away from a pretty decent rule set. What we have now is totally out of control and would take a mammoth effort to balance and turn from a convoluted mess in to a clear and concise game, far more so than 2nd edition.
Wait a sec, isnt the answer for most MCFMC Hvy wehicles SHV etc etc, fists melta and plenty of it?, sure MC and FMC you can poison to death, but the same still applies hit them hard and often....
now you may not like the notion but nids can wreck a superheavy, they use a MC and Smash attack it... orks have lots of power klaws its not like the older dexes cant deal with them... sure a reaver titan is a bit of a dick dropping what 8 lrg blast str D shots a turn (at 3 targets) but thats a nice 1500 something points in 1 model.....
decrying SHV is pointless... people did it over flyers at the begining of 6th, now people are EXPECTING them... i dont say it often but time to get over it and realise you may get lucky and only wear a baneblade
The problem is that it's getting way out of hand and GW is constantly pushing the goals backward to promote larger and larger armies, bigger and bigger toys and in general everything to push more product, and the laundry list of what is and isn't allowed in a game gets bigger because they think its reasonable to expect to discuss beforehand everything about the game before you play it.
This game has transformed so much its barely recognizable.
The thing is Wayne there is no allowed/dis-allowed list of models, unless your gaming group/house-rule it... you should be able to walk into a gaming club as a new person and say 1500 pts game whos up. and go for it... your list should be prepared for anything,
also use plenty of LoS blocking terrain... the titans cant see you cant shoot you, play cat and mouse. if he wants to leave it static just avoid it... you want to play an open parking lot for terrain, you are getting exactly what you wanted... to be shot to ribbons... lots of terrain and tighten things up, dont own fancy terrain, grab cerial boxes tuppawere whatever really... block that table up... and after the novelty of the titan wears off and they realise its a 1500 pt sink itll appear less...
above is just 1 way to deal with the problem of these big baddies.... my list of the chunky stuff is a warhound, a thunderhawk. baneblade, glaive, fellblad. im not short on anything to field... i also will happily lend any of them to an opponent who wants to borrow one... not a problem, hell you want to proxy 1 as something else go ahead i do not mind...
what i do mind is blind hatred of the damn things... for no reason other than it looks big and bad... total money spent on them thousands they are nice andpretty and rather amusing to field... the BaneBlade gets more use than the others... it goes pew pew with the cultists manning the guns... combat effectiveness... pretty low damn bad shooting haha... but all people see is a super heavy and cry...
Things i think do need a change would be stuff like StrD becoming Str10 AP1 Melta fleshbane so no more instagibbing vehicles. maybe a varation on melta so that armored ceramite still gets the extra dice... maybe toss instant death in as well... so you still get invluns so it carries lots of the damage but without the ridiculous StrD rules...and this could go for ALL StrD weapons not just the ranged ones...
ausYenLoWang wrote: The thing is Wayne there is no allowed/dis-allowed list of models, unless your gaming group/house-rule it... you should be able to walk into a gaming club as a new person and say 1500 pts game whos up. and go for it... your list should be prepared for anything
Yet GW (well, Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace and another guy I forget the name of) has said in White Dwarf that they don't like the idea of "being ready for anything", and things like the IK are "an interesting tactical puzzle" that needs "solving".
I'm getting mixed messages here. The game wants to be everything to everyone, and fails miserably at everything as a result. You can't reasonably be prepared to take on flyers, superheavies, MCs and everything in between in a single army without severely hampering it, and then you end up playing to the army and not to the game.
Ovion wrote: You also have to be prepared for anything and everything that might be taken in the Force Org Chart:
Spoiler:
I haven't paid much attention to the meta since I resumed my interest in 40K, so this is the first time I've seen that. That's... horrifying.
Question is... even if they wanted to how would they put this genie back in the bottle? 40K seems to be suffering from massive rules bloat at the moment - far worse than when they set about streamlining things at the onset of 3rd edition - but there's no way to rein it in without severely limiting the circumstances in which people can use all those expensive superheavy vehicles, flyers and mono-unit armies they've bought... and doing so would not go down well.
Long term though I can only see this hurting the hobby. The barrier to entry is only going to get worse if Joe Newbie's lovingly painted infantry squads just get repeatedly trampled underfoot or strafed into oblivion because the local meta revolves entirely around Knights and Flyers.
Personally, given my preference for actual armies rather than collections of static action figures (looking at you, Riptide and Wraithknight) I'm really glad that my current enjoyment of 40K is not reliant on pick up games or any kind of 'competitive' scene.
Yeah, the funny thing is, 2nd edition was really just a few tweaks away from a pretty decent rule set. What we have now is totally out of control and would take a mammoth effort to balance and turn from a convoluted mess in to a clear and concise game, far more so than 2nd edition.
Actually you could do it by moving fortifications, flyers, super heavies and formations out from the core rules into optional expansion rulebooks like Apocalypse, Planetfall, Cities of Death and so on.
Unfortunately for GW's plans, I don't think those supplements were nearly as well received as the core game, so they have decided to try and make them non-optional.
The problem obviously arises that a lot of players really don't want to play those extras, for various reasons, some of which are perfectly valid.
To say, "Oh but I paid for my Baneblade so you have to let me use it", doesn't work, because I can just as easily say, "I paid for 40K and deliberately didn't buy Apocalypse, because I don't want to play with Baneblades". Neither of us can force each other to play.
The solution is to do as various members have said above -- discuss possible match-ups with possible opponents and try to compromise.
i understand that, but that comes back to the at the end of the day you can say no to anything for anyreason.... and yes talking about it before hand is great as well.. but well i dunno i like a challenge and no prior knowledge can be interesting....
really though, flyers you take an adl and that about covers that... or jsut ignore them as best you can.. all the MCSH etc etc... melta LC pfists etc, if your not taking them.... well... what happens when you come up against a landraider, hive tyrant, riptide or a wraithknight? play to your armies strengths. iv come up against 3 wraithknights know what i did... i ignored them and wiped the rest off the table... then he couldnt score... again terrain and objectives make most of the big things irrelivant
DE i think is one of the better armies for dealing with the big stuff lots of poison lots of lance haywire....
Peregrine wrote: They already are "standard", because Escalation is part of the standard game. Refusing to play against it is no different than refusing to play against orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And anyone who drops a Lord of War or Knight on the table without warning needs a good bricking.
You have warning. GW said "LoW are now legal".
Right and I've got a brick on it that says "Spirit of the Game". You know, that little paragraph everyone ignores at the front of the rulebook that talks about how the game should be played in a way that is fun for -both- players? The same one that allows you to house rule and homebrew because the core rules are only a framework for an enjoyable experience? That one? Yeah, that's why you should be slapping LoW on the table without at least a warning to your opponent.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be legal, I'm arguing that acting like a tosspot and not giving your opponent any warning you're bring them is the most dickish thing you can do in the game (right now).
This is generally why competitive players don't play pick up games unless they're trying to get a rise out of tabling people.
But, honestly, one imperial knight is not a big deal. If I decide to play some casual games for fun and someone dropped a knight without informing me, I wouldn't be mad because I would have taken necessary steps to make sure my army has a dedicated anti-armor wing for those kind of situations.
The meta has changed and thus so must your armies. Adapt or lose.
If the above is not your idea of fun, you're not my kind of opponent and we shouldn't play together.
It's not that I am worried about how to oppose fliers, I just don't play 40K for a game with fliers and stuff because I don't think they work in the scale of the game and the table size, etc. I think fixed fortifications are stupid in most cases in a skirmish level game, outside of special scenarios.
I reckon that kind of stuff fits much better in an "Epic" scale of game.
I don't classify 40k as a "skirmish" level game, there are just too many models on the table. I think "squad level" is a better description as that is how you purchase most units, but the squad (unless your Guard, then you buy platoons and put squads inside of your new nested FOC chart).
PrinceRaven wrote: I'd just like to pont out that nothing in the Rulebook says you can select units from Supplements when making your army, only Codices.
and if that were the end of the argument then there would never be a pro/con FW debate.... infact the "supplements" errata stuff into your codex. eg this model can be taken in that slot as per codex.... time to just accept it and move on, or dont.. and dont play aginst people that want to use these models either way, dont pretend your way is the only way...
in short based on my intrepretation of the rules ill play with my toys and you can watch, because your interpretation of them says i cant... im good with that
The Supplements say you can, GW says you can, etc.
Forgeworld, Supplements and such are all legal ways to use an army, that do not need any explicit permissions from your opponent.
Meaning if you just ask for 'a game', expect anything.
If you're going to ask for 'a 1500pt game with no forgeworld or supplements', then that's up to you, and you're changing the game.
Like people who still want to play 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th ed games.
That's up to them, but it isn't the current, legal 40K that you should expect when going for Pick Up Games.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't classify 40k as a "skirmish" level game, there are just too many models on the table. I think "squad level" is a better description as that is how you purchase most units, but the squad (unless your Guard, then you buy platoons and put squads inside of your new nested FOC chart).
It is a skirmish game by the standard definition that a single figure represents a single man. Obviously it's a large skirmish, designed for platoon to company sized forces, so squad level is a good description.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't classify 40k as a "skirmish" level game, there are just too many models on the table. I think "squad level" is a better description as that is how you purchase most units, but the squad (unless your Guard, then you buy platoons and put squads inside of your new nested FOC chart).
It is a skirmish game by the standard definition that a single figure represents a single man. Obviously it's a large skirmish, designed for platoon to company sized forces, so squad level is a good description.
Fair enough. I associate "skirmish" as to refer to games like Warmachine were you have a much smaller model count and the game itself is smaller. Like the old Patrol Missions or Kill Teams.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Something I don't get is that people keep talking about 7th, even though it has not been confirmed yet.
People always talk about rumors that haven't been confirmed, what's different? People speculate on what it could fix/break or how it could change up the game, it's just due to GW being GW it's more often "Oh god what will they feth up this time" than "I wonder what new things will be added"
I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
Xerics wrote: I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
Not sure if serious... the game falls completely to pieces at above 2,000 points, more so than any other time. Not to mention the absolutely huge investment that would be. Tell you what, I'd support 3,000 points minimum if GW prices were like they were back in the RT days, or even 1999. Until then, I'd love to see them push a game that requires a thousand dollars minimum to get into.
I find this laughable that instead of dealing with titans by abandoning this "If you buy it, you can use it" like of gak, let's just up the point cost so people don't get stomped by TFG who shows up with a $500 titan and tries to pay to win a tabletop game.
Actually on second though, I do want them to do this just because it'd make them collapse faster.
I find most games are entire armies vieing to win, to me a skirmish would be 500-1000 points. Just my personal experence though.
OK, I see.
Well, the usual definition of a skirmish game is one in which a single model represents a single man, so they move and shoot individually, which is what happens in 40K.
That is why 40K does not scale well at larger point values. If you double the number of troops, you double the time taken to work out the results of shooting. At some point, the time needed to roll all the dice will exceed the time available to play the game. It is already a problem with horde armies at the 1,800 point level.
Xerics wrote: I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
Not sure if serious... the game falls completely to pieces at above 2,000 points, more so than any other time. Not to mention the absolutely huge investment that would be. Tell you what, I'd support 3,000 points minimum if GW prices were like they were back in the RT days, or even 1999. Until then, I'd love to see them push a game that requires a thousand dollars minimum to get into.
I find this laughable that instead of dealing with titans by abandoning this "If you buy it, you can use it" like of gak, let's just up the point cost so people don't get stomped by TFG who shows up with a $500 titan and tries to pay to win a tabletop game.
Actually on second though, I do want them to do this just because it'd make them collapse faster.
If you look at my signature I already have quite a bit of points so I am dead serious. Also the game does not completely fall to pieces above 2000. It only falls to pieces when elitists play the game at any point value. I have just about every single model in my army except for Illic and Shining Spears.
Also if you spend $500 on a titan you need to be laughed at. Necrons have a transcended Ctan which is not $500. Also you can pick up an Eldar titan or imperial Titan from e-bay for under 200. As a matter of fact i got an armorcast revenant titan for the same price as an imperial knight. Many other superheavys can be gotten from games workshop for orcs, chaos space marines, necrons, and imperial guard with their baneblades. None of them cost $500. Tau are the only ones with the short end of the stick because the only superheavies they have are from forgeworld and crazy expensive, but after all their SMS, riptides, markerlight and farsight crap i don't feel too bad for them.
Also it only costs $1000 if you buy it brand new out of the box. Try e-bay. Patience is your best friend to good deals (also alot of time searching for exactly what you want). But thats how i got alot of my stuff. I got 4 rogue trader wraithlords for the same price as a new plastic wraithlord.
Xerics wrote: I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
If the "average" game use more points, you'll have less new players, that's for sure. At the moment, most games are 1500 to 1999+1. That's already about 300$-400$. If you up the points, the players need to invest even more to just start being able to play.
Xerics wrote: I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
I'd be happy enough for 40k to be tiered and super heavies being "normal" in games of 3000+ pts and below that not allowed except for a few rare exceptions.
You might like games above 2000pts, I personally find games above 2000pts painful. I typically collect an army to 1500-2000pts and then start a new army because I have little to no desire to play above that level anyway. Too many models, too unbalanced.
2000pts and less, probably even 3000pts and less to be honest, super heavies/apoc/escalation are NOT well balanced, both in rules and in units. There's wildly varying imbalance in the units themselves, some being terrible and others being awesome. The rules are clearly not designed for them. We are still using the same basic rule set we had, what is it now, 15 years ago? Back when a standard game most certainly did not include big massive things. The game does not scale well to big things. That's obvious in the fact the maximum strength we have is Strength 10, then when you realise that's not enough you have to go "err, ok, Strength D", it's so obviously tacked on to make big things fit in to a rule system for which they aren't suited.
Xerics wrote: I hope super heavy's become part of the "normal game" (normal according to people who don't like escalation/stronghold assault) because maybe people will have to up the point value of their games to keep their TAC lists and still be able to deal with a titan. Then we might actually start getting to real war game rather than a skirmish game.
At 2000 points I have a hard time dealing with certain titans even when I commit 100% of my 2000 points to killing it. Maybe if we upped the point values there might be something else we could do.
Time to take off the 2000 or less points blinders people have on.
I'd be happy enough for 40k to be tiered and super heavies being "normal" in games of 3000+ pts and below that not allowed except for a few rare exceptions.
You might like games above 2000pts, I personally find games above 2000pts painful. I typically collect an army to 1500-2000pts and then start a new army because I have little to no desire to play above that level anyway. Too many models, too unbalanced.
2000pts and less, probably even 3000pts and less to be honest, super heavies/apoc/escalation are NOT well balanced, both in rules and in units. There's wildly varying imbalance in the units themselves, some being terrible and others being awesome. The rules are clearly not designed for them. We are still using the same basic rule set we had, what is it now, 15 years ago? Back when a standard game most certainly did not include big massive things. The game does not scale well to big things. That's obvious in the fact the maximum strength we have is Strength 10, then when you realise that's not enough you have to go "err, ok, Strength D", it's so obviously tacked on to make big things fit in to a rule system for which they aren't suited.
a 3000pt+ normal game... you go to a game store and say i want to play 3000 pts and see if you ever get a game... the game is only unballanced above 2k points due to TFG stacking 6 riptides in and that kind of rubbish... see how the average army goes filling 4000pts or maybe even 5 into a dbl force org... you run out of slots and then start needing to make choices (unless your BA) thing is 2k isnt an issue at that point level the big titans dont even get in, a reaver is 3/4 of your points.... with only 25% of your points your going to struggle to win... people dont like playing 2k points because of an inate fear of what COULD be put down in front of them... they have all heard of the silly lists... but you need to ask yourself, who at your gaming store owns 6 helldrakes, or riptides or wraithknights.... the list is going to be reeeeeaall short, superheavies are a point sink.
allseing your suggesting that we keep superheavies to apoc... thats all really... pretty sure this is the same argument that was used for flyers.... again give it time and the tears from people will stop. they will see the superheavies being used in tournaments and ZOMG I GOTTA HAVE THAT will happen and well there we go problem solved (sadly adepticon hasnt got them this year due to the recent release of the book, though there is a section where they are running them as well)
but yes GW have upped the anti, bigger armies more models, OR dont buy 2000+ pts and take a 1500 army + superheavy... points made up and it could cost as little as what 100$.
ausYenLoWang wrote: a 3000pt+ normal game... you go to a game store and say i want to play 3000 pts and see if you ever get a game... the game is only unballanced above 2k points due to TFG stacking 6 riptides in and that kind of rubbish... see how the average army goes filling 4000pts or maybe even 5 into a dbl force org... you run out of slots and then start needing to make choices (unless your BA) thing is 2k isnt an issue at that point level the big titans dont even get in, a reaver is 3/4 of your points.... with only 25% of your points your going to struggle to win... people dont like playing 2k points because of an inate fear of what COULD be put down in front of them... they have all heard of the silly lists... but you need to ask yourself, who at your gaming store owns 6 helldrakes, or riptides or wraithknights.... the list is going to be reeeeeaall short, superheavies are a point sink.
allseing your suggesting that we keep superheavies to apoc... thats all really... pretty sure this is the same argument that was used for flyers.... again give it time and the tears from people will stop. they will see the superheavies being used in tournaments and ZOMG I GOTTA HAVE THAT will happen and well there we go problem solved (sadly adepticon hasnt got them this year due to the recent release of the book, though there is a section where they are running them as well)
but yes GW have upped the anti, bigger armies more models, OR dont buy 2000+ pts and take a 1500 army + superheavy... points made up and it could cost as little as what 100$.
Would you mind proof reading before you post and using some punctuation and capitals, your post is quite difficult to read (sorry if English isn't your first language, but your location says Australia so I kind of expected some level of English).
Yes, I am saying 40k is not well suited to above 2k pts just like super heavies aren't well suited to the 40k rule system in general.
Just because it's the same argument that was used for flyers doesn't mean it's a bad argument. I love things that fly, I was painting model aircraft before I ever started wargaming and I like buying the flyers for the armies I collect. But damn, it's bloody stupid having high speed fighter aircraft dancing over a tiny skirmish of less than 50 dudes per side. IMO, flyers should have been implemented in the same fashion as the old epic rules, they make a pass over the battlefield, attacking some things along the way, then exit the other side of the battlefield to return a couple of turns later. With close support aircraft like the Valkyrie or FMC's still being able to hover over the battlefield.
40k is not a good rules system for flyers. You know what is a good rules system for flyers? Aeronautica Imperialis. Before GW axed it, it was a great game for playing with flyers. Flyers and ground troops work on different scales of time and space, you'll usually end up compromising one for the other if you want a system that works well.
But anyway, this isn't a discussion about flyers. Superheavies might become standard, IMO it won't be for the benefit of the game, at the moment in a lot of circles they are not standard and despite what the rules say I think people who want to bring superheavies should treat them as something non-standard.
ausYenLoWang wrote: a 3000pt+ normal game... you go to a game store and say i want to play 3000 pts and see if you ever get a game... the game is only unballanced above 2k points due to TFG stacking 6 riptides in and that kind of rubbish... see how the average army goes filling 4000pts or maybe even 5 into a dbl force org... you run out of slots and then start needing to make choices (unless your BA) thing is 2k isnt an issue at that point level the big titans dont even get in, a reaver is 3/4 of your points.... with only 25% of your points your going to struggle to win... people dont like playing 2k points because of an inate fear of what COULD be put down in front of them... they have all heard of the silly lists... but you need to ask yourself, who at your gaming store owns 6 helldrakes, or riptides or wraithknights.... the list is going to be reeeeeaall short, superheavies are a point sink.
allseing your suggesting that we keep superheavies to apoc... thats all really... pretty sure this is the same argument that was used for flyers.... again give it time and the tears from people will stop. they will see the superheavies being used in tournaments and ZOMG I GOTTA HAVE THAT will happen and well there we go problem solved (sadly adepticon hasnt got them this year due to the recent release of the book, though there is a section where they are running them as well)
but yes GW have upped the anti, bigger armies more models, OR dont buy 2000+ pts and take a 1500 army + superheavy... points made up and it could cost as little as what 100$.
Would you mind proof reading before you post and using some punctuation and capitals, your post is quite difficult to read (sorry if English isn't your first language, but your location says Australia so I kind of expected some level of English).
Yes, I am saying 40k is not well suited to above 2k pts just like super heavies aren't well suited to the 40k rule system in general.
Just because it's the same argument that was used for flyers doesn't mean it's a bad argument. I love things that fly, I was painting model aircraft before I ever started wargaming and I like buying the flyers for the armies I collect. But damn, it's bloody stupid having high speed fighter aircraft dancing over a tiny skirmish of less than 50 dudes per side. IMO, flyers should have been implemented in the same fashion as the old epic rules, they make a pass over the battlefield, attacking some things along the way, then exit the other side of the battlefield to return a couple of turns later. With close support aircraft like the Valkyrie or FMC's still being able to hover over the battlefield.
40k is not a good rules system for flyers. You know what is a good rules system for flyers? Aeronautica Imperialis. Before GW axed it, it was a great game for playing with flyers. Flyers and ground troops work on different scales of time and space, you'll usually end up compromising one for the other if you want a system that works well.
But anyway, this isn't a discussion about flyers. Superheavies might become standard, IMO it won't be for the benefit of the game, at the moment in a lot of circles they are not standard and despite what the rules say I think people who want to bring superheavies should treat them as something non-standard.
sorry if you have trouble comprehending what i have to say. the lack of capitilisation is i am busy and writing this in my spare time between doing other things. if you would like i can get someone else to do it all for me. i am an aussie, i am a perth lad and i speak perfect english. just tend to type fast and forum boards dont do text editing like other software i have.
now in YOUR area they arent accepted, in others they are... thats ok for you. the ENTIRE ruleset for 40k isnt great or tightly written so dont expect perfection or tournament levels of rules for it in any way shape or form. now to add to this its NOT a skirmish. having a model come in fly over then be sideboarded for another couple of turns when you only have MAYBE 6? waste of time... so just get rid of it... dont make a model, and just make it a wargear option for an airstrike. saves time money and effort... look ahead and realise this is how the game WILL be, nothing thats been added will be taken away.
if you want a true skirmish style game thats small squad based and tight rules, play warmachine, because thats what it is. now in WM just remember a half inch muckup and game over turn 2.
the setting for 40k is MASSIVE battles, if it helps you consider the marines you field at a 1:10 ratio, a representation of it.
Xerics wrote: It only falls to pieces when elitists play the game at any point value.
Define 'elitist'.
Because, in all sincerity, I have no clue what is intended by that.
Elitist as in has to use only certain units. WAAC players. Internet list players who only play those lists. I have a hard time finding theory crafters out here where I am. Everyone uses a net list and if you don't you are laughed at. I'm working on a 2k list to beat a Revenant without using a super heavy but its rough and I don't get to play test it much.
Elitists are also people who play the flavor of the month. I have played Eldar since I started before I even knew how powerful they were. My first units were 4 howling banshees and a wraithlord (which I still have today) and that was back in 2007. I didn't start really playing the game until 2011 but I chose Eldar back in 2007 with those models. I know a lot of people who dumped Blood Angels after they no longer became a top tier army. Same goes for Imperial Guard. I like to call these people "Flavor of the Month" people because not only do they use the lists that other people come up with and post on the internet but they also abandon an army when it isn't the best army like it was making them unpopular or something.
ausYenLoWang wrote: a 3000pt+ normal game... you go to a game store and say i want to play 3000 pts and see if you ever get a game... the game is only unballanced above 2k points due to TFG stacking 6 riptides in and that kind of rubbish... see how the average army goes filling 4000pts or maybe even 5 into a dbl force org... you run out of slots and then start needing to make choices (unless your BA) thing is 2k isnt an issue at that point level the big titans dont even get in, a reaver is 3/4 of your points.... with only 25% of your points your going to struggle to win... people dont like playing 2k points because of an inate fear of what COULD be put down in front of them... they have all heard of the silly lists... but you need to ask yourself, who at your gaming store owns 6 helldrakes, or riptides or wraithknights.... the list is going to be reeeeeaall short, superheavies are a point sink.
allseing your suggesting that we keep superheavies to apoc... thats all really... pretty sure this is the same argument that was used for flyers.... again give it time and the tears from people will stop. they will see the superheavies being used in tournaments and ZOMG I GOTTA HAVE THAT will happen and well there we go problem solved (sadly adepticon hasnt got them this year due to the recent release of the book, though there is a section where they are running them as well)
but yes GW have upped the anti, bigger armies more models, OR dont buy 2000+ pts and take a 1500 army + superheavy... points made up and it could cost as little as what 100$.
Would you mind proof reading before you post and using some punctuation and capitals, your post is quite difficult to read (sorry if English isn't your first language, but your location says Australia so I kind of expected some level of English).
Yes, I am saying 40k is not well suited to above 2k pts just like super heavies aren't well suited to the 40k rule system in general.
Just because it's the same argument that was used for flyers doesn't mean it's a bad argument. I love things that fly, I was painting model aircraft before I ever started wargaming and I like buying the flyers for the armies I collect. But damn, it's bloody stupid having high speed fighter aircraft dancing over a tiny skirmish of less than 50 dudes per side. IMO, flyers should have been implemented in the same fashion as the old epic rules, they make a pass over the battlefield, attacking some things along the way, then exit the other side of the battlefield to return a couple of turns later. With close support aircraft like the Valkyrie or FMC's still being able to hover over the battlefield.
40k is not a good rules system for flyers. You know what is a good rules system for flyers? Aeronautica Imperialis. Before GW axed it, it was a great game for playing with flyers. Flyers and ground troops work on different scales of time and space, you'll usually end up compromising one for the other if you want a system that works well.
But anyway, this isn't a discussion about flyers. Superheavies might become standard, IMO it won't be for the benefit of the game, at the moment in a lot of circles they are not standard and despite what the rules say I think people who want to bring superheavies should treat them as something non-standard.
Superheavies need to become the next standard thing. Here is Games workshop thinking. If there are superheavies in play you will need a superheavy to deal with them or buy more models designed to attack it. That means more money for them because now you have to buy more to deal with the dynamic direction of the game. So in reality all those people who every calls "TFG" because he has a Titan is actually helping keep GW in business as now everyone has to deal with it. People who are actual collectors and buy all the models (not just the ones to make that awesome 1500, 1750, 1850 and 2000 net lists) already have the tools to try and beat these monstrosities and the best part is we have been picking them up when they were still cheap (at least compared to today's prices). We had the foresight to get these models. Now that everyone is finally being forced to dealing with them they are going to cry foul at GW prices (which i will admit have gotten steep these last few years).
I feel like this is one of those times where people need to adapt. And while alot of people are going to resist there is no game like warhammer 40k Some might get attracted to warmachine and other games. But you will always have the itch in the back of your mind that those other games just can't fill. Its like playing world of warcraft for 5 years and then trying to quit and go to a different MMORPG. There is always that draw back to where you came from.
On topic though, I'm with Zion. I don't think Superheavies should be in 40K at all, and if you're enough of a gakbag to bring one then you should give your opponent forewarning. It's only fair. Nobody I know would even think of playing one without telling their opponents, because games are supposed to be enjoyable for both parties. Who likes crushing their friends?
I don't play in a tournament setting though, so I can't speak for the hardcore/angry/egotistical crowd. Maybe that is their jam.
On topic though, I'm with Zion. I don't think Superheavies should be in 40K at all, and if you're enough of a gakbag to bring one then you should give your opponent forewarning. It's only fair. Nobody I know would even think of playing one without telling their opponents, because games are supposed to be enjoyable for both parties. Who likes crushing their friends?
I don't play in a tournament setting though, so I can't speak for the hardcore/angry/egotistical crowd. Maybe that is their jam.
I think people misunderstand, I think EVERYTHING belongs in 40k, but people need to be respectful enough of each other's time to warn them when they're bringing something like a Super Heavy in a list. I know what Peregrine likes to say that I've "been warned" but I still want enough respect out of my opponent to tell me about it before we set the table up, get everything ready and then he slaps it on the table, maybe even ask me if I'll need to change things to handle the new threat because my pre-drafted list was made for a different meta that largely involved dealing with gunlines.
I just don't want to feel like my time has been wasted, and I don't think anyone else does either.
On topic though, I'm with Zion. I don't think Superheavies should be in 40K at all, and if you're enough of a gakbag to bring one then you should give your opponent forewarning. It's only fair. Nobody I know would even think of playing one without telling their opponents, because games are supposed to be enjoyable for both parties. Who likes crushing their friends?
I don't play in a tournament setting though, so I can't speak for the hardcore/angry/egotistical crowd. Maybe that is their jam.
Im sure that those that play tourneys love to be called angry and egotistical.
side note from GWTAC style lists now need to allow for superheavies, or you know those that buy all those other models buy one yourself... its not like the average ones are crazily expensive. something that amazes me is that there is people who go out, buy a set list and expect it to last them years no sorry the game evolves and your armies and models will need to allow for that. because if all you had was a space wolf list that relied on long fang spam, your now no longer a contender etc etc evolve with the game or become redundant. hell id welcome a game against a superheavy and not having one.. changes the dynamic of how you play. and sure you may lose but go down fighting, and look for new stratagies, is no different to a new codex or new models in existing codex's...
and you know why people dont announce the SHV to their opponent? the tears of rage that it could be there.... because of this stupid misconception that they are OP and all of the other bollox about them, so what happens people refuse to play point blank because of them, dont even want to know the rules. just NOPE NOT AGAINST TAHT THING, look at the size of it.... but when you look at id say MOST, there is a couple i do believe there is reasonable reservations against (reaver, revenant, warhound) are 3 outside of them.... most are very expensive and about the same value as taking say 4predators = 1 baneblade, in output, yet the BB has less HP than 4 preds. the more awareness people have of these models, their rules, capabiliteis and points costs i think the fear and hysteria of them will diminish greatly.
On topic though, I'm with Zion. I don't think Superheavies should be in 40K at all, and if you're enough of a gakbag to bring one then you should give your opponent forewarning. It's only fair. Nobody I know would even think of playing one without telling their opponents, because games are supposed to be enjoyable for both parties. Who likes crushing their friends?
I don't play in a tournament setting though, so I can't speak for the hardcore/angry/egotistical crowd. Maybe that is their jam.
I think people misunderstand, I think EVERYTHING belongs in 40k, but people need to be respectful enough of each other's time to warn them when they're bringing something like a Super Heavy in a list. I know what Peregrine likes to say that I've "been warned" but I still want enough respect out of my opponent to tell me about it before we set the table up, get everything ready and then he slaps it on the table, maybe even ask me if I'll need to change things to handle the new threat because my pre-drafted list was made for a different meta that largely involved dealing with gunlines.
I just don't want to feel like my time has been wasted, and I don't think anyone else does either.
Precisely.
A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy. Some of them are far more unreasonable than others - say the Baneblade vs the Revenant - but in either case I think common courteousy should be given to your opponent with a heads up of "Hey mate, I'll be bringing [Superheavy X], so that's a thing. It's got like, guns are stuff. Sooo... look out for that one"
Saying that you've got warning for it is silly. the fact you know it is legal doesn't mean you built your list around destroying one. That's like saying that you were warned other motorists were on the road, so you should have been prepared to be T-boned.
Slamming something like that down with no warning, wearing a gak-eating grin will win you no friends. Just sayin', if it was me, I'd warn you (not that I'd ever use a Superheavy outside of a Baneblade, they're just so iconic!)
On topic though, I'm with Zion. I don't think Superheavies should be in 40K at all, and if you're enough of a gakbag to bring one then you should give your opponent forewarning. It's only fair. Nobody I know would even think of playing one without telling their opponents, because games are supposed to be enjoyable for both parties. Who likes crushing their friends?
I don't play in a tournament setting though, so I can't speak for the hardcore/angry/egotistical crowd. Maybe that is their jam.
Im sure that those that play tourneys love to be called angry and egotistical.
To me that seems like the only reason you'd slap a superheavy down without telling your opponent, so you can swing your honking big phallic model in their faces as they worship around your feet.
There is some hyperbole here. But that is how I view not warning someone that you're bringing a potentially gamebreaking war machine.
Spark i agree to a point, but again you wont be seeing revenants or reaves in sub 2500 pt games... they are just too expensive, unless thats ALL you field... its the more basic 500pt type ones you will see and none of them are devastating... though again i will allow a WarHound for its cost is rough buuut how many people actually have them...
i have this kind of stuff and id lend a chassis to someone to proxy as whatever if they wanted, im NOT going to drop a reaver on someone and be like LOL reaver + cultists + lord 1850 lets go... thats bs... but id love to play my thunderhawk or the SH tanks i have, they arent the devastating over the topness that it seems MOST people seem to think ALL of them are... they just arent that bad, but the perception is, that they are ALL 500 pt reaver titans with 10 D weapons etc etc BAN BAN BAN... and that sadly isnt the case. a normal ork army can deal with baneblades and equivilants and thats ORKS..... what can SM, or TAU do to them.... its crazy..
i would say that people need to start to see these things in action rather than seeing internet hysteria about them and realise, oh so its not totally BS and then make opinions.
You know I keep seeing the same argument in these therads....
"it's not fair to play superheavies because they can stomp my army, you need to think of the other player"
The problem is you assume the guy with the superheavy is automaically TFG, so since we seem to enjoy using insane hypotheticals in this thread here's one in defense of superheavies....
So you have a guy named Bob, Bob fething loves him some Titans. Hell he still has his epic army, but games have gotten slow so Bob gave it up for a 40k army, let's say Space Marines. So Bob hears about Escalation and gets so pysched, he runs out and scrapes some pennies together to buy a Warhound, after dutifully assembling it and painting it he grabs his copy of Escalation and heads down to the local FLGS for some gaming. But UHOHHH!! Bob has a superheavy so Phil isn't playing Nids versus TFG, Jimmy isn't fielding his Triptide list versus that OPbs "cause its not gonna be in any tournaments anytime soon", in fact noone is playing against his Warhound because the FLGS has a new "house rule" saying superheavies are stupid and they aren't playing them.
Kinda sucks too be Bob huh?
What I'm saying is Superheavies are legal now, you have to prepare just like you would for anything else making a blanket rule banning them is just as ridiculous as banning Tau or Inquisitors..... Now of course people are going to be lame and pull some bs like a Warhound crammed into a 1000 point list or something... But that is just as likely to happen as a screamerstar or Triptide or 4 Heldrakes or whatever else bs game breaking combo is the flavor of the month. Honestly variety is not a bad thing, I'd kill for a Chaos Knight, and if this means we get more fancy Epic upgraded to 40k goodness I'm all for it, hell give me 4 movable tables and a 10ft by 20ft gaming space and release Codex: Titans, I'll gladly line up a couple hundred of my Chaos Marines just to see how long they last, afterall its just a game of toy soldiers.
ausYenLoWang wrote: Spark i agree to a point, but again you wont be seeing revenants or reaves in sub 2500 pt games... they are just too expensive, unless thats ALL you field... its the more basic 500pt type ones you will see and none of them are devastating... though again i will allow a WarHound for its cost is rough buuut how many people actually have them...
i have this kind of stuff and id lend a chassis to someone to proxy as whatever if they wanted, im NOT going to drop a reaver on someone and be like LOL reaver + cultists + lord 1850 lets go... thats bs... but id love to play my thunderhawk or the SH tanks i have, they arent the devastating over the topness that it seems MOST people seem to think ALL of them are... they just arent that bad, but the perception is, that they are ALL 500 pt reaver titans with 10 D weapons etc etc BAN BAN BAN... and that sadly isnt the case. a normal ork army can deal with baneblades and equivilants and thats ORKS..... what can SM, or TAU do to them.... its crazy..
i would say that people need to start to see these things in action rather than seeing internet hysteria about them and realise, oh so its not totally BS and then make opinions.
And I'd be fine with anyone playing them, I just think they should be nice enough to warn their opponent. I don't like Superheavies, but I get that there are people who do. I just think fair warning is due.
ausYenLoWang wrote: Spark i agree to a point, but again you wont be seeing revenants or reaves in sub 2500 pt games... they are just too expensive, unless thats ALL you field... its the more basic 500pt type ones you will see and none of them are devastating... though again i will allow a WarHound for its cost is rough buuut how many people actually have them...
i have this kind of stuff and id lend a chassis to someone to proxy as whatever if they wanted, im NOT going to drop a reaver on someone and be like LOL reaver + cultists + lord 1850 lets go... thats bs... but id love to play my thunderhawk or the SH tanks i have, they arent the devastating over the topness that it seems MOST people seem to think ALL of them are... they just arent that bad, but the perception is, that they are ALL 500 pt reaver titans with 10 D weapons etc etc BAN BAN BAN... and that sadly isnt the case. a normal ork army can deal with baneblades and equivilants and thats ORKS..... what can SM, or TAU do to them.... its crazy..
i would say that people need to start to see these things in action rather than seeing internet hysteria about them and realise, oh so its not totally BS and then make opinions.
And I'd be fine with anyone playing them, I just think they should be nice enough to warn their opponent. I don't like Superheavies, but I get that there are people who do. I just think fair warning is due.
and its not that i dont mind the notion of warning people, there is just a group and you can see it here on dakka that throws up the hate flag at the mention of them, the refusal to play and the other complaining... also list tailoring then tends to ensue, because if you know your facing a SH you arent going to bring a list you normally wpoul youll tailor it to deal with the SH... it happens... ALOT
Kain wrote: The current problem with superheavies is that some armies have endless options for them, many of them quite good, while others have very few, which may all just suck.
The DEldar don't even get any superheavies, the Daemons and Tyranids only get GCs (and mediocre GCs at that), the Necrons and Tau are a tad starved for choices but at least have powerful options, while Imperial factions, the CSMs, the Eldar, and the Orks all have tons of things to choose from.
What FW and GW need to do is try and make it so that every faction has about as many choices as Imperial armies do with regards to lords of war/knights (with the same applying to out of codex units/mini-lists from slates, FW, and supplements) and do more to fix the imbalance between GCs and SHVs.
I mean, a generic Iron hands/Clan Chapter master can be easily built to take on and destroy a Heirodule bio-titan for less than half the points while a Revenant may take an entire army to beat down.
GW's plan clearly will introduce Super Heavies (and aircraft, and forts) for all armies as they go along, though it may take time.
I hope they do it soon because right now at least three armies have "get fethed" for good superheavies (DEldar, Daemons, and Tyranids).
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
TAC these days is becoming meaningless. The game is spread too thin, like butter over too much bread. TAC these days mostly means "I'm an uber gunline and don't care what you bring" or "I tried to build a list that can deal with too many different opponents thus have no coherency or strength to deal with anything other than another army that is also spread too thin".
It seems these days in a lot of metas you go a long way simply by NOT bringing a TAC list and instead going highly focused so that none of the TAC armies can actually deal with all the eggs you put in a single basket, right up until you hit someone who also bought an eggs in one basket list that also happens to be the rock to your scissors.
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
Did we forget the article where Jervis said there shouldn't be a TAC army at all, but it's okay to keep trying to find the golden goose anyways?
A superheavy is just a vehicle with alot of Hull Points.
Its not like they have over 14 armor and people have been dealing with land raiders for how long? I would not tell my opponent I'm bringing a superheavy because list tailoring. If anything i would find an apponent at the store and at the last moment I would say that my list has a superheavy in it. If that person then goes "Well I need to change my list a little." then you know they are list tailoring. Its a big tank with a big weapon that people need to learn to deal with. And everytime someone refuses to play against superheavies they are shooting themselves in the foot because they will never learn how to beat it if they never play against it (either that or they are waiting for the internet to tell them how to beat it in which case they have no brains of their own).
A TAC list means ALL. If you don't account for superheavies then it isn't TAC. This is why I said that maybe we need more than 2,000 points because people are going to need those extra points to throw in stuff in case of titan. But everyone seems to be stuck in their old ways and unwilling to adapt. I never got warning I was facing 3 riptides with Eldar allies using a wraithknight. Or 3 Dreadknights when they came out. You don't need to give warning for the Imperial Knight Titan. Why should any other model be that way? I shouldn't have to ask "Mother may I?" when i want to use a model that I own.
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
I like it. They don't WANT to to be prepared to face it. Not that they can't. They don't want to. Those people are in for a rude awakening. Also most superheavies cost less than 3 riptides (except for the Tau superheavies) so obviously people can afford them. There will be 2 kinds of people in the future of 40k. Those with rose tinted glasses with their strictly 2000 points of models that refuse to play any kind of superheavy and those who adapted and are still having fun playing games.
It's not entirely easy to have a single list that can deal with both Tau firebase lists, green tides, Wraithwing, podded alphastrike lists AND revdar lists.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are people supposed only to do what Jervis tells us?
I think the point is the game designers for whatever stupid reason are actively trying to make TAC lists impractical, instead leaning towards the spammy/one-hit-wonder/rock-paper-scissors lists.
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
But there is nothing a TACIG army can bring to take down a raver. Unless it specialy tailors to beat one . Tailoring is not accepted here , but lets say someone does it and his army book has the options that can survive those 4 D templates , if he goes first. Cool , not to be able to go it , he needs to go to his store and buy all those autocannons he never wanted and will never use against anything other this one army that uses an eldar titan .
Its not like they have over 14 armor and people have been dealing with land raiders for how long? I would not tell my opponent I'm bringing a superheavy because list tailoring.
A LR is not going to be as manuverable as a raver , He won't have a +4 save , even against D weapons and if you play without escalation there will be no void bunkers to make it even tougher . normaly at 1500pts the ravers are taken with 1-2 bunkers and the +4inv fortification to give it two ++4 "saves". unless someone has an army that has a ton of str 7-8 shoting it does not go down fast enough , it is that much resilient and destructive.
At the same time if you take two LR and a squad of marines with the same fortification , it is not even half as destructive.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are people supposed only to do what Jervis tells us?
I think the point is the game designers for whatever stupid reason are actively trying to make TAC lists impractical, instead leaning towards the spammy/one-hit-wonder/rock-paper-scissors lists.
Basically. When the dev team is saying that TAC should be a wild goose chance, and come out with more and more one-trick rock/paper/scissors units AND try to make people think the game size should be huge (which conveniently equates to buying more gak from them), I consider it a problem.
So really what i am hearing is not complaining about super heavies but Revdar instead. You do realize that all eldar superheavies have the same titan holo fields (even the scorpion tank). I have no issues killing a warhound with non superheavies. So quit crying and do some theory crafting instead of waiting for the internet to figure it out for you you lazy gamers.
yeah , but that is FW and FW is not legal here . Am talking about escalation units which are listed in the escalation codex.
Basically. When the dev team is saying that TAC should be a wild goose chance, and come out with more and more one-trick rock/paper/scissors units AND try to make people think the game size should be huge (which conveniently equates to buying more gak from them), I consider it a problem.
I agree with you. Also what about people who want to play an army and not some odd collection of multi FoC and formations. I didn't want to play coteaz or take ally , they are not IG , but I have to take them . Suddenly IG is not an army worth playing , because only source of god like divination is ally section . But the worse is going to happen when the new codex rolls up and suddenly the optimal anti tank or anti titan or anti flyer is a formation or something from a totaly different codex like a knight or something.
We are of the opinion that Dweapons and apocalyptic megablasts are silly for 40k. Ymmv of course.
Most of us have been playing since roguetrader and enjoy 6th edition quite a bit.
I wouldn't say people are crying. I completely understand where they are coming from. My guess is many of these people got into the game well before Escalation and do not like where the game is headed.
To label them as whiners and cryers is a bit.....odd.
On Fortifications, the main reason why virtually all fortifications are Imperial is because every world being fought over was or still is an Imperial world dating back to at least the Grand Crusade. All of these Imperial fortifications are 10,000+ years old, and have changed hands any number of times over those years. None of the other races have been big on building their forts or planetary infrastructure outside of their main racial holdings, yet Humans build forts every time they stop to pee, pee on everything they see, and go to great lengths to see everything so they can build a fort to pee.
So stop crying about missing non-Imperial Fortifications, and rejoice that you have taken control of an Imperial rest-stop.
jeffersonian000 wrote: On Fortifications, the main reason why virtually all fortifications are Imperial is because every world being fought over was or still is an Imperial world dating back to at least the Grand Crusade. All of these Imperial fortifications are 10,000+ years old, and have changed hands any number of times over those years. None of the other races have been big on building their forts or planetary infrastructure outside of their main racial holdings, yet Humans build forts every time they stop to pee, pee on everything they see, and go to great lengths to see everything so they can build a fort to pee.
So stop crying about missing non-Imperial Fortifications, and rejoice that you have taken control of an Imperial rest-stop.
SJ
Is that a kind of religious commemoration of The Golden Throne?
jeffersonian000 wrote: On Fortifications, the main reason why virtually all fortifications are Imperial is because every world being fought over was or still is an Imperial world dating back to at least the Grand Crusade. All of these Imperial fortifications are 10,000+ years old, and have changed hands any number of times over those years. None of the other races have been big on building their forts or planetary infrastructure outside of their main racial holdings, yet Humans build forts every time they stop to pee, pee on everything they see, and go to great lengths to see everything so they can build a fort to pee.
So stop crying about missing non-Imperial Fortifications, and rejoice that you have taken control of an Imperial rest-stop.
SJ
I must have missed the Aquillas on craftworld Iyanden, Octarius, Kau'mais, Kel'shan, the Ybaric cluster, Sybari, Forgefane and other places never held by the Imperium.
And the Tau worlds that were not originally human controlled.
And worlds that have been controlled by the orks for a long time.
And all the worlds that never had a significant Imperial pres sense.
ect.
ect.
Sparkadia wrote: A TAC list doesn't really stand much of a chance at beating a Superheavy.
Then it isn't a TAC list. TAC means "take all comers", not "take most comers, except the ones that bring something I don't want to be prepared to face".
But there is nothing a TACIG army can bring to take down a raver. Unless it specialy tailors to beat one . Tailoring is not accepted here , but lets say someone does it and his army book has the options that can survive those 4 D templates , if he goes first. Cool , not to be able to go it , he needs to go to his store and buy all those autocannons he never wanted and will never use against anything other this one army that uses an eldar titan .
Its not like they have over 14 armor and people have been dealing with land raiders for how long? I would not tell my opponent I'm bringing a superheavy because list tailoring.
A LR is not going to be as manuverable as a raver , He won't have a +4 save , even against D weapons and if you play without escalation there will be no void bunkers to make it even tougher . normaly at 1500pts the ravers are taken with 1-2 bunkers and the +4inv fortification to give it two ++4 "saves". unless someone has an army that has a ton of str 7-8 shoting it does not go down fast enough , it is that much resilient and destructive.
At the same time if you take two LR and a squad of marines with the same fortification , it is not even half as destructive.
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules.
1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
2) putting something in the i presume you mean skyshield landing pad does NOT give it a second 4++ save, you would only get one... and i believe you need to be in cover while on top of it... NOT something you can do with a titan.... so someone is pulling the ahh pis* with this notion mate
other things ill add for you from escalation seeing as you arent allowed FW.... but titans it seems are cool.... take a shadowsword, strD wep etc etc...
i mean what it is and in its way, oook is that you are unwilling to change, you want to play the same models the same way as when you bought them, you dont want it to change, but change is inevitable, there is a reason i magnatized 20,000 points of chaos... just incase a weapon becomes rubbish i have other options there, you need to build your army the same, need more options go get them, or those that do adapt and change and move with the times will leave you for dead in the dust.. and as i said above someone in your group is telling really big porkies RE rules.. Titans of all ilk and allll the SH jsut die like anything else..if you can kill a predator or a LR you can kill these things...
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules.
1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
The Revenant gets a 4+ against D weapons. It's not a "save", it's to see whether you hit the actual target or the holo-field image. It specifically says even D weapons need to check if they hit the target.
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules.
1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
The Revenant gets a 4+ against D weapons. It's not a "save", it's to see whether you hit the actual target or the holo-field image. It specifically says even D weapons need to check if they hit the target.
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules.
1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
The Revenant gets a 4+ against D weapons. It's not a "save", it's to see whether you hit the actual target or the holo-field image. It specifically says even D weapons need to check if they hit the target.
Not all change is good and not all change should just be accepted by everyone who doesn't like it. Even GW call their own rules a framework/guidelines/whatever, so they expect people to change them to their liking. For many people, "their liking" is no giant war machines randomly running around with a small skirmish force.
there is a reason i magnatized 20,000 points of chaos... just incase a weapon becomes rubbish i have other options there
This is more a testament to GW's inability to have a balanced ruleset. If you have a model with a flamer (or whatever, I just randomly picked a flamer), it should always be effective. It's role might change, but it should always be effective in some way. However, GW can't balance a set of rules so that one edition X weapon is obviously better and next edition Y is obviously better than next edition a new weapon comes out that trumps both X and Y.
Ideally, you should never feel like a unit or weapon has become rubbish and magnetising is just to give you options in case you want to change, not because the rules balance is so pants that it is no longer worth taking.
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules. 1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
The Revenant gets a 4+ against D weapons. It's not a "save", it's to see whether you hit the actual target or the holo-field image. It specifically says even D weapons need to check if they hit the target.
well i will stand corrected on that.
Well actually, the holo-fields aren't a save at all, you take them to see if the attack hit at all. You don't even roll it as a save, the attacker rolls it to see if they hit. EDIT: You ninja edited on me, lol.
wait a secone here i think your missing a big bit of rules. 1)there is NO saves against str D NONE whatso ever...
The Revenant gets a 4+ against D weapons. It's not a "save", it's to see whether you hit the actual target or the holo-field image. It specifically says even D weapons need to check if they hit the target.
CZ i had a look and it says roll 4+ if moved to see if it ACTUALLY hits... and it does mention D weps.
and yes allseeing, though the magnetization is so that i dont need 30 terminators etc etc i just have enough to give me what i need and trays of magnetized bits for everything so that if needed i can change weapon loadouts and not need a million models, which i basically have anyway but it cut down on the numbers overall haha
Edit: if someone has the pair can you ACTUALLY fit a titan on the skyshield, i wouldnt have thought it fitted.... the base on my warhounds rather large... jsut looking at the rules for it too and yeah saves against all shooting attacks.... doesnt need to be cover.. but the edges need to be up so that cuts a few inch of footprint out.
mak i may have to take it back. in this case your friend is a douche if he pulls that stunt and needs a headslap. haha
jeffersonian000 wrote: On Fortifications, the main reason why virtually all fortifications are Imperial is because every world being fought over was or still is an Imperial world dating back to at least the Grand Crusade. All of these Imperial fortifications are 10,000+ years old, and have changed hands any number of times over those years. None of the other races have been big on building their forts or planetary infrastructure outside of their main racial holdings, yet Humans build forts every time they stop to pee, pee on everything they see, and go to great lengths to see everything so they can build a fort to pee.
So stop crying about missing non-Imperial Fortifications, and rejoice that you have taken control of an Imperial rest-stop.
SJ
I must have missed the Aquillas on craftworld Iyanden, Octarius, Kau'mais, Kel'shan, the Ybaric cluster, Sybari, Forgefane and other places never held by the Imperium.
I don't understand why people get their panties in a bunch on either side of this argument. If someone has one and you don't want to play it then don't. Maybe the other guy will put his Super Heavy back in the box and build a normal list if you ask nicely and don't call them a cheeser. And if youre in the group of having a Super Heavy and wanting to play it because its perfectly legal then just give the opponent the opportunity to know its coming so they dont drive 30 minutes or an hour to the store just so they can spend 2 turns picking up their models off the table and then drive back home. Communication before a game on both sides goes a long way.
Stashgordon36 wrote: I don't understand why people get their panties in a bunch on either side of this argument. If someone has one and you don't want to play it then don't. Maybe the other guy will put his Super Heavy back in the box and build a normal list if you ask nicely and don't call them a cheeser. And if youre in the group of having a [b]Super Heavy and wanting to play it because its perfectly legal then just give the opponent the opportunity to know its coming so they dont drive 30 minutes or an hour to the store just so they can spend 2 turns picking up their models off the table and then drive back home[/b]. Communication before a game on both sides goes a long way.
AND this is why i have said it over and over again..... maybe 3 of the superheavies can be that OTT, the rest... not so much, so please dont act like all of them are revenant or reavers.... many are much much more mild, and are bullet magnets. its THIS preconception that i am arguing against...
as i have said the 2 mentioned i can kind of agree on but there is ways to deal with that, but when you take a look at the rest of them they are MUCH more mild, and by mild im talking HB and LC with 1 major cannon thats not even AP1 or 2. All people hear about though are the real monsters that cost lots of points, and if you want to field id say having a VERY good model if not the real thing should be a pre-req, so that "this ice cream container counts as XXXX" bs kind of thing doesnt happen.unless ofcourse agreed on by both people. This again will heavily limit the usage of such things.
They aren't all over the top but a few of them can make a game pretty horrible if you have no idea they are coming, that was my point. And lets all just be honest with ourselves here, losing an even match up is tolerable but losing to a broken list or getting blindsided by a reaver isn't a fun game. And dont make the "2000pts on each side seems pretty even to me" argument.
No only a couple are, and acting like they all are is rubbish, acting like they are the only ones you would see so ban them all rubbish, and there is ways to play around even them.. so again... just like when the helldrakes came along, people need to adjust their playstyle when these models are on the table and the game can still be won. adjust and be ready and you can deal with them.
If you cop one of the OTT ones, then yeah it sucks a bit but you can beat them. they arent indistructable you can LOS them, adn the walkers can be locked in combat when you mellee attack them the best they have is the stomp, so if they run them at you, assault it and it doesnt shoot..
I feel everything should be fine to throw down and play. But it basically comes down to "Don't be a Dick". You gain a reputation at your local stores people won't play with you.
Also if the guy you are about to agree to having a game with has titan sitting next to his army carrier you can bet it may show up if the points are high enough, those aren't too easy to hide.
).
