The poll, continuing on in my love for collecting data, is very simple.

I propose the following rule for all non-apocalypse games:

No super-heavies.

What say you and why?

Why do you propose banning them? Why ban Super-Heavy units which are non-competitive but fun such as Malcadors, for the sole reason that they're Super-Heavy?

They're too tough to kill and have the capacity to invalidate most of the opponent's army.

Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

Yes they should be fieldable but would need to be balanced correctly - like any other unit...........

 Valkyrie wrote:
Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

It doesn't...in apocalypse games.

That's all that I'm saying.

You want to run your superheavy? Then play apocalypse.

Traditio wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

It doesn't...in apocalypse games.

That's all that I'm saying.

You want to run your superheavy? Then play apocalypse.

Then you have to bring another 3000 points along with you.

I go by the reasoning of use the little plastic men you like, just don't be a about it.

So, let me get this straight: you're so terrified of my Malcador (a tank that is worse than its points in LRBTs, and an absolute joke compared to top-tier "normal" units) that you need to ban it? This is about as reasonable as banning all of your tactical marines.

PS: what's your excuse going to be this time, when the poll numbers don't agree with you? Will you accept that your answer is wrong, or will you blame "trolls" again?

PPS: if you think my LoW should be banned then you can give me $1000+ to buy other units and pay someone to paint them to my standards.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, let me get this straight: you're so terrified of my Malcador (a tank that is worse than its points in LRBTs, and an absolute joke compared to top-tier "normal" units) that you need to ban it?

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

PS: what's your excuse going to be this time, when the poll numbers don't agree with you?

"This time"? The poll numbers agreed with me last time.

Will you accept that your answer is wrong, or will you blame "trolls" again?

I'm willing to admit that I could hold a minority opinion.

if you think my LoW should be banned then you can give me $1000+ to buy other units and pay someone to paint them to my standards.

You don't paint your own models?

I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

 War Kitten wrote:
I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

The baneblade fires an apocalyptic blast at 72 inches. It literally has a word, the root of which is "apocalypse," in the statline of the attack.

It clearly doesn't belong in regular games.

And Heavy Flamers have the word Heavy in their name.
Clearly they're meant to be a Heavy Weapon.

Also the Deathstrike Missile now is an Apocalyptic Blast with an Unlimited Range. Are you going to argue that it can only be taken in Apocalypse games, too?

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Also the Deathstrike Missile now is an Apocalyptic Blast with an Unlimited Range. Are you going to argue that it can only be taken in Apocalypse games, too?

Yes.

Traditio wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

The baneblade fires an apocalyptic blast at 72 inches. It literally has a word, the root of which is "apocalypse," in the statline of the attack.

It clearly doesn't belong in regular games.

So can a Deathstrike, are you going to argue that the Deathstrike should be apoc only as well?

@ Traditio:
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. You can't be serious right now?
Oh wait, it's you. Of course you are.

Can we agree then that any weapon with the graviton rule be apoc only? I've lost more riptides and XV8 to those than any superheavy. Back when I played nids? Grav on table = I don't get to use my not-flyrant MC's.

So, if something is WORSE objectively than it's codex counterpart, or just plain BAD, it still warrants Apocalypse Status?

Also, three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

Anything I can't kill with krak grenades in one turn should be apocalypse only!

Traditio... following you around today and agreed with you in the last argument you started (hahaha). Anyway, I think SHs add a cool aspect to the game and competitive play. I think that if no SHs could be brought, some new player's entire army would go away (IKs).

I just think that 2 things need to happen:

1. Cost needs to go up to balance them internally with the rest of 40k

2. Counters to them need to be available to all codices... (Orks, SoB, AM/MT, BA, DE, CSM) although the last 2 or 3 may be getting better due to the new codex rumor for DE and CSM knights. A simple balance for Orks would be make the Dorkanauts SHs (and up their Xport capacity which is just silly).

 doktor_g wrote:
Traditio... following you around today and agreed with you in the last argument you started (hahaha). Anyway, I think SHs add a cool aspect to the game and competitive play. I think that if no SHs could be brought, some new player's entire army would go away (IKs).

I'm perfectly fine with this result. I don't think that IKs belong in the non-apocalypse game.

No bannarino please

I would rather they all have points restrictions.

On a less tongue in cheek note, yes they work just fine. The vast majority of superheavy vehicles in the game are little more than a distraction carnifex. I'm pretty certain that if you placed in front of me a list of every superheavy in the game, I'd wager maybe 3 would mount a serious threat.

GMC on the other hand, well... aside from the Tyranid and Daemon ones they could all use a 20-50% price hike.

Having an IK army myself, I can attest to how easily they fall if you aren't super careful about where you move, what you shoot, and what your assault. The recent change/clarification on cqb grenades will no doubt be a boon to SHV, but they will ask die the same way they die now. Massed grav shots, fire dragons, TWC, d-spam.

Maybe (as Desubot said) there should be some sort of points or percent restrictions for super heavies? Like they can only be x% of your force (kind of like how WHFB did their force org)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

The squadron bonus should be apocalypse only, imho.

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

The squadron bonus should be apocalypse only, imho.

Then personally Speaking as somebody who has run a full Vindicator Squadron before, you've just made them worthless. The Linebreaker Squadron Special Rule is one of the main reasons (if not, THE main reason) why people take Vindicators. Without it, there are plenty of better choices that simply give you less than no reason to take Vindicators in non-Apoc games. You've effectively made them useless in non-Apoc games...

I voted wrong. Should of been NO.

Regardless the first premise is I don't think all superheavies are created equal. A lot of superheavies right now aren't really that good or that powerful. However I don't think Titans should be playable in non apoc games below 2500pts. Good thing most Titans are worth more than that.

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

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

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

 IllumiNini wrote:

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

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

I understand that, and I was thinking of how WHFB did force org, where each selection could be a certain percentage of your total army. Like your Core had to be at least 25% of your army. Maybe LOW/Super Heavies could be a certain max percentage of your force (say 25% out of apoc games), with certain exceptions (such as a IK army)

 IllumiNini wrote:

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

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

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

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

If the poll ends up otherwise...

...

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

PS:

Furthermore, why should IKs be an exception?

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

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

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

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

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

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

If the poll ends up otherwise...

...

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

PS:

Furthermore, why should IKs be an exception?

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

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

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

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

What precisely is your point, War Kitten?

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

So what? Allied detachments are a thing.

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

What precisely is your point, War Kitten?

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

So what? Allied detachments are a thing.

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

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

Suck it up and run allies anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

Suck it up and run allies anyway.

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

But Gauss is not comparable.

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

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

But Gauss is not comparable.

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

But Gauss is not comparable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

But Gauss is not comparable.

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

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

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

LotD always start in reserves.

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

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

LotD always start in reserves.

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

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

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

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

 War Kitten wrote:

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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

But Gauss is not comparable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Nuff said.

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

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

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

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

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

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

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

@Traditio:

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

0/10 points there, Traditio.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

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

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

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

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

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

You don't paint your own models?

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

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

Fair enough (nice rusting, by the way).

But in all fairness:

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

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

Noted.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

Traditio wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

Couldn't have said it better myself.

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

I say no because of the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

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

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

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

Did you vote "yes" on the poll? Please tell me that you didn't misunderstand the poll prompt and answered "yes" on the poll.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

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

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

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

If you look in your main rulebook you'll find a strength D chart. I'm sure they didn't put that there because it looks pretty. Plus, gw makes the codices and the game, although they make some questionable decisions, if a wraithknight is in your codex, you should be able to field it, just like any other unit.

First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

Traditio wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

He's likely refering to the fact that they are part of the core game mechanics.

Traditio wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

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

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

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

Did you vote "yes" on the poll? Please tell me that you didn't misunderstand the poll prompt and answered "yes" on the poll.

If you actually read his post he said he voted no because he thinks they should be part of the main game despite everything else because he thinks the game should be restructured to more properly suit them.

So I'm going to re-iterate one of my original question:

Why should people have to suck it up and play with Allies if they don't want to? Where is this written?

And so far, the closest I can see that you've given to a good excuse for why SHV should not be in anything other than Apoc games is the following:

They're too tough to kill and have the capacity to invalidate most of the opponent's army.

Not only is this a poor excuse, but the sorts of people that would bring a SHV to a match where said SHV invalidates the entirety of their opponent's army is not the sort of person you want to play against anyway, so what should that matter? And if it doesn't invalidate you entire army, then that means you have something that has a reasonable chance of killing it, which means there isn't a problem.

Also, as a general rule, people should be discussing the potential for taking SHV's at the very least in games where the points limit is sub-2000 (IMO) because the lower the points limit is, the less capability the opponent has of destroying the SHV. So it gets discussed and sorted out, in which case the SHV does not invalidate their opponent's army or it simply isn't taken.

So as far as I'm concerned (and I feel confident in saying I'm likely to not be the only one who thinks this way), you have no good excuse for not allowing SHV into not Apoc games.

As far as how many you should be allowed to take in a non-Apoc game, that's something else - and something you apparently haven't considered.

I don't really have a binary answer on this one (though I voted 'Yes' just as a way to signify a desire to see a change), but I think a great many aspects of the current 'basic' game should be relegated to specific scenarios/rules addendums/options.

Having played since 3rd, I think the basic game functions best when it is focused on what are largely small infantry conflicts. I think the default assumption for the game should be that two people will show up and play a largely infantry based "skirmish" (not skirmish in the Mordheim sense).

On the other hand, I don't think that any of the other aspects of the game are bad/wrong, but I think they are different enough that they should be negotiated rather than assumed.

For instance, Super-heavies make some sorts of assumptions about the conflict that should be reflected in the game, while boarding troops make different assumptions. People don't show up at a game and expect to play Zone Mortalis without prior arrangement, but for some reason, it's perfectly reasonable to assume a board that will allow you to deploy large vehicles, and assume a board with an open airspace that will allow the use of Fliers.

I think that a better rulebook by GW would discuss the assumptions inherent in fielding certain types of forces, and the rules necessary for doing so, while presenting them as some sort of 'modular' system that can be used to build a given game. You might agree with your opponent that a game was going to be Fliers and Superheavies, so that both of you would expect to bring anti-armor and anti-air forces.

While it's certainly possible for an unprepared force to be attacked by enemies that they cannot reasonably harm, it can make for a bad game and, by the same token, there would be no reason for a force to not be attacked by a force multiple times larger then themselves, either! Nobody would want to show up and discover that your opponent might be using 10x your points, just because 'it's possible that you got ambushed'.

I also feel that it's disingenuous to claim that 'basic' 40K is 'show up and fight' or 'anything goes'. People DON'T show up to normal games with Zone Mortalis armies. People don't show up with normal army selection only to find a dense cityscape with no room for anything larger than a terminator. We don't show up to find a aerial battlefield set over a steaming, impassable sea of lava. We already make some background assumptions about the types of battles we are fighting, and I just think the game would be stronger and more playable if that process was formalized and expanded.

Sure, it would limit player selection of their force, but we already do that. We're just doing it in some particular ways (points, allies, detachments, formations) while not using others that could serve to make a better matched game.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

He's likely refering to the fact that they are part of the core game mechanics.

And every competitive list since the original Imperial Knight released.

@OP: L2P

There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

This actually is a case of incompetence on my part, not malice.

Traditio wrote:

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

This actually is a case of incompetence on my part, not malice.

It might also be incompetence and/or malice that you seem to be ignoring the very valid points I raised in this post.

And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

 Peregrine wrote:
And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

I think it's because he doesn't have an answer to that.

 War Kitten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

I think it's because he doesn't have an answer to that.

Traditio doesn't seem to have an answer to much.

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

I just had the same problem, and did end up giving a mistaken vote because I didn't read the prompt vs the thread title. I expect that most of the mistakes will be the same as mine, people voting yes when they meant to vote no.

Superheavies, especially the vehicles, are not particularly frightening. I love the Macharius Vanquisher, and I'll argue that it's a better tank than the Baneblade all week long, but that doesn't actually make it a good unit. I enjoy the narrative options available with SHVs on the table, and the power isn't really enough of a difference for most of them (Wraithknight and Stormsurge excepted) to make me worry. Knights? Most of my lists can kill a Knight in one or two turns with virtually no losses. Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly. GMCs are scarier than SHVs, and I can still put those down without too much trouble. Unless they're a Wraithknight or Stormsurge, in which case it just takes longer.

Really?
I'm sorry, but the malcador is a joke.

Looks amazing, but rules wise it's a hugely over costed LRBT.
I'd rather play against that than the same cost in actual LRBT's.

However, I'm guessing this was sparked from the previous thread where the OP wants wraithknights at 450+ points and IK's raised aswell.


If your unable to kill a SHV or GMC in an average sized game then there's a problem with your own list or abilities.


Obviously if said army is running something like:

Captain
Tac squad
Tac squad
Reaver Titan

That may pose a slight issue.


But people run stuff like the baneblade and variants on a regular basis these days.


So for the poll, im fine with it.

MIni MIehm wrote:
Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly.

Not necessarily - if someone is taking a Baneblade, generally speaking, there should be more dangerous stuff that would be easier to kill, so the big, not-scary Baneblade can sit for a turn until those other threats disappear. Like, say, Knights.

No to banning, but if I don't think my army stands a chance, I don't have to play against them either. Of course, that goes for any unit/combo - I'm there to have fun, not get curb stomped.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Well, I just pulled this up from one of your threads traditio.
Explains why you want to ban just about everything too.

If your really this against near on every rule or unit these days, are you sure 40k is for you?

MIni MIehm wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

I just had the same problem, and did end up giving a mistaken vote because I didn't read the prompt vs the thread title. I expect that most of the mistakes will be the same as mine, people voting yes when they meant to vote no.

Superheavies, especially the vehicles, are not particularly frightening. I love the Macharius Vanquisher, and I'll argue that it's a better tank than the Baneblade all week long, but that doesn't actually make it a good unit. I enjoy the narrative options available with SHVs on the table, and the power isn't really enough of a difference for most of them (Wraithknight and Stormsurge excepted) to make me worry. Knights? Most of my lists can kill a Knight in one or two turns with virtually no losses. Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly. GMCs are scarier than SHVs, and I can still put those down without too much trouble. Unless they're a Wraithknight or Stormsurge, in which case it just takes longer.

You are of the opinion that superheavies SHOULD be banned, but voted that they should NOT be?

 Jackal wrote:

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Well, I just pulled this up from one of your threads traditio.
Explains why you want to ban just about everything too.

If your really this against near on every rule or unit these days, are you sure 40k is for you?

The more Traditio comments as well as the more Traditio continues to ignore people, the more and more Traditio seems to be the sort of person who likes 40K because it allows them to be argumentative and inflammatory while simultaneously trying to push their own opinions on others. Notice that Traditio seems to be completely ignoring a number of people's comments because they're valid points that seem to disagree with his standpoint?

Reading comprehension, it's a thing.

If someone says 'I voted Yes when I meant No', just maybe they mean exactly that.
Especially if they follow that with a paragraph about most Super Heavies not even being scary or threatening in the slightest.

Traditio wrote:
You are of the opinion that superheavies SHOULD be banned, but voted that they should NOT be?

No. Did you read what they said? Your thread title and poll question are different. The title asks "do superheavies belong in normal games", the poll asks "should superheavies be banned from normal games". If you believe that superheavies should be allowed you'll answer "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second. If you click your poll answer without reading the poll question, assuming that it matches the title, you'll give the opposite answer from the one you intended to give. This is what I almost did, but I read it more carefully at the last second because I know not to trust your polls.

PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

Peregrine 691903 wrote:PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

It's not. On the other hand, perhaps Malcador shouldn't be a superheavy. Just saying.

But guys!
He's trying to claw a vote over and claim the votes are wrong!
They must be as they don't agree with him.

I know, the poll is now invalid

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine 691903 wrote:PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

It's not. On the other hand, perhaps Malcador shouldn't be a superheavy. Just saying.

@Peregrine: Notice how he has continued to ignore my questions and statements (even the ones that are valid, on-topic points) and gives a half-arsed answer to your point? Yeah... He's not taking this seriously....

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine 691903 wrote:PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

It's not. On the other hand, perhaps Malcador shouldn't be a superheavy. Just saying.

@Peregrine: Notice how he has continued to ignore my questions and statements (even the ones that are valid, on-topic points) and gives a half-arsed answer to your point? Yeah... He's not taking this seriously....

I'm taking a wait and see approach to your comments, Illuminini. Before I seriously address your criticisms, I want to know how the numbers end up.

Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly.

Not necessarily - if someone is taking a Baneblade, generally speaking, there should be more dangerous stuff that would be easier to kill, so the big, not-scary Baneblade can sit for a turn until those other threats disappear. Like, say, Knights.

S9 Ordnance Barrages. I have enough cheap kaboom in most lists that I can afford to pop the Baneblade, and still shave some hits off of whatever else. Even if I just burn all my pie plates to kill the Baneblade, and point the Macharius at any other hypothetical SHVs, I'd still feel it was worth it.

The Baneblade is actually more of a danger to my gun line, since it has enough shots over a signle turn to theoretically pop all three shields on the VSG, and actually put hits on my models, or open up my models to hits from other enemies. It's also something that I can reliably kill in one turn with S9 Ordnance Barrages, so it gets target priority, because it doesn't get a save, and Knights do.

I love superheavy units, having a 300+ point unit allows a 2000 point game end in a reasonable amount of time.

That said, I have been working on balancing them out to try and keep them from getting out of hand (like the storm surge and wraithknight) been tinkering with it a while, seems to be working thus far.

The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

Traditio wrote:
I'm taking a wait and see approach to your comments, Illuminini. Before I seriously address your criticisms, I want to know how the numbers end up.

I will direct you again to this post I made:

 IllumiNini wrote:
So I'm going to re-iterate one of my original question:

Why should people have to suck it up and play with Allies if they don't want to? Where is this written?

And so far, the closest I can see that you've given to a good excuse for why SHV should not be in anything other than Apoc games is the following:

They're too tough to kill and have the capacity to invalidate most of the opponent's army.

Not only is this a poor excuse, but the sorts of people that would bring a SHV to a match where said SHV invalidates the entirety of their opponent's army is not the sort of person you want to play against anyway, so what should that matter? And if it doesn't invalidate you entire army, then that means you have something that has a reasonable chance of killing it, which means there isn't a problem.

Also, as a general rule, people should be discussing the potential for taking SHV's at the very least in games where the points limit is sub-2000 (IMO) because the lower the points limit is, the less capability the opponent has of destroying the SHV. So it gets discussed and sorted out, in which case the SHV does not invalidate their opponent's army or it simply isn't taken.

So as far as I'm concerned (and I feel confident in saying I'm likely to not be the only one who thinks this way), you have no good excuse for not allowing SHV into not Apoc games.

As far as how many you should be allowed to take in a non-Apoc game, that's something else - and something you apparently haven't considered.

If you're not going to address these points and questions, then please do enlighten the rest of us as to how the results of the poll affect your opinions on why people should "Buck up and take Allies" and your own opinions on why SHV's should not be allowed in non-Apoc games?

Do you really need the results of a poll in order to form an opinion on these things and thus address these posts?

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine 691903 wrote:PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

It's not. On the other hand, perhaps Malcador shouldn't be a superheavy. Just saying.

@Peregrine: Notice how he has continued to ignore my questions and statements (even the ones that are valid, on-topic points) and gives a half-arsed answer to your point? Yeah... He's not taking this seriously....

I'm taking a wait and see approach to your comments, Illuminini. Before I seriously address your criticisms, I want to know how the numbers end up.

Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

Neither does a Deathstrike Missile Launcher, and yet you decided it should be banned to Apocalyse-Only even though it ISN'T a super heavy and just has an unreliable one-shot weapon that otherwise has the profile of what you'd normally see as the main weapon of a medium super-heavy.

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

You got a bonus vote from me by mistake, and you're still behind by 2:1. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

Only time will tell. I expect that by this time tomorrow, we should have enough numbers to decide the matter one way or the other.

So your essentially going to rely on blind faith, stubbornness and ignorance to hope the poll changes before you answer anything.
And that's even with it being misleading in its wording.

And even then, I'm sure you will start another poll.


Edit: so traditio, let's say the poll doesn't go your way, what then?

I can see it now "Should Malcadors be made into non-superheavies?" with the poll question being "Should Malcadors be banned in non-Apocalypse games?"

Super-Heavies have been available to non-Apoc games since the middle of 5th Edition with Battle Missions.

They were formalized with the Escalation Expansion, and then incorporated in to the BRB.

Trying to ban them now is kicking against the pricks and will have the same affect as it had on Flyers.

I wouldn't mind seeing them treated like Horus Heresy does to a certain points limit, with the exception of Linebreaker Scenarios, though. Someone expecting a 40K in 40 Minutes game with a Wraithknight is in for a bad experience.

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

However, it is indisputably a LoW, so a blanket ban on LoW would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a LoW that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated LoW hater can argue is a scary unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

However, it is indisputably a LoW, so a blanket ban on LoW would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a LoW that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated LoW hater can argue is a scary unit.

LoW =/= superheavy.

Calgar is a LoW. He's not a superheavy.

Traditio wrote:
The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

So, you're one of those people who stay up late on election night telling yourself "it could change, there are still votes left to count" long after the race has been called against your candidate and they've given their concession speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
LoW =/= superheavy.

Calgar is a LoW. He's not a superheavy.

And? What exactly does this nitpicking have to do with the point I was making? Substitute "superheavies" for "LoW" and the argument is just as true.

But the Malcador is, which is the main point of the argument.

Peregrine wrote:And? What exactly does this nitpicking have to do with the point I was making? Substitute "superheavies" for "LoW" and the argument is just as true.

You don't see a clear categorical difference between Calgar and a Wraithknight?

By analogy, a categorical difference between your tank and a wraithknight?

Except a wraithknight isn't a super heavy at all.
And thus has nothing to do with SHV's.
Or anything to do with this topic either.

 Jackal wrote:
Except a wraithknight isn't a super heavy at all.
And thus has nothing to do with SHV's.
Or anything to do with this topic either.

I'm not going to quibble about words. My intention was perfectly clear.

Except you were quibbling about words and your intentions are perfectly clear.
Ban anything you dislike.

If your own poll does not agree, wait longer.

So, what happens when the poll hits 150+ votes and does not go in your favour?
Because I highly doubt you will just accept it.

Yes, but I'm big on Centerpiece Models.

At the End of the Day, it's only Select LoW/GMC/SHV People have issues with.

Most of them are just BIGGER versions, that might be a bit better, might be a bit worse than the normal ( Typhon to Vindicator, Malcador to LRBT) but are just bigger.

The scale of the game is changing and this is no different than "Should flyers be in 40k?" or the 1999+1 point Tourneys that plagued 6th.

Whether or not they "should" They are. You don't have to embrace it and start selling body parts to start an Arms race in your local FLGS, but you have to take into effect that you may come across a Knight and should prepare accordingly

Traditio wrote:
You don't see a clear categorical difference between Calgar and a Wraithknight?

By analogy, a categorical difference between your tank and a wraithknight?

I see a difference, but that has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Substitute "superheavy vehicle(s)" for every instance of "LoW" in that post and the argument is exactly the same. Now could you address what I actually said instead of nitpicking and building straw man arguments?

In fact, I'll even do it for you:

However, it is indisputably a superheavy vehicle, so a blanket ban on superheavy vehicles would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a superheavy vehicle that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated superheavy vehicle hater can argue is a scary unit.

Traditio wrote:


Suck it up and run allies anyway.

Oh, this is rich,why don't you take your own advice too?

Traditio wrote:

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

Gauss is cool.

And FYI, the poll title/question is misleading and I wonder if this dishonestly is deliberate to skew the result your way. I nearly clicked the wrong answer and I doubt I am the only one.

IMO I have played better standard games with SHV than APOC games.

Of course its subjective but if its allowed by the rules then me and my opponents just need to discuss the hows rather than the whys of fielding them.

Of course in lower points games SHV can skew results in their favour but 1850 and above or themed games are good to go.

Oh wow. The poll/title mismatch is bad enough to make the results of this thing incredibly suspect.

Ok Traditio, what exactly was going through your head when you made this thread? The emphasis you're putting on this poll implies something even minutely important will come out of it, when in fact it has no purpose at all.

How about you bother to reply coherently to people rather than nitpicking and mentioning the poll.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

Only time will tell. I expect that by this time tomorrow, we should have enough numbers to decide the matter one way or the other.

How on earth does the answer of a poll affect your ability to answer a question of your opinion? Combined with the leading questions, and (possibly intentional) mix-up of the poll question, this really brings into question the value of your polls as a tool for you to back up your view than as a genuine question to benefit the community.

And besides, I think this quote from you sums up the idea of having to face superheavies, which are very much part and parcel of the game.

Traditio wrote:
Suck it up

As for my own view - I have an issue with broken units. Not Superheavies and Gargantuans. Yes, a portion of those Superheavies and Gargantuans are broken for what they are, but that is no way to fix the issue. If you want to correct the issue, correct the things causing the problems - leave the innocent units like the Thunderhawk, Stompa, Baneblade and Malcador alone, and target the actual problems. Because right now, you're trying to fix a broken toe with a sledgehammer.
This applies to everything - don't just slap a blanket restriction or vague one over the problem - actually take time to sort out a balanced, fair approach that leaves everything more balanced.

All I can say with this poll, is that it's a joke, a poorly phrased and suspiciously set out poll, and a result that is so obvious that people are going to choose.

Number one, Superheavy vehicles are not in any way an overpowered vehicle. Even a titan can be taken down with codex units of appropriate points cost. Yes, superheavies are hard to take down, but they are so because they are a points sink, and means the opponent has to base a game plan around that unit in question.

Simply treat them as ordinary deathstar units, with ranged attacks, and thats them dealt with.

One of my friends kept including a duo of knights in his black templars force, and I countered that tactic, taking more dedicated anti-tank vehicles.

And if you aren't clear on the rules, ring your local GW, and ask, or even ring GW HQ and ask.

I kind of agree; I find my regular games (1,500-2,000 points or so) are better without any super-heavies, gargantuan monsters or flyers, as none of them really fits the scale of these games.

Of course there are some super-heavies etc. that are well balanced or even under powered, but even so I'd still rather be fighting against something else as investing a ton of points into a super-heavy in a small to medium game means there are less units and less tactics. The same is true with Flyers; if you don't bring enough AA you can't bring them down, but if your opponent doesn't take one then any AA you bring is wasted, the same can be true of gargantuan creatures and super-heavies, and the firepower required to destroy them.

With these elements removed, or included only with player consent, we can make list-building less about guessing what your opponent might bring and more about just bring units and having fun. Sure there are still other elements of guess-work (Psykers, regular vehicles and the like) but that's already more than enough, we don't need more in our regular games.


That said, I can't vote that they be banned; rather I don't think they should ever have been added to the regular game in the firs place. Banning just annoys people, the better solution is to talk to your opponents, and allow the use of multiple lists so you can switch to one that's more appropriate.

It's a pretty pointless poll.

Some people might have generally voted for allowing super heavies, some people might have just voted allowing it to spite OP.

Just ask your opponent not to bring super heavies in non-apoc games if you're against them and if they refuse, don't play them. Simple.

I voted No, but with a little bit of a leaning towards kinda of

In 'casual' games I think maybe a gentleman's agreement between players regarding their use or not it's meant to be a game but if one side turns up with something the other side cannot even glance whilst it leafblowers the other army off the table then its not really a game,

Torny wise I'd say it's up to the folks running the torny, so long as all the players know in advance and can make their list accordingly then no problems

I do love seeing the big models on the table, especially well painted ones, which given the time and money investment they represent they usually are

I voted wrong because the question in the title and the question in the post are opposites.

That is infuriatingly disingenuous.

I was also caught out by the poll question being different to the topic title, I votes 'yes' but meant to vote 'no' - I don't think SHV should be banned from regular games.

Superheavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures add an enjoyable new dimension to the game and don't necessarily add more power to a list than an equivalent amount of points spent on other units. I wouldn't want to play against one in every game but that's true about most units, I enjoy the variety of things me and my opponents can bring to the table.

I play Orks and while some SH/GC could pose a bit of a problem they aren't necessarily that much harder to deal with than other vehicles or MCs. If I can destroy two vehicles with 3 hull points a piece I should be able to handle one vehicle with 6 hull points even if I'm not rolling on the vehicle damage table. If I can't deal with a SH because of the list I chose then I'll deal with the rest of the army first instead and play for objectives.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Oh wow. The poll/title mismatch is bad enough to make the results of this thing incredibly suspect.

I know right, I thought I was voting for yes I think they should be a part of it but instead my vote is stuck in the opposite of what I wanted.

I think really you can't expect to see many in an average pick up game anyway and among friends you'll know and come up with something among yourselves anyway. For tournaments TOs will always steer the event they feel works best for everyone. Apocalypse has become a relic pretty much.

"Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?" YES
"Should Superheavies Be Banned from Non-Apocalypse Games?" NO

Your data will now be skewed as the above questions conflict and have caused the voters to vote opposite of their opinion.

Personally I am fine with SuperHeavies in regular games up to a point. A 5 Knight army (while not overly competitive) is not fun to play against since (win or lose) half my army may not be able to damage anything the entire game. Sure I can win based on the missions, but I don't give a $h!+ about winning, I want my stuff to be effective and roll dice.

I "police" myself by limiting to no more than 1/3 of my army spent on Superheavies/GMCs. This means only 2 WKs in 1850, despite the fact that I own 3 (since they used to be Heavy Support MCs) and would enjoy using all 3 in a game every now and then. In casual games, I only field 1 WK and 1 Crimson Hunter as my only anti-AV platforms.

-.

So that's four people thst voted the wrong way because of misleading thread title and questions?

New poll. Should traditio stop making pointless polls?
Yes.
No.

Deadnight wrote:
So that's four people thst voted the wrong way?

New poll. Should traditio stop making pointless polls?
Yes.
No.

*Clicks thread. Question reads: Do Traditio's polls prove anything? Yes. No.*

Curse these dishonest poll makers!

So the count is well over the 100 samples desired.

Admit being wrong? Because public opinion is your gauge of right/wrong, and I'm sure enough people read the actual question and didn't just answer the title.

I've played with and against superheavies and I generally think they're fine.

Unless you're talking about the ~2000 point emperor titans, and even those have the weakness of not being able to fire close to themselves, iirc.

If you restrict anything, I'd restrict being able to take multiple. Stick to the 1 LOW / detachment - no knights/eldar shenanigans.

Super-heavies should be allowed in normal games, so long as the player bringing them isn't being a dick about his list (i.e. super competative list in a game that was KNOWN to only be friendly), however, pull a 30k and make it 25% of total points MAX and only in games of 2,000 beyond.

I accidentally clicked no, how do I change it? Thought it said "Do superheavies belong in normal games" for some reason

Either way surprised to see so many no votes. I highly doubt everyone had a moment of stupidity and clicked the wrong button like I did. (On the other hand, I guess I can't talk about people who claimed to vote for the wrong person anymore )

On topic, I just don't want to see superheavies in a 1500-2000 pt game. Yes some (probably most) are terrible for their points, but that doesn't change the fact that apocalypse also includes things like warhounds or actual superheavies like baneblades (yes I know baneblades aren't good bear with me here)

If I'm playing 1500-2000, I came into it wanting to play with regular units. Having to plan for models that require their own case just doesn't strike me as fun. It'd be like if I went to a "friendly" 500pt game and brought two Leman russes. Yes, I can legally field that, and yes, it's not technically a good list, but it's not going to be fun for the opponent and breaks the game. Not to mention that most apocalypse units were actually created with a separate game mode in mind from the get go, which means many were never intended for standard games to begin with. Even models like the knight or riptide which were intended for "standard" play still use rules and designs that were intended for apocalypse originally. It just strikes me as a bad idea to drag these concepts into a game where there's still challenges and potential for a single character to have over a page of special rules and gear. If GW wanted to make apocalypse more profitable they should've just encouraged a new points level with apocalypse rules and pushed it with routines, not shoehorned them into the regular game.

Please Realize that I started in 5th. If you had walked into a store in 5th and wanted to field an apocalypse unit under 3000pts you would've been laughed out of the store. Even something like a knight or riptide would've raised serious eyebrows. Didn't matter how "good" it was, it's still apocalypse which meant if you wanted to play it you played apocalypse. I can pretty much guarantee that if I ever tried to get in a game again, it would be under those rules too. I'd honestly rather have no game than have to deal with a 6" tall Titan model in a 1500 pt game, let alone more than one, or heaven forbid, an army consisting entirely of them.

I know that apparently that opinion isn't going to be popular here, but I bet that this poll's results would dramatically swing back if fyou had a way to poll all the people who left the game and don't browse dakka out of habit anymore. I have no problems with Titans and all that in general, apocalypse looked fun everytime I saw it, but they weren't originally designed to be part of a standard game and it really shows.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

Why can my five hull point gorkanaut be one shot by a Las cannon or melta, but yours cannot even lose a weapon? Reduce the cost if you have to and take the regular vehicle penalties. Or would you even bother bringing it at that point.

@Mr. M.

The rules tell us that SHV and LOW are allowed in normal games. As it stands doubt there has ever been a 'standard' game of 40k played anywhere in the world.

All we can do is take what GW tells us are the rules then decide what how we want to play. Which was Rick Priestlys intent with the ghastly Rogue Trader rules (RPG lite DM'd games). You can still thank Rick since the heart of the rules are stil the same as they were 30 or so years ago. Thank the current design team as well, since this ethos is what has allowed some bloody stupid interactions and rules making to be published.

So it was Traditio that said to wait til the morning to see if the poll supports him.

And despite the massive dishonesty in the difference between title and poll, it is still nearly 2:1 against him.

How's that wait and see approach coming?

I think there's nothing wrong with super-heavies.

Just last week I killed a Warhound titan in two turns and I wasn't specifically tailored to deal with a vehicle list.

I took off 5 hullpoints with a single chaos terminator squad in a dreadclaw.

 curran12 wrote:
So it was Traditio that said to wait til the morning to see if the poll supports him.

And despite the massive dishonesty in the difference between title and poll, it is still nearly 2:1 against him.

How's that wait and see approach coming?

I predict another poll in Traditios' future.

Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough look at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies aren't over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

 Vankraken wrote:
Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies are over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

The core rules need to be rewritten in order that add ons and new unit types can be added without totally breaking the game. sticking new rules onto the old just doesn't work.

 Vankraken wrote:
Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies are over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

This. I think the idea of super heavies and GMCs are fun. The execution however is poor. Some of them are vastly over powered, some of them are crazily lacklustre. The reality needs to be somewhere in the middle.

I voted no because the idea is ridiculous. I also suspect Traditio's reasoning is similar to saying "Space Marine Centurions are OP therefore I have banned all Space Marine units".

 Galef wrote:
"Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?" YES
"Should Superheavies Be Banned from Non-Apocalypse Games?" NO

Your data will now be skewed as the above questions conflict and have caused the voters to vote opposite of their opinion.

This. Poll does not match title of thread. Results are irrelevant.

I can't help but wonder what he will try to spin this as. Even earlier in this thread, when called out on it, he acknowledged it as "incompetence" yet did nothing to correct it (such as editing his title).

Last thing to expect is some kind of admission that his hypothesis was incorrect.

 curran12 wrote:
Last thing to expect is some kind of admission that his hypothesis was incorrect.

But you would expect yet another "poll" from him, right?

curran wrote:Even earlier in this thread, when called out on it, he acknowledged it as "incompetence" yet did nothing to correct it (such as editing his title).

I didn't know that I could do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thoughts:

Again, I wish to offer my apologies for the completely incompetent way that I phrased the poll in comparison to the way that I phrased the thread title, which really does render the results of the poll suspect, as many people in this thread have indicated that they accidentally voted wrong.

However, let us assume that the poll is basically accurate, and that people voted "wrong" both ways enough so that it would basically even things out had they voted "correctly."

I wish to note the following:

1. I do hold a minority view. However, it's a very strong minority that my view enjoys. 36% is nothing to sneeze at. Most people are fine with superheavies, but the acceptance of superheavies is by no means universal. More than 1 in 3 players would like to see them banned.

2. I think what the consensus, even taking into account the majority view, is ultimately "getting at," based collectively on this thread and the previous thread, is that superheavies are fine, as such, but they need to be appropriately priced, and many simply are not.

This is not an unreasonable view. It's a view that I disagree with, but it's a view that I don't consider inherently unreasonable.

3. I think that if I made a further poll about whether superheavies, though being allowed in normal games, should be restricted, the polls would swing much more in my favor, as several persons in this thread have indicated (including, surprisingly, Galef).

Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

If it is priced appropriately, who cares?

 Las wrote:
Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

You're so cute with your list tailoring. There shouldn't be units that I need special knowledge of to deal with.

Traditio wrote:
36% is nothing to sneeze at. Most people are fine with superheavies, b

Make a new poll before you decide to try to use the results of what you've admitted as being suspect mere moments earlier. The poll up the top there as it stands currently is meaningless and nothing short of a restart could save it from that sadly.

Martel732 wrote:

 Las wrote:
Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

You're so cute with your list tailoring. There shouldn't be units that I need special knowledge of to deal with.

Flyers and super heavies have one or two counters. If you have a pick up game and the opponent shows up without one of those two counters then you just don't have a game.

If you think there shouldn't be units you don't need to be informed about then vote for a ban (maybe you did, I didn't read the thread.) This is the nature of the 40k beast. You gotta deal with it, bud.

I'm never informed of the codex I'm playing, much less what's in the list. Why would anyone think that's a normal thing for a wargame?

Flyers can be ignored as currently implemented. They don't need a counter per se.

Superheavies vary. Most BA and Sister lists, for example, don't fear IK at all, but Riptides, DK, and WKs are magically immune to melta in practice.

Hell, telling me you are bringing a WK doesn't help at all because I have no counters in my codex anyway.

"then you just don't have a game. "

Patently false. Especially with some points bumps to Riptide, Stormsurge, Wraithknight, and Flyrants.

Yeah the poll has little to back it up when it's worded completely opposite of the title.

However, given this is a 40k forum which is populated (mostly) by people who play the game, if you remade the poll and worded it correctly, you'd probably still see a skew towards keeping superheavies in. People who are still playing probably own a few and don't want to see them leave after all. Like I said in my other post, most of the people who would vote to remove them probably already left.

Half tempted to start a "fixed" poll in the poll section but I doubt there's a point.

I love how he goes from "the whole poll is suspect" to "I still have a strong minority" to "if I do a new poll, I will be in the majority".

That's just brilliant. Anything to avoid having to say you might not be correct, eh?

 curran12 wrote:
I love how he goes from "the whole poll is suspect" to "I still have a strong majority" to "if I do a new poll, I will be in the majority".

"Strong minority," not "strong majority."

And corrected.

 curran12 wrote:
And corrected.

Do you disagree with any of the things that I've said?

1. Do you disagree that the poll is suspect, and, as far as we know, I could actually be in the majority simply because most people voted according to the thread title rather than reading the poll?

2. Do you disagree that, even if the poll is accurate, I am still in the strong minority?

3. Do you disagree that, granted the poll results, given that over a third of people voted to ban superheavies outright, that, chances are, at least half would vote to restrict superheavies, though not outright ban them?

Traditio wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
And corrected.

Do you disagree with any of the things that I've said?

1. Do you disagree that the poll is suspect, and, as far as we know, I could actually be in the majority simply because most people voted according to the thread title rather than reading the poll?

2. Do you disagree that, even if the poll is accurate, I am still in the strong minority?

3. Do you disagree that, granted the poll results, given that over a third of people voted to ban superheavies outright, that, chances are, at least half would vote to restrict superheavies, though not outright ban them?

Make the poll already, you know you are going to, it'll feel so good.

Seriously if you need to, do the poll. Personally I would vote to keep the points the same its the whole carcass of rules that have been added since 4th and 5th that need to be edited at minimum. changing points costs or tweaking does litlle in the grand scheme.

The problem stems from the very first point. Your poll is suspect. Nothing else beyond that matters because the numbers are fundamentally flawed. No matter how many times you try to word it, you aren't going to squeeze value from something that was so poorly worded and misleading.

However, it's quite easy to put your claims to the test. So let me just put the money where my mouth is: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691980.page#8677121

Let's just see how your idea holds up, shall we?

I voted Yes.

Because this circus is fun to watch. Continue.

Traditio wrote:

curran wrote:Even earlier in this thread, when called out on it, he acknowledged it as "incompetence" yet did nothing to correct it (such as editing his title).

36% is nothing to sneeze at.

36%... including people who accidentally voted "yes" instead of "no" (there were what, at least 4-5 people who commented and said so of the ~160+ votes)? Doesn't seem like a lot, but that's roughly a 2.46 - 3.08% difference (at time of posting), and when there are only 2 options (yes or no), it isn't much. And that's only the few we know were messed up by the poll question being the exact opposite of the title (which begs the question of why didn't you just copy/paste the title as the question?).

For comparison, would you say Romney in the 2012 election had a "Strong minority"? Of course not, he got MURDERED in the election, scraping barely 38% of total votes. A strong minority would probably be something like 40% to 45%, not 33% to 34%.

You never had a majority, or strong minority, and rewording the poll will simply push it even further in favor of SHVs not being banned.

For me, it's not an issue of "power", but of scale. I believe neither Superheavies nor Gargantuan creatures nor even flyers beyond certain sizes belong to what should be a basic, "normal" 40k game.

War Kitten wrote:So can a Deathstrike, are you going to argue that the Deathstrike should be apoc only as well?

Things like the Deathstrike feel quite out of place in "normal" 40k as well.

Aye, the Deathstrike should be a terrain/scenario piece, and objective to defend, not something that's going to be launching its missile at a target within small arms distance.

Its a problem with 40k trying to encompass and do what Epic used to do.

I am perfectly fine with Knight Titan equivalents in "regular" games of 40k. They are totally reasonable and characterful. And they speed the game along in a useful way.

It is good that the Wraithknight exists as a dedicated Titan hunter, although it is a about 10% overpriced for what it does...

It is also good that Tau got a Titan of their own.

I look forward to seeing the Orks get a plastic Mega Dredd in the near future, because that would be fething ace.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm never informed of the codex I'm playing, much less what's in the list. Why would anyone think that's a normal thing for a wargame?

Flyers can be ignored as currently implemented. They don't need a counter per se.

Superheavies vary. Most BA and Sister lists, for example, don't fear IK at all, but Riptides, DK, and WKs are magically immune to melta in practice.

Hell, telling me you are bringing a WK doesn't help at all because I have no counters in my codex anyway.

"then you just don't have a game. "

Patently false. Especially with some points bumps to Riptide, Stormsurge, Wraithknight, and Flyrants.

I played in an escalation league. Pick up game at 1k pts with my chaos marines. Weak book, as you probably know. My opponent brought 3 flyers and a terminator squad that sat OOLS. There was no ignoring them. I picked up models the entire game. This kind of thing happens in 40k, especially at low pts levels and with new players. Super heavies, gargantuans and multiple flyer are awesome to see, but have the very real potential to auto win in ways that even the most competetive standard armies just don't if your opponent failed to bring the specific tools necessary (the fact that you cited Sisters and BA as not having to worry about IK of all armies kind of illuminates that). Negative play experiences ain't cool. If your group goes beat face 100% of the time or you're at a tourney then cool. Otherwise just know that if you show up to kick some new guy into the dirt with super heavies or WKs for a pick up you look like a dweeb.

Kill his terminator squad and then laugh as his flyers fail to score any objectives the whole game. If you've got plague marines, the flyers will never do enough damage.

Martel732 wrote:
Kill his terminator squad and then laugh as his flyers fail to score any objectives the whole game. If you've got plague marines, the flyers will never do enough damage.

Cool dude. It was a 1k game, he sat his termies on an objective in the back of his deployment zone and out of line of sight. I was tabled before I made it to him, even if I'd just camped on two he would've taken me out. Even if I had won through having one more objective after only rolling staggering cover saves for 5+ turns, so what? That's not a game.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Flyers can't put out that much hurt. Which flyers are we talking about here?

"That's not a game. "

Welcome to every BA victory every in 7th.

Martel732 wrote:
Flyers can't put out that much hurt. Which flyers are we talking about here?

2 talons and a raven.

They very much can.

You're missing the point with the semantics. Those flyers could've easily been 2 WKs, or IKs and I would've been just as fethed. The guy got talked down by the group and for good reason. It's 40k.

Not much AP 3 there. I think he was the one who was fethed. The stormraven is particularly overcosted. Yeah, it sucks not being able to hit them much, but those flyers are VERY ignorable. Unlike a WK or a Riptide.

No, superheavies should not be banned. You should either figure out how to take them down, or ask your opponent not to field them in every game.

I guess there is room for the occasional David and Goliath scenario in a game.
It is just too easy for the opponent to bring Calvary to a Tank battle.

I agree with the idea of scale.
The typical 4'x6' tables seem awfully small when the 10" (or more when talking about Deathstrike) pie plates come out.
Some of these scenarios of largely infantry armies taking on Super Heavies makes you wonder who failed their military intelligence check?

The game always played well in more skirmish type games.
The rules start to creak a bit when we get into Apocalypse sized battles, makes me want to break out the Epic ruleset.

Closing this one as no longer needed.