So as some of you may know, I play an Imperial Guard Superheavy Tank Regiment, with seven companies of superheavy vehicles and one command tank (for a total of 22 vehicles) and then one support company. I have played this army since Baneblade Companies became possible in 4th Edition Apocalypse and have played some version of a superheavy tank since they were released in 3rd Edition from Forge World. I never played with the 2nd Edition armour cast rules, though I do have a copy of Citadel Journal 11 when the Baneblade was first iterated in 28mm 40k.
However, the new Guard codex has me very very worried. I don't want to be labeled a powergamer or denied games based on the power of my army, but this is the first real time I am at risk of that for several editions. When we saw the rumors of the new Guard codex, I was speaking to my friends. They said "wow, baneblades lost the -1 to hit with heavy guns when moving" and I said "that's fine, we'll see how much they go up in price." When they said "wow, IG superheavy weapons got an extra d6 shots!" I said "phbbbt, spurious. That's ridiculous." When they said "IG superheavies got a 40 point discount" I said "haha, you're funny, thanks buddy for the laughs."
And then they were all true, and I am upset.
My superheavy tank companies have always consisted of three vehicles, plus support elements. It is true that the support elements have varied from edition to edition but on the whole the army has stayed relatively static. But now, because of unforseen and unsettling buffs, I am worried about having various labels thrown about. Here's why I am concerned:
1) Recent move to a new area. New players are probably not familiar with my history like my old group was - if I tell them I've been playing superheavy tanks since they dropped, they'll roll their eyes and say "sure you have." I know this shouldn't be a concern, but I think it's important to make a good impression on a new group.
2) No one wants to hear my army's fluff. I've it written down in a Google Drive document that I share with most people who ask, but no one wants to hear army fluff (and I don't blame them for that. I've also been treated to an entire essay right before a game). This means that regardless of the effort and time I have put into the fluff of the army, it's probably just background noise.
3) Effort into optimization: Once I pick a theme, I like to make it work. I don't just pick a theme, and then bring a random smattering of units to fill in points. I leverage whatever extra points I have to make the theme function as best it can on the table top. In earlier editions, the Baneblade and its variants weren't actually very good, and this was necessary. Nowadays, I'm actually worried the Baneblade is a bit too good and I may have to tone it down... but after years of building to the fluff of a superheavy tank regiment, I don't have many models that are not tied directly into supporting and aiding the big guys.
Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?
I already give people some fluff incentives, including making the company command tank my warlord (and therefore not getting a warlord trait, because it is not a character) and telling people why they may want to kill a specific tank. This sometimes works (one of my old Knight army playing buddies had a grudge against Virgin, the 2nd tank of 5th company, and constantly went after the poor girl with his Knights in damn near every game I played. Needless to say, she's not a virgin anymore...). Sometimes I repaint vehicles if they suffer an Explodes result and become unsalvageable, starting their kill-rings over and changing the name of the vehicle to represent a replacement tank, though this is rare.
I'm just despairing a bit, because I want to see the vehicles on the table, and I want to roll dice and see how they perform, but I also don't want to upset anyone or earn a reputation as a WAAC powergamer.
At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.
The easiest way to deal with something like this is to
1.) Make sure it's an actual issue. Try it out on tabletop at least once, it might be super heavies aren't as good as you thought and were merely powerful in your old meta, making the point breaks rather justified.
2.) See the attitudes of people in your new area. For all you know it's got a decent amount of power gamers or at least people who enjoy facing optimized lists
3.) If you'd prefer not to weaken the list by picking suboptimal units, just nerf your units directly. Mention you think their price is too low, and you are using the old pre codex point values for those units.
You should also be aware that, all things considered, an army with a lot of super heavies can often be seen negatively regardless of effectiveness. Maybe play smaller games at first, 1500 or so, with just the one super heavy, if you can't make a list you find enjoyable in the 2000 point range with 1-2.
Scott-S6 wrote: At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.
We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:
1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.
The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.
Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?
Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.
Not sure what to do.
Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.
Scott-S6 wrote: At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.
We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:
1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.
The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.
Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.
Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.
Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.
If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.
You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.
Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?
Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.
Not sure what to do.
Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.
Life's too short and all that.
That's a bit comforting. I do try to be a sporting opponent and a good player.
Scott-S6 wrote: At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.
We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:
1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.
The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.
Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.
Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.
Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.
If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.
You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.
I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.
Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?
And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.
Personally, I don't think it's an issue of being labeled WAAC, but being labeled as cheesy or (after a few games) having a dull army to play against. It's not that I wouldn't ever want to play against an army like that, but it would seriously restrict what I thought was viable to bring and lead to repetitive games.
I find that if you're a cool dude, your army doesn't matter. I faced a pair in a doubles game who brought a really optimised Necron list vs my bro's and I's quite terrible list of Space marines. We got demolished but we had a blast simply because the team were cool guys.
Everyone has an army or set of models that they like and want to field and sometimes the combo is powerful, but that shouldn't stop you from fielding it. That said, not everyone will be that way and some might get annoyed when they see a "powerful" list against them. But that'll happen regardless, depending on people's idea of powerful.
I think it mostly comes down to the person you're facing and how chill they are and also how you treat the game. If you're truely in it for the fun times, you'll give that impression to them and they'll usually have fun too. If you want to win, that impression will rub off, and your powerful list will seem intentional. So just come in with a fun attitude. One thing I find that helps is doing things that aren't particularly intelligent but are fluffy to your models. Like one of the baneblade drivers getting angry at a unit and driving in to run them over, rather than hanging back with all its guns. Might not be a super smart move but can end up with a fun story. I tend to have fun with descriptions too, of my dudes winning and getting killed in horrid ways haha. But I'm also a roleplayer so that part in me comes out a lot even in tabletop.
Anyhow, a very long post short, don't worry about it and just come in with the outlook of wanting to have fun and most of the time your opponent will have fun too
I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.
Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?
And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.
People that refuse to play you because of your list are going to think whatever they think. Not much you can do about that.
Those that do play you will actually be able to get an idea of what sort of player you are and, somewhat, what sort of person you are.
As long as your area isn't full of judgemental asshats and CAAC mafia types then you'll be fine. If it is then that's a problem regardless (since they'll find a reason to have a problem with you no matter how you beat them).
Also, I'm not sure it is a given. Other than the stormlord and to a lesser extent the shadowsword the IGSHVs aren't that powerful. In a meta where people take pretty tough lists it's not all that. (or are you saying that you know your new area is very casual?)
Interesting that you are so worried about being labeled a power gamer that you create this entire thread, but when someone suggests you reduce the number of tanks you field by one you object to the idea of losing some command points. lol
As others have said. Play some games and don't act like a gakker and you'll be fine. I think it's far too early to make any judgements regarding how the new militarum codex will fall into the evolving meta.
Im currently building my first 40k army, Imperial Guard, that I started collecting just prior to 8th released and had talked about for a few years.
So far ive only bought whatever I happened to feel like assembling so I have mostely some infantry and sentinels.
As im expanding now from 1000p up towards 1500, and later 2000, Im starting to feel a bit worried on what to buy to not have people feel im trying to cheese my way into the game.
I hardly even care about winning, just having fun games with a narrative to them, but its starting to feel like anything IG is getting a bad attitude from some people :/
However, the new Guard codex has me very very worried. I don't want to be labeled a powergamer or denied games based on the power of my army, but this is the first real time I am at risk of that for several editions. When we saw the rumors of the new Guard codex, I was speaking to my friends. They said "wow, baneblades lost the -1 to hit with heavy guns when moving" and I said "that's fine, we'll see how much they go up in price." When they said "wow, IG superheavy weapons got an extra d6 shots!" I said "phbbbt, spurious. That's ridiculous." When they said "IG superheavies got a 40 point discount" I said "haha, you're funny, thanks buddy for the laughs."
And then they were all true, and I am upset.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
Are these things true? I have a Shadowsword and that thing is absolutely brutal even with the Index-rules. As it should be.
If I had all those three things you mentioned, just... wow. Let me elaborate:
1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.
2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.
3) ... And a 40 point discount? Really? Is it needed? After these upgrades? Doesn't sound fair but I guess I just have to take it, if it's true.
Seriously, are 2) and 3) true? Sounds... a bit too much. Not that I'm complaining but I thought IG superheavy tanks were already very, very good.
The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)
Tyr13 wrote: The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)
Understatement.
Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.
Tyr13 wrote: The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)
Understatement.
Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.
Anything with an invuln save and hot dice says hi.
Tyr13 wrote: The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)
Understatement.
Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.
Anything with an invuln save and hot dice says hi.
That hasn't escaped my notice.
However, Volcano Cannon has the priority when I use my Command Points. So, you can count that I'll re-roll the number of shots if I don't roll 4 or higher. If I don't need to, I'll maybe use the Command Point when I have to hit or wound. Most optimal targets for a Volcano Cannon have an invulnerable save of 5+. This equation still means death for those who hath invoked the Volcano Cannon's ire. Unless, they make most of their saves, which is then just blind, dumb luck.
To the OP: Follow your joy. Play your list and have fun. If you find that your local opponents have no answers to your list after a few games then think about dialing it down. Until then:
I brought 3 Guard Superheavies to my first game at a new club. Checked in advance and opponent was super keen to play them. He rinsed them with Space Wolf Dreads rocking 3++ saves and 6+ ignore Wounds rolls.
So as some of you may know, I play an Imperial Guard Superheavy Tank Regiment, with seven companies of superheavy vehicles and one command tank (for a total of 22 vehicles) and then one support company. I have played this army since Baneblade Companies became possible in 4th Edition Apocalypse and have played some version of a superheavy tank since they were released in 3rd Edition from Forge World. I never played with the 2nd Edition armour cast rules, though I do have a copy of Citadel Journal 11 when the Baneblade was first iterated in 28mm 40k.
Same here, got 3 FW Baneblades and a Shadowsword. Been using them ever since the Baneblade rules appeared in an issue of White Dwarf (the one with the 3rd ed vehicle design rules), even though at 650 points it was actually kinda underpowered back then.
Unlike a Leman Russ, the Baneblade could move and fire all its weapons, even ordnance. I think it's fitting that it now has a rule that lets it do this again without any penalties to hit. "Lumbering" was pretty much the original Grinding Advance.
I'm totally on board with what you're saying about fielding a full unit. I always tried to get full four tank platoons of the same type of Russ with my armored company back in the day too (two squadrons of two tanks each = 1 platoon split into two sections). It just made more sense to be, realism wise, even if the Vanquishers I used got nerfed by having their HE shells removed.
Haven't had the chance to use my Super Heavies in 8th edition yet. The Index rules seemed kind of... bland? Hoping the Codex will give them some more character
JohnnyHell wrote: I brought 3 Guard Superheavies to my first game at a new club. Checked in advance and opponent was super keen to play them. He rinsed them with Space Wolf Dreads rocking 3++ saves and 6+ ignore Wounds rolls.
Your companies won't be unbeatable ;-)
I've highlighted the key part. I always, ALWAYS ask beforehand if it's OK if I bring a superheavy. Either they agree, then it's a fun game with a superheavy or two on the board, or they don't and I play a different list.
Yes, you can deal with one superheavy even if it's unexpected, but running three really needs some kind of warning if you're not in a tournament setting.
Hi Unit! Maybe you're thinking the worst? I wouldn't have any issue with your list or the worries you've raised. I've never faced such a tanky force - sounds a fun challenge.
I'm going to be honest: If you bring a list where over 2/3 or more of the list is the same element, you're going to have trouble finding opponents, and it is going to worsen if that element is very powerful at the time.
It doesn't matter what it is - 6 flyers, 250 ork boyz, 4 knights or 8 leman russes - there is a significant chunk of people who are going to play you a few times and then pass you up for other options, and when the meta rotates to you there will be people who just don't like to play the current competitive meta.
People who make these kinds of lists are almost never power gamers. They're players who commit to a theme, and for whom a theme is highly compelling, but the fact of the matter is regardless of why you construct an army that way, a game against a list with variety is always going to be more interesting, after the first few games against the wild theme as a change of pace. Games against Just One Thing lists almost invariably turn into situations where either your Just One Thing is utterly screwed and useless, or where there's really nothing for your opponent to do because they're out of anti-tank, or your ork horde has closed the gap, or they don't have any weapons that can touch flyers and youv'e got one character hiding behind all the planes, etc. The games tend to be less tactics and more list-checks.
My advice is to go for one of two routes.
1) I am married to the setup of my theme army, I love it to bits and I do not want to change its structure, but I want to make sure I never struggle to get a game.
In this case, mix it up by starting to collect another army in addition to your themed force. Make it a solid, diverse TAC list and when you get the vibe that people are sick of the big tanks, bring it out. If you go this route though, be prepared for people to often prefer this list over your original themed list.
2) I want to play my theme 100% of the time and be someone people want to play more than a few games with.
My advice in this instance is generally to go halfsies. Dedicate half your list to your theme, and (this part is important) another half your list that is as close to the opposite of your theme as you can get. If you 100% must run three superheavy tanks because that's the theme? Play 2500 point games, and run three, and then run a few infantry squads, some light tanks, some air support, some deep strikers, fill one of the superheavies with Ogryns, whatever. Voila, you have your superheavy tank company and, lo and behold it is a solid amount of armor but still a TAC list. Don't play 2000 points and devote 800 points to just buffers, repairers, psychic support etc for the tanks. No, the fact that you've got 3 astropaths, 3 techpriests and 3 command vehicles for +1BS does not mean you're not running a "just one thing" list.
I'm not trying to attack or go after you specifically. I'm just being honest. I've been involved in my local game scene for 12+ years now, and I've seen a lot of people get very frustrated because (for instance) they're a hardcore Pacific Rim fan and this sweet badass new Eldar giant robot PILOTED BY TWINS came out and so they bought four of them and painted them to museum quality and gave them all callsigns and backstory and runs them as all different weapon loadouts but still a few months after the seventh codex drops only 3-4 people will still play with them out of two dozen regulars in the group. This isn't a thing you can solve long term by being really invested in your fluff, or by being a really nice guy.
Thanks for the advice guys. Lots of good stuff here.
I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.
I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.
I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.
I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).
It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.
As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.
As someone who has played against you here are my thoughts:
1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points? It's not super interactive as a player because you just sit there while your entire army dies. This is a problem across 8th, but with so few drops and the ability to move / fire without penalty there is very little that can be done defensively. I would not even run heavy deep-strike because there would be a very good chance I would end up tabled.
2. Its not just that it's three super-heavies, its that you run them with full re-rolls on all guns (with the FW support tanks), repairs (FW support tanks), and pysker support. Also your warlord is a model with 26 wounds and your tanks can park on objectives due to thier 6' width and you can't dislodge them without killing them.
3. Until it is FAQ'ed the Steel Behemoth rule is incredibly OP as you play it -- there are very few things in the game that can survive over-watch against 4 - 6 heavy bolters, lascannons, primary bane-blade weapon, and demolisher cannons... especially hitting on 5s with the stratagem. It basically means that the tools you can use to fight the tanks are incredibly limited... without list tailoring you basically need to have an entire list of anti-tank shooting that can go first and kill a tank or two before they get alpha'ed. I dont think races with melee focued anti-armor (like orks) could even have a prayer even if they list tailored. Typically charging in a tanky unit or character to allow your squishier heavy hitters in would be the strategy (or Shrike ) but because you have unlimited overwatch this cant be done. I except this rule to be FAQ'ed
There are a few things that make lists very strong -- you run almost every one of them:
a) Screens that prevent deepstrike and assault -- you dont run screens, so that is good, but as discussed above they are pretty immune to assault anyway.
b) Support units - rerolls are incredibly strong this edition, and your entire army has them. You also have repairing capability and the ability to further buff your tank's defense with physker support.
c) Models that take specific attack channels to defeat, high invulns, heavy FNP rerolls, characters. The tanks are not too too strong defensively... but with T8 a 3+, -1 to hit / +1 armor through powers and so many wounds most lists are going to only have limited tools to deal with them.
Are there lists that can beat your 3 super heavy deathstar? Absolutetly -- I got very close with my Cawl robot / crawler spam or scions plasma spam. However only a few lists can compete, and it ends up as this giant not - interactive not- strategic shootout that is honestly just a dull game.
I do remember that game, and that's what made me worry enough to make this thread.
The support tanks thing was originally a reaction to the moving/shooting penalty that they no longer have (a way to make the army less static and still hit well) which I could probably do away with. The repairs just seemed like a natural support element a company would have, but I could certainly leverage it even more if I spammed techpriests rather than brought one Atlas.
The Steel Behemoth rule which lets them overwatch is, I think, intended. I'm not really sure what to do to make the tanks more 'chargeable'. The Defensive Gunners stratagem is ridiculous, and that game damn near made me want to play Mordians because then the overwatch would hit on a 4+, but again, I'm worried about this trouble.
The psyker support I didn't honestly feel was very troublesome, but there's not much I can replace them with until we hop over 2000 points. I just need the cheap elites to fill out another detachment, and at 15ppm they're about the best I can do.
As for the Alpha, I'm pretty sure I could build an IG list with way better alpha - in fact, Alpha in 8th seems to be a problem in general, though that's best talked about in another thread. I think for 1250-1750 points of army, the alpha isn't so bad. I think what's surprising about it is the lack of small arms, so the entire alpha is fairly good instead of being like 50% lasguns, as it would be with 1500 points of infantry guard.
But yes, that game is what made me worry and rethink my everything.
EDIT: Also, I think your game plan could have been better. I don't want to sound like I am making excuses, because it is pretty crazy, but the fact that I think you did ~43 wounds to my army on the top of Turn 1 but killed 0 tanks was probably a bad thing. In my experience, I have far more trouble if tanks are killed, rather than the damage being spread across all 3.
But that's also a discussion for another thread, I think.
Valentine009 wrote: 1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points?
Honestly that sounds like a problem with lack of LOS blocking terrain. This is a problem I have been seeing with Guard discussion recently, that people use nowhere near enough. Facing Guard on what is effectively an open field is never going to go well. If your SH company is mowing down all opposition, try to use them in a cityfight. A light infantry company that relies on things like meltas will have a much greater chance if you have dense streets to worry about.
I would have built it differently if I had understood how the over-watch worked. I had a ton of points in thunder-hammer lieutenants, shrike and assault centurions that couldn't charge anything without instantly dying to unlimited overwatch. Issue was that all the firepower was in 3 units so the only way to optimize targets better would have been to let the robots go last and split fire them with fury of mars.
I don't mean to call you out -- I consider you a friend, but the issue is that comes of as disingenuous to say 'oh I am worried my list is too strong, I am not a power gamer - I just want to run fluffy armies and have good games against people.' but then say in the next sentence 'oh btw my fluff is that I only run my tanks in groups of 3, with heavy support, and it is just the way I play that I like to make my lists as strong as I can.'
It's not my fluff that the tanks are run in groups of 3 - that's GW's, at least for superheavy tank companies. I mentioned in my OP that I'd be happy to play a team game with another regiment in which I brought only one tank, or two if necessary. But people don't seem to like team games so much, and I understand why: they take a bit to organize.
I think it is possible to be a player who likes fluff, and builds a fluffy army that is optimized. I don't think I have to deliberately play bad lists to be a fluffy player.
What you bring up is the reason for this thread. I am not a power gamer. I didn't seek to be. In earlier editions, Baneblades and their variants weren't actually very good. Now they are, and because they are, I am worried that the same army I've run from edition to edition is suddenly a power-gamey army.
I would continue to run 3 Baneblades long after they are nerfed into the ground, also. I feel like a fluff player in a bad spot - if I was a power gamer, do you really think I'd build an entire regimental TO&E of vehicles and whatnot? Power gamers tend to leap between the best armies at any given time. I rarely change what army I am playing, and have rode it through the ups and downs.
But now it's on the ups, and I am trying to seek a way to preserve the way I've played and avoid exactly the kind of reaction you have.
One good way may be to drop the Trojan support tanks, but what do I bring instead? The entire IG codex is phenomenally good. I could bring infantry (some might call these 'screens' that are 'too durable for their cost' as you may have seen elsewhere on the forum) or artillery (which is just more firepower)... I'm not sure what to do.
Suddenly my army went from 'rather okay I guess, if I optimize it" to "super ridiculous" and I'm not sure how to handle it.
EDIT: Sorry, not in the OP - I mention team games further down. Even so, the real fluff for the IG is that their regiments are split up across a whole battle zone, and that's especially true of superheavy tanks. Concentrated tank companies are only brought to the most vital of battles - just like Guilliman or Cawl would.
Purifier wrote: Basically, you're afraid others will treat you like you treat others when they play strong units.
Yes, with the added caveat that I didn't go out of my way to specifically build an army of strong units, and would like to continue using the army I've built and painted/repainted since at least 4th edition (you can see the beginnings of it in my gallery, which I haven't updated in ages) that was made of until-now mediocre units which suddenly finds itself too ridiculous to play.
I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.
I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.
I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.
I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).
It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.
As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.
YMMV I guess. I haven't found infantry squads taken solo for screening purposes to be OP in any way. They don't have the ignores morale shenanigans and cost 1pt more apiece. If you're not giving them upgrade weapons you're basically playing at a handicap.
Our club's comfort value was 2000, but we've basically migrated to 2500 just because it's what you can easily play in the time slot we have available. 2000pt games were averaging about an hour shorter than they were in 7th ed.
I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.
I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.
I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.
I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).
It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.
As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.
YMMV I guess. I haven't found infantry squads taken solo for screening purposes to be OP in any way. They don't have the ignores morale shenanigans and cost 1pt more apiece. If you're not giving them upgrade weapons you're basically playing at a handicap.
Our club's comfort value was 2000, but we've basically migrated to 2500 just because it's what you can easily play in the time slot we have available. 2000pt games were averaging about an hour shorter than they were in 7th ed.
I can start bringing a trio of 'replacement tank crews' or whatever to wander around the battlefield and give something for the enemy to fire at. That's not a problem at all. It seems almost... condescending, or something, though. And not sure if it would help.
Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?
Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.
Not sure what to do.
Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.
Life's too short and all that.
That's a bit comforting. I do try to be a sporting opponent and a good player.
Scott-S6 wrote: At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.
We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:
1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.
The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.
Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.
Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.
Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.
If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.
You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.
I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.
Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?
And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.
Basically you have answered your own question.
You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.
I agree with the bold and underlined sentiment above.
Play what you want, don't change your list because other people have stupid opinions. However, if your army is *legitimately* unfun to play against, then that isn't just people needlessly whinging. See for yourself it actually leads to bad games. If it does, then it doesn't matter how fluffy or well painted it is, neither of those things can fix the games being unfun for the other player.
Basically you have answered your own question. You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.
I agree with the bold and underlined sentiment above.
So should I retire/rebuild the entire regiment? That's the fate I was trying to avoid. I put a lot of love and effort into the army and enjoy seeing it on the tabletop. And the collection is still growing; I just ordered another Banehammer through the FLGS to fill out the 7th company. It's not like I'm done.
Play what you want, don't change your list because other people have stupid opinions. However, if your army is *legitimately* unfun to play against, then that isn't just people needlessly whinging. See for yourself it actually leads to bad games. If it does, then it doesn't matter how fluffy or well painted it is, neither of those things can fix the games being unfun for the other player.
Well, the 'dex isn't out yet, so I guess it's a matter of we'll see, but I can already tell by looking that it's gonna be pretty ridiculous and likely unfun. I was hoping not to have to shelve the army though.
1) Expect whatever faction just got thier codex to be labeled OP for a month or so. That's been the pattern so far and it's not even a GW thing. PP has the same thing with theme list releases.
2) If you have a a model worth over $100, expect to be accused of powergaming at some point. For many angry players this fact alone makes it OP. I've seen them blow up on weaponless transports because they merely 'suspected' it had some secret, hidden rule that must make it better than their stuff .
3) If you win, figure on a 25% of being accused of being a powergamer. That is kind of a GW thing, but there's nothing you can do about it.
You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.
The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.
That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.
it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.
the_scotsman wrote: You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.
The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.
That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.
it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.
I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.
The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.
At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).
the_scotsman wrote: You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.
The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.
That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.
it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.
I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.
The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.
At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).
in my experience 2500 is easy to convince people into. It runs really well in the timeslot that a 2k game of 7th runs, and it typically doesn't end in the tablings you usually see at 2k, so the mission matters more.
Protip: Mechanicum Robots work really well as the two flavors of Kastelans (vorax for shootyhands, castellax for rockem sockem) and the Thanatar makes a good Onager.
the_scotsman wrote: You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.
The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.
That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.
it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.
I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.
The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.
At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).
in my experience 2500 is easy to convince people into. It runs really well in the timeslot that a 2k game of 7th runs, and it typically doesn't end in the tablings you usually see at 2k, so the mission matters more.
Protip: Mechanicum Robots work really well as the two flavors of Kastelans (vorax for shootyhands, castellax for rockem sockem) and the Thanatar makes a good Onager.
I do have a ton of robots then, but we'll see what happens when Fires comes out. At 2500 I could bring right around a thousand points beyond the superheavies themselves; that should be plenty for fleshing out the army, perhaps with an inquisitor and retinue, and more.
jeff white wrote: You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.
IOW, "keep spending hundreds of dollars and countless hours of painting time or I don't want to play against you". No thanks.
Are these things true? I have a Shadowsword and that thing is absolutely brutal even with the Index-rules. As it should be.
If I had all those three things you mentioned, just... wow. Let me elaborate:
1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.
2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.
3) ... And a 40 point discount? Really? Is it needed? After these upgrades? Doesn't sound fair but I guess I just have to take it, if it's true.
Seriously, are 2) and 3) true? Sounds... a bit too much. Not that I'm complaining but I thought IG superheavy tanks were already very, very good.
- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.
- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?
So basically they dropped 40 points. Whoop dee doo.
- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.
- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?
Most Baneblade variants' main guns were simply upgraded. The Baneblade gets 3d6 shots now instead of 2d6. The Shadowsword got the biggest upgrade, d6 to 3d3.
I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.
And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.
My personal opinion, regarding casual games:
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.
Hrmm, very interesting thread. I would hate to have a player not be able to game with his loving painted and collected army. At the same time, I'd hate to always face an extremely powerful list with no chance to win.
It's a tough call, but I'd play you. I'm sure you can pick and choose the times to play your heavies. Also, growth leagues, narrative campaigns, and the like can be a way to tone down your list and pick up new minis to play with.
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.
On the other side of this, don't be like everyone else in 7th and assume that the entire codex and every list from it is overpowered cheese played by a WAACTFG.
Marmatag wrote:I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.
And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.
My personal opinion, regarding casual games:
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.
I do recognize that IG are ridiculous. In fact, that's half the motivation behind this thread. You can view this thread, if you wish, as "IG Are Ridiculous, How Do I Keep Playing IG Without Being Ridiculous Myself". Though that's long and clumsy. Do you have any suggestions of what can be done?
brother_b wrote:Hrmm, very interesting thread. I would hate to have a player not be able to game with his loving painted and collected army. At the same time, I'd hate to always face an extremely powerful list with no chance to win.
It's a tough call, but I'd play you. I'm sure you can pick and choose the times to play your heavies. Also, growth leagues, narrative campaigns, and the like can be a way to tone down your list and pick up new minis to play with.
Good luck.
I appreciate you wouldn't mind playing me. Part of the problem with me being a treadhead is I naturally gravitate towards the biggest, scariest tanks around, so when I pick factions, I end up essentially picking them based on tanks. If I had to play something other than Imperium, it'd be Tau, because I find the tanks cool, but I don't like the fluff. I could downgrade my Baneblades to Leman Russes (I still have plenty!) and be fine, but the Leman Russ got such a drastic buff that I am not sure I'd be any better off - essentially, my tanks would get cheaper, and I'd have to screen them to keep myself from auto-losing to melee armies, but it would be mostly the same story. Tons and tons of ridiculous firepower.
Peregrine wrote:
Marmatag wrote: Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.
On the other side of this, don't be like everyone else in 7th and assume that the entire codex and every list from it is overpowered cheese played by a WAACTFG.
The problem is that the 3 Baneblade list kind of is overpowered cheese, but I ended up playing the list completely by accident (essentially). I don't wish to give the impression of being a WAACTFG but I'd like to continue playing with the army. That's the crux of this thread I think.
- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.
- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?
Most Baneblade variants' main guns were simply upgraded. The Baneblade gets 3d6 shots now instead of 2d6. The Shadowsword got the biggest upgrade, d6 to 3d3.
Base Baneblade is 390 + 40 + 34 + 34 = 498 (566 fully equipped). 383 for a land raider w/ multi-melta. Let's shoot a Leman Russ
So the land radier is certainly weaker in damage terms, but is also a transport.
The land raider brings a 2+ and since both are T8:
So in average terms not too far off.
What about a 4LC Pred?
Same as the BB in these regards.
In other words the LR is not a big gun platform.
The BB brings 7.25 LC hits and 26 T8 3+ wounds. For 498 points you can take 2.6 quad LC predators and get 7 LC hits with 29 T7 3+ wounds.
The bigger problem is deleting a unit The predators are certainly weaker, because their effectiveness can be reduced much more quickly. The BB cannon with a reroll on shots can probably kill a pred in one go.
If the predators go first they can take the BB down to half. If the BB is half (and consider the demolisher needs a turn before it's in range) then it can tag about 2/3 of a pred. That doesn't look so good for the BB. Even with an extra 2 LC it might not kill a pred.
So i'd go out on a limb and say it's "balanced". It depends who gets the first turn and whether or not you decided to bring enough AT to make the BB scared about going second. I would say they shouldn't have dropped the points as a safety factor after having made change to such big weapons.
The Shadowsword at 458 points...
Crazy - a really powerful gun. Here's the catch...unless it's shooting a titan or a landraider the power is wasted. It overkills a predator by 50%.
So, again - balance "feels" relatively ok. Alpha strike is the real problem. My issue with it is that it creates a meta that is too much about anti-tank weapons. Taking two BB takes it out of range of what most lists bring for AT.
CP abilities can also create big swings, which AM have too much of currently. Giving them a regain CP ability was the dumbest thing about the book imo.
Let's not forget devastators though! RG, 5 Devs w/ 4 LC and a cherub is 530.
That's almost as good as 3 LC preds. And you even have RG to help beat stuff up. Just make sure you go first or have a ton of squads...that's part of the AM "weakness": no pile of full reroll auras.
You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".
Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?
I kind of didn't want to have a discussion about how "good" Baneblades are.
It's not really relevant whether or not they are actually good or balanced. I am sure that information can be arrived at, as demonstrated by your post, Daedalus, but it's perception more than reality which concerns me.
The opponent of the game I played that made me post this worried thread already chimed in and gave some excellent points, so I am still not sure how to proceed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I kind of didn't want to have a discussion about how "good" Baneblades are.
It's not really relevant whether or not they are actually good or balanced. I am sure that information can be arrived at, as demonstrated by your post, Daedalus, but it's perception more than reality which concerns me.
The opponent of the game I played that made me post this worried thread already chimed in and gave some excellent points, so I am still not sure how to proceed.
Sure, I think the conclusion relates to that.
The perception of how strong a BB is is strongly tied to 1) your anti-tank options and 2) first strike results. Two BBs make that calculus even more harsh, which therein lies the rub. How do you deal with two BBs with 1 BB worth of AT while trying to break past another 1,000 points of guard?
I know my list doesn't have adequate AT, but I do have Magnus...
I dont think it's either or for fluffy / competetive, just how enjoyable the game is going to be comes down to how interactive the game is.
Always let people know the capabilities of your list, and let them tailor at least a smidgen so they can have anti-armor.
Dont go too gung-ho on the rerolls, you dont really need it to wreck things.
Try to have some variety so there are options for your opponent to engage. It's not fun having anti infantry or mid range units that just can't do much against a Baneblade list. I played a full Russ list and it wasn't that bad bc I had options for my melee units... those options disappear against pure Baneblade.
Try to reconsider always running 3. If you are worried about CPs infantry guard is going to have an easier time anyway and while 1 or 2 superheavies is a challenge and fun, 3 just feels spammy.
You sound like a cool dude to me. I think its very interesting you have fluff for your own army and find it cool as well.
This is coming from a player who isn't a fan of playing against more than 1 super heavy but to be fair if the person I'm playing against isn't a jerk I have a swell time regardless.
I'm sure you'll be fine, you seem to be very open and talking about your army before you throw em down on the table and completely thrash someone.
I wish you well buddy, but I think you'll be good just by judging your character.
Marmatag wrote:I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.
And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.
My personal opinion, regarding casual games:
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.
I do recognize that IG are ridiculous. In fact, that's half the motivation behind this thread. You can view this thread, if you wish, as "IG Are Ridiculous, How Do I Keep Playing IG Without Being Ridiculous Myself". Though that's long and clumsy. Do you have any suggestions of what can be done?
I'm not being critical of you. I'm not saying you should stop playing your tanks.
Just be mindful of how strong they are in casual games.
If you're looking for a balanced game where you have a realistic chance of losing, you might want to consider some narrative scenarios that will give your opponents some tools. At the end of the day people should be able to play what they want to play in a casual setting as long as it creates a fun gaming experience.
If people stop having fun, address it then. Until that happens, just roll on.
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
.
Valentine009 wrote:I dont think it's either or for fluffy / competetive, just how enjoyable the game is going to be comes down to how interactive the game is.
Always let people know the capabilities of your list, and let them tailor at least a smidgen so they can have anti-armor.
Dont go too gung-ho on the rerolls, you dont really need it to wreck things.
Try to have some variety so there are options for your opponent to engage. It's not fun having anti infantry or mid range units that just can't do much against a Baneblade list. I played a full Russ list and it wasn't that bad bc I had options for my melee units... those options disappear against pure Baneblade.
Try to reconsider always running 3. If you are worried about CPs infantry guard is going to have an easier time anyway and while 1 or 2 superheavies is a challenge and fun, 3 just feels spammy.
Okay, I'll see what I can do about running 2. The problem with running 1 is it gets alpha-struck off the board (as you did in our game). Having one tank that hits on a 6+ the first time it fires is no fun. Sometimes you need 2 or 3 to get the ball rolling. In our game, I think you could've killed 2 turn 1 (since you did damn near two tanks worth of wounds).
KingCorpus wrote:You sound like a cool dude to me. I think its very interesting you have fluff for your own army and find it cool as well.
This is coming from a player who isn't a fan of playing against more than 1 super heavy but to be fair if the person I'm playing against isn't a jerk I have a swell time regardless.
I'm sure you'll be fine, you seem to be very open and talking about your army before you throw em down on the table and completely thrash someone.
I wish you well buddy, but I think you'll be good just by judging your character.
I'm glad you think so. I hope I can find something.
valdier wrote:My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play
If you'd like! I played a list like that at NOVA and was tabled at the bottom of 2, but I didn't mind it so much. At least my army got to see the table.
valdier wrote:I'm just saying, pylons are deployed in groups of 3... for fluff
I didn't know GW had any published fluff on Necron Pylon TO&E! That sounds awesome. Are they deployed in some kind of air defense network or something on the World Engine? That'd be a neat read!
ross-128 wrote: You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".
Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?
Probably because people tend to accentuate the negative rather than see the positive. 3.5 edition Iron Warriors was perfectly Fluffy and Strong (OP levels) and few people bring up the former when talking about them. Also the lack of competent rule writers in the design team for so long has also caused the rules to drift a lot farther from fluff. Like in 7th edition the most optimal use of Dark Eldar Raiders is party boats for Eldar shooters. Or that entire deal with Barkstar.
Valentine009 wrote:Usual lurker, but just found this thread.
As someone who has played against you here are my thoughts:
1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points? It's not super interactive as a player because you just sit there while your entire army dies. This is a problem across 8th, but with so few drops and the ability to move / fire without penalty there is very little that can be done defensively. I would not even run heavy deep-strike because there would be a very good chance I would end up tabled.
2. Its not just that it's three super-heavies, its that you run them with full re-rolls on all guns (with the FW support tanks), repairs (FW support tanks), and pysker support. Also your warlord is a model with 26 wounds and your tanks can park on objectives due to thier 6' width and you can't dislodge them without killing them.
3. Until it is FAQ'ed the Steel Behemoth rule is incredibly OP as you play it -- there are very few things in the game that can survive over-watch against 4 - 6 heavy bolters, lascannons, primary bane-blade weapon, and demolisher cannons... especially hitting on 5s with the stratagem. It basically means that the tools you can use to fight the tanks are incredibly limited... without list tailoring you basically need to have an entire list of anti-tank shooting that can go first and kill a tank or two before they get alpha'ed. I dont think races with melee focued anti-armor (like orks) could even have a prayer even if they list tailored. Typically charging in a tanky unit or character to allow your squishier heavy hitters in would be the strategy (or Shrike ) but because you have unlimited overwatch this cant be done. I except this rule to be FAQ'ed
There are a few things that make lists very strong -- you run almost every one of them:
a) Screens that prevent deepstrike and assault -- you dont run screens, so that is good, but as discussed above they are pretty immune to assault anyway.
b) Support units - rerolls are incredibly strong this edition, and your entire army has them. You also have repairing capability and the ability to further buff your tank's defense with physker support.
c) Models that take specific attack channels to defeat, high invulns, heavy FNP rerolls, characters. The tanks are not too too strong defensively... but with T8 a 3+, -1 to hit / +1 armor through powers and so many wounds most lists are going to only have limited tools to deal with them.
Are there lists that can beat your 3 super heavy deathstar? Absolutetly -- I got very close with my Cawl robot / crawler spam or scions plasma spam. However only a few lists can compete, and it ends up as this giant not - interactive not- strategic shootout that is honestly just a dull game.
Right now, there are a lot of lists that can. It's not that good of a list, but, as you said, it's a pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic shootout.
With a 40-point reduction in points and 3d3 as opposed to d6 shots [for the Shadowsword, and other improvements for other Baneblades] and the slew of buffs they're getting, I fully expect the list to become considerably more competitive, but continue to be pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic. I'm having a much harder time working out how to reliably crack a 3-baneblades list with 120 extra points, because 120 extra points pays for a defensive Conscript screen or vanguarding Sentinels to block my own Vanguard moves and Meltaguns.
Also, a non-character can't be the Warlord unless he literally has no other options for the Warlord, IIRC. Since he at least has 1 other detachment for the Trojans, that has an HQ option, that HQ will have to be the Warlord.
The real answer to the original question is to keep playing the superheavy company if you like playing it. If it becomes actually good [which I fully expect, because I except Baneblades to be rather OP after the buffs], then we will eventually put thought into solving it, and it's still not very flexible. And while it's boring to play against, we'd be the poor sports for refusing to play than you'd be the poor sport for bringing it.
Valentine009 wrote:Usual lurker, but just found this thread.
As someone who has played against you here are my thoughts:
1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points? It's not super interactive as a player because you just sit there while your entire army dies. This is a problem across 8th, but with so few drops and the ability to move / fire without penalty there is very little that can be done defensively. I would not even run heavy deep-strike because there would be a very good chance I would end up tabled.
2. Its not just that it's three super-heavies, its that you run them with full re-rolls on all guns (with the FW support tanks), repairs (FW support tanks), and pysker support. Also your warlord is a model with 26 wounds and your tanks can park on objectives due to thier 6' width and you can't dislodge them without killing them.
3. Until it is FAQ'ed the Steel Behemoth rule is incredibly OP as you play it -- there are very few things in the game that can survive over-watch against 4 - 6 heavy bolters, lascannons, primary bane-blade weapon, and demolisher cannons... especially hitting on 5s with the stratagem. It basically means that the tools you can use to fight the tanks are incredibly limited... without list tailoring you basically need to have an entire list of anti-tank shooting that can go first and kill a tank or two before they get alpha'ed. I dont think races with melee focued anti-armor (like orks) could even have a prayer even if they list tailored. Typically charging in a tanky unit or character to allow your squishier heavy hitters in would be the strategy (or Shrike ) but because you have unlimited overwatch this cant be done. I except this rule to be FAQ'ed
There are a few things that make lists very strong -- you run almost every one of them:
a) Screens that prevent deepstrike and assault -- you dont run screens, so that is good, but as discussed above they are pretty immune to assault anyway.
b) Support units - rerolls are incredibly strong this edition, and your entire army has them. You also have repairing capability and the ability to further buff your tank's defense with physker support.
c) Models that take specific attack channels to defeat, high invulns, heavy FNP rerolls, characters. The tanks are not too too strong defensively... but with T8 a 3+, -1 to hit / +1 armor through powers and so many wounds most lists are going to only have limited tools to deal with them.
Are there lists that can beat your 3 super heavy deathstar? Absolutetly -- I got very close with my Cawl robot / crawler spam or scions plasma spam. However only a few lists can compete, and it ends up as this giant not - interactive not- strategic shootout that is honestly just a dull game.
Right now, there are a lot of lists that can. It's not that good of a list, but, as you said, it's a pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic shootout.
With a 40-point reduction in points and 3d3 as opposed to d6 shots [for the Shadowsword, and other improvements for other Baneblades] and the slew of buffs they're getting, I fully expect the list to become considerably more competitive, but continue to be pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic. I'm having a much harder time working out how to reliably crack a 3-baneblades list with 120 extra points, because 120 extra points pays for a defensive Conscript screen or vanguarding Sentinels to block my own Vanguard moves and Meltaguns.
Also, a non-character can't be the Warlord unless he literally has no other options for the Warlord, IIRC. Since he at least has 1 other detachment for the Trojans, that has an HQ option, that HQ will have to be the Warlord.
The real answer to the original question is to keep playing the superheavy company if you like playing it.
You can choose any model to be your warlord but he doesn't get a trait if he's not got the Character keyword.
As for the non-interactive, non-stratiegic part, that was maybe true in earlier editions. I think it's less so now, because Baneblades and their ilk are assault elements. It's just that my plan this saturday ended up being very static because I essentially lost a tank turn 1 (23/26 wounds) and had another crippled (14/26 wounds) and the other damaged (8/26 wounds) before they could move, so I ended up defending myself rather than advancing.
valdier wrote:My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play
I think both my Guard and Sisters list would beat it. The Sisters list would be in trouble if he brought 120 points of Conscripts or Scout Sentinels though, because that pushes back my Vanguard action. My Guard list will wreck it, especially if I tailor it for improved efficiency.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Okay, I'll see what I can do about running 2. The problem with running 1 is it gets alpha-struck off the board (as you did in our game). Having one tank that hits on a 6+ the first time it fires is no fun. Sometimes you need 2 or 3 to get the ball rolling. In our game, I think you could've killed 2 turn 1 (since you did damn near two tanks worth of wounds).
I'm glad you think so. I hope I can find something.
If you'd like! I played a list like that at NOVA and was tabled at the bottom of 2, but I didn't mind it so much. At least my army got to see the table.
I didn't know GW had any published fluff on Necron Pylon TO&E! That sounds awesome. Are they deployed in some kind of air defense network or something on the World Engine? That'd be a neat read!
I don't think there's fluff on Pylon TO&E. You'd have to look in Fall of Orpheus, but IIRC they're air defense sentries that teleport to pre-designated sites on the surface. I don't believe they operate in squadrons.
2 Baneblades is least optimal. 1 Baneblade is probably most optimal. It serves as a line anchor and bullet magnet, and can protect your artillery and other tanks very well against turn-1 attacks. 2 takes up too much of your list with the things. 3 is back to being decent, because now your entire army is tanks, and if the enemy doesn't have enough AT, they're screwed.
Also, IIRC, the fluff for Baneblade companies is that they are temporary task-specific formations, and the vehicles are ordinarily parceled out throughout the regiment's structure.
"Though a single Baneblade is the equal...At such times, the army commander with gather together the Baneblades under his command, fielding them in one or more 'steel fury' companies. Though often drawn from the same super-heavy regiment, it is not uncommon for vehicles from other formations to be drawn into the steel fury company. Such a formidable force is only maintained for the duration of a single engagement, each individual vehicle returning to its place in the line once the battle is won." [from the steel fury datasheet]
Hence, I wouldn't precisely call fielding 3 banebades together "fluffy", except in very large games. I wouldn't refuse the game, of course. Bring what you will; I don't have to adore your list, I just have to beat it. Don't be unsettled.
Personally, I'd rather you keep bringing your 3 baneblades than change your list. I really, really detest it when people bring intentionally inferior lists; it's kind of insulting to me and my time.
For posterity, I don't hate steel-fury lists. I just think they're kind of boring, because there's no real unit-to-unit synergy and there's no real flexibility.
I can honestly say that at 2k points, I would not play against an army with more than 2 superheavy choices. I doubt I could deal with 2 as it is. With more than that, I would not provide a decent game. My army lacks the tools to fight that battle.
Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.
I'm always always always always always down for teaming up with another IG player, so their regiment gets one or two of my superheavies in support - that is by far the fluffiest way to play.
Sadly, however, team games seem unpopular, and so I am stuck either building an entirely new regiment\company and running them together (the thing I was hoping to avoid doing; I don't want to build another army) or playing my Regiment in the fluffiest way possible, which is the Emperor's Fury Baneblade company.
Also, this is comparatively irrelevant, but Baneblade companies are more common than one might expect. The Paragonian regiments (From the Baneblade -> Iron Harvest -> Stormlord -> Shadowsword series of novels) always fight in companies, and allow their tanks to be split up as little as possible. So there is precedent for that, though I actually (as mentioned) would prefer to find another regiment / imperial force to fight alongside for MAXIMUM FLUFF.
If the one big concern is "MAXIMUM FLUFF," maybe what is needed is more imagination, rather than tanks? In no universe will 2-3 guardsmen be able to equal a space marine in combat. No fluffy Eldar faction would deign to meet you on a fair playing field.
Maybe it'd be easier to train your brain to picture 1 or 2 as representing a company. 1 guardsman model equaling a hundred. That sort of thing.
I'm all for fluff, but it's a tabletop representation of something vastly more complex - sometimes perfect fluff is the enemy of the good (game). I think that's what a lot of the posters here have been trying to get across, with minimal effect.
Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against, so the best option would probably cut out at least a tank and add in regular units (not just ones to buff the tanks)
cosmicsoybean wrote: Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against, so the best option would probably cut out at least a tank and add in regular units (not just ones to buff the tanks)
I am not sure you can categorically say that about every superheavy army. I like to throw little tidbits in and do my best to make it fun for my opponents.
Usually I can succeed. What made me make this thread was that I did not succeed at making it fun for my opponent, and I didn't do much differently than I have in 7th.
But rest assured my army in earlier editions was something the clubs like to play, not like... an unfun monstrosity as it seems you assume it to be.
ross-128 wrote: You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".
Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?
It definitely can, but its rarely perfect.
Take last edition Eldar. You could take a whole bunch of scatbikes, bike HQs, Vypers, Shining Spears, and some flyers, and have a very fluffy, fairly strong Saim-Hann force.
If you stripped out the vypers, spears, most of the flyers, and added two wraithknights, you'd have a list that didn't exactly work as a saim-hann force because why would they use these big lumbering superheavies in one of their fast attack formations?
A fluffy list is rarely as strong as a list made with an eye to pure competitiveness, because the mix of units that would make sense in a fluffy list are rarely all strong, while that's the point of a purely competitive list. There is a wide variance and it's also common for people to claim every decision they make is based on fluff alone and they just happened to come upon a strong combination, and you just have to wait for a codex or edition change to see all those changes shift overnight when new rules makes something else....er...fluffier.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.
Then why are you having problems? You say that your reason for playing with three Baneblades at all times is because that's what the fluff says a superheavy company is, but you acknowledge that it isn't fluffy for all three tanks in the company to operate together regularly. The easy solution is to stop playing an unfluffy army and add some non-superheavy units to your army so you can take a single Baneblade with support as a 2500 point army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".
Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?
Because people don't want to admit that their lists just plain suck at everything. Their list has to be good at something, and if it clearly isn't good at winning then it must, by process of elimination, be good at fluff. And eventually the term gets redefined entirely to mean "a list that is bad at winning".
It's also fairly rare for a fluffy list to actually work well. I don't know of any decent SM list (by which I mean for every variation, chaos and imperial) that wants to run a lot of actual space marine infantry. Admech lists are currently 2-3 units take enmasse, not utilizing 90% of the army list. Etc.
Guard is actually an exception post codex. To a point at least. Lots of big guns and expendable bodies is both fluffy and effective.
AaronWilson wrote:I'm worried about people won't enjoy playing against my 3 incredibly good super heavies? What a snooze fest.
Hey pal, Ive brought some tactical marines, some assault marines and a few tanks. Oh here's my fluffy 3 super heavies, thanks for turning up chump.
Of course people won't want to play you. You're list is gross and most casual "lets roll some dice and kick back" will get rolled over.
I didn't make the superheavies incredibly good. I didn't ask for this. So I'm asking what actions I can take to make it better. "Don't run that army" is a solution, but one I'm uncomfortable with, and I hope you can understand why I might feel that way, having put a lot of time and effort into making the army in the first place. It's not like they're unpainted plastic I bought last week and have no real connection to.
Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.
Then why are you having problems? You say that your reason for playing with three Baneblades at all times is because that's what the fluff says a superheavy company is, but you acknowledge that it isn't fluffy for all three tanks in the company to operate together regularly. The easy solution is to stop playing an unfluffy army and add some non-superheavy units to your army so you can take a single Baneblade with support as a 2500 point army.
Because I would like to play a superheavy tank regiment. I've got it all drawn up, homeworld, fluff, organization, deviations from Imperial standards, etc. and don't want to also feel compelled to build a second regiment who will fight alongside the superheavies for one game and then get ... thrown away? Because that battle is concluded and the battlegroup breaks up.
It's hard to have a coherent set of fluff for an IG battlegroup that extends beyond one planetary campaign, because the battlegroup breaks apart into its constituent regiments at the conclusion, which are then subsequently redeployed across the galaxy. It's much easier to play a single regiment, follow it's storied history, and then try to get team games with other famous (or new!) regiments to represent the formation of a temporary battlegroup. But in the absence of team games, the superheavy company is about the only way a regiment would be deployed.
Also, I'll note that certain superheavy tank regiments try to keep the tanks together (such as the Paragonians I mentioned earlier). But I also admit those are the exception rather than the rule.
SilverAlien wrote:It's also fairly rare for a fluffy list to actually work well. I don't know of any decent SM list (by which I mean for every variation, chaos and imperial) that wants to run a lot of actual space marine infantry. Admech lists are currently 2-3 units take enmasse, not utilizing 90% of the army list. Etc.
Guard is actually an exception post codex. To a point at least. Lots of big guns and expendable bodies is both fluffy and effective.
Yes, in my experience the superheavy list was pretty handicapped, and in the past I've had to super-optimize it to make it work (e.g. bring the 3 tanks, sure, but leave off all the upgrades and focus on spending points on 'real' units). 8th Edition made supporting the superheavies (rather than having them as a 1500-point drag that were comparatively easily killed) a viable option, but now the guard codex has dropped and they're just ... too good, I think.
Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Not really. Only Unit1126PLL has made them work to any degree. Before the IG codex leak, everyone was trying to tell him how he's wasting his time with them. Which is why i find the sudden hysteria around them to be hilarious.
techsoldaten wrote:Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Not really. Only Unit1126PLL has made them work to any degree. Before the IG codex leak, everyone was trying to tell him how he's wasting his time with them. Which is why i find the sudden hysteria around them to be hilarious.
Yeah I've had to work pretty hard to make them do well, but as you can tell from my opponent's posts in this thread as well as my own concern - they're actually that good now that the codex has dropped. At least, to someone who has been using them for a while.
One problem with them is that they are very easily killed - "just bring one" may seem like a viable option, but in my experience, if the enemy wants it dead, killing one is comparatively trivial. I've seen Knights, Fellblades, and yes, Baneblades alpha-struck off the table turn 1. At NOVA, even with 3 Stormhammers, I was tabled in 3 games out of eight.
That said, the codex buffs them rather... a lot. That's what has me worried.
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Sort of.
I use a Shadowsword in my lists, and it's pretty averagely decent.
However, it's about to receive a 100% increase in average fire output, re-rolling 1's to hit, and a 40 point reduction in price, which might be a problem
All super-heavy lists are pretty less-than-awesome, in my opinion. They're lists that will wreck "casual" lists, but won't really hold up to "competitive" lists, at least as I see it.
Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.
Trickstick wrote: Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.
12, if you're playing tournament rules of max 3 detachments.
3 Base
+3 for Super Heavy Detachment
+3 for Batallion
+3 for Batallion
Making 6 units of Conscripts for Batallions is ridiculously easy. Guard can always max out on CP, and you can get a few more by using their newfound ability to gain a CP on a 5+ everytime the enemy uses a CP. So... Not pretty limited.
I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.
A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.
I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.
jeff white wrote: You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.
IOW, "keep spending hundreds of dollars and countless hours of painting time or I don't want to play against you". No thanks.
That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.
That said, painting and modeling is part of the hobby.
I like to talk with friends about painting and modeling, better if we have our models on the game table at the same time.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
If he wants to fit in with his group, then he might change how he invests going forward.
But, as the bold and underlined sentences in the quoted response above indicate,
he seems to have no interest in doing that.
Is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.
Elbows wrote: I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.
A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.
I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I
think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.
jeff white wrote: That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.
It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.
No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Sort of.
I use a Shadowsword in my lists, and it's pretty averagely decent.
However, it's about to receive a 100% increase in average fire output, re-rolling 1's to hit, and a 40 point reduction in price, which might be a problem
All super-heavy lists are pretty less-than-awesome, in my opinion. They're lists that will wreck "casual" lists, but won't really hold up to "competitive" lists, at least as I see it.
I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?
Trickstick wrote:Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.
7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.
Elbows wrote:I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.
A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in. B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.
I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.
Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?
Purifier wrote:Find the guy that plays a "fluffy" Knight house list, and shoot at eachother. That way, you're both playing the same type of army.
I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.
JohnnyHell wrote:Is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.
Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:
1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch. 2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1" 3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely. 4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.
THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.
Peregrine wrote:
jeff white wrote: That's not what I wrote. It is also not what I intended.
It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read. And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up... Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.
Then why are you having problems? You say that your reason for playing with three Baneblades at all times is because that's what the fluff says a superheavy company is, but you acknowledge that it isn't fluffy for all three tanks in the company to operate together regularly. The easy solution is to stop playing an unfluffy army and add some non-superheavy units to your army so you can take a single Baneblade with support as a 2500 point army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".
Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?
Because people don't want to admit that their lists just plain suck at everything. Their list has to be good at something, and if it clearly isn't good at winning then it must, by process of elimination, be good at fluff. And eventually the term gets redefined entirely to mean "a list that is bad at winning".
I agree with this first point - well said.
As for the second point, I disagree. Some people don't create "lists" exactly. Some people look at their models and think "Man, I want to use this and that, and see this and that, and this dude I just got finished is gonna lead that unit over there." Something like that.
Then things get written down and points tallied and some adjustments are made to fit the agreed limit and there you have it, an ARMY. Not a "list" per se.
These same sorts of people are not out to "win" a game, they are out to enjoy their hobby with others similarly minded, and if this is done together, then both sides win. Every time.
Some people seem to enjoy the intellectual triumph of breaking a game with first, lots of money, and second, min-max "competitive" list-building.
Anyways, the point here is that when you mix one type of player with the other, the former IMO rightly gets pissy often enough because the other player hasn't spent the time in the same ways, and simply doesn't value what the first player thinks is valuable about the hobby, and rather cheapens it by making it into something to exploit rather than to respect.
As for myself, I have zero respect for the idea that breaking what is effectively a system broken by design to motivate sales is somehow an intellectual achievement.
Now, the current thread is not really about that.
It is about someone who loves his models and wants to use them, but is concerned that he might ruin other people's days because he is stuck on using what turn out to be really hard and sort of boring models.
My suggestion is meet the other members of his group in the middle, think hobby and get back to it, creating something that respects the game and the other people whose time he plans to utilize.
He doesn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and paint for a year - he might just find some stuff on ebay and use it grey, telling the other members of his group why they are new and grey (because he didn't want to pummel them with superheavies every game, and find himself having a good deal more fun with two of his tanks - at least - on the shelf. I dunno, maybe 3 or 4 sentinels, maybe a few more squads with mortars, something like that.) Why not?
jeff white wrote: That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.
It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
1, no it isn't, and no, it doesn't.
2, OK, by your reasoning, neither is it reasonable for him to expect anyone to want to play a game with him and the models that he is so interested in to forego his local equivalent to me, then - right.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.
No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.
The problem here is that Unit has not demanded anyone else to change to conform to his army; in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma. Every naysayer has basically went "no you brought this upon yourself because you like big tanks even though back then they were bad and not tied to a single ruleset. You didn't have the farseer-levels of clairvoyance to foresee this development so now go spend money on a new army or I will call you TFG and never play you".
Note that I said "Naysayer". The vast majority of people here seemed to express either an indifference or a willingness to play him, which is a good indicator that his fears are unfounded and that it's just one or two vocal minorities that have an issue with it.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.
No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.
I would rather the latter game, frankly.
Sure, I might admire these tanks on a shelf, but I see no reason to want to roll dice against them.
Maybe one of them, sure.
I have spent my hours and hundreds of dollars collecting what I might be able to use to tackle one of them at a time, along with the rest of an army of course.
See, this is one thing that Peregrine leaves out, that it is up to the other player to come up with the time and money to make playing against three superheavy tanks a good time.
And yes, of course the OP is not really guilty of anything but resisting change, this is to be expected. We all are guilty of this.
But at the end of the day, someone has to come up with the time and money to make these things happen, and to make them enjoyable for all involved.
I guess the burden is on the local equivalent of me, then...
God forbid dude fields something else.
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Sort of.
I use a Shadowsword in my lists, and it's pretty averagely decent.
However, it's about to receive a 100% increase in average fire output, re-rolling 1's to hit, and a 40 point reduction in price, which might be a problem
All super-heavy lists are pretty less-than-awesome, in my opinion. They're lists that will wreck "casual" lists, but won't really hold up to "competitive" lists, at least as I see it.
I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?
Trickstick wrote:Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.
7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.
Elbows wrote:I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.
A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.
I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.
Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?
Purifier wrote:Find the guy that plays a "fluffy" Knight house list, and shoot at eachother. That way, you're both playing the same type of army.
I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.
JohnnyHell wrote:Is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.
Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:
1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch.
2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1"
3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely.
4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.
THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.
Peregrine wrote:
jeff white wrote: That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.
It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.
Dude, just use one of them.
But above, you wrote that you weren't interesting in changing army comp to suit the local group...
I am getting confused, here, but maybe this is just you changing your mind.
Anyways, to have a good time with the "local equivalent of me" then just make moves to meet the interests of the other people with whom you share your time,
and sadly this might mean using only one superheavy tank in a standard game at a time.
If you are up to it.
Otherwise, the local equivalent of me wouldn't be putting his eldar/harlequin, ork, or inquisition armies on the table with yours.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.
But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.
I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.
No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.
I would rather the latter game, frankly.
Sure, I might admire these tanks on a shelf, but I see no reason to want to roll dice against them.
Maybe one of them, sure.
I have spent my hours and hundreds of dollars collecting what I might be able to use to tackle one of them at a time, along with the rest of an army of course.
See, this is one thing that Peregrine leaves out, that it is up to the other player to come up with the time and money to make playing against three superheavy tanks a good time.
And yes, of course the OP is not really guilty of anything but resisting change, this is to be expected. We all are guilty of this.
But at the end of the day, someone has to come up with the time and money to make these things happen, and to make them enjoyable for all involved.
I guess the burden is on the local equivalent of me, then...
God forbid dude fields something else.
Look, I get that you think I'm an ogre (heh, there was an old game with awesome tanks called Ogre for those that don't get the pun) for playing big tanks, but you're making it into some drama about "oh no, someone has to change..."
That's... just defeatist. I'm looking for some way of making the army fun for everyone without anyone having to do something they don't want. So I'm trying to see if anyone more clever than me has any ideas. Here are a few examples of what I've thought of:
1) Design some scenario games (for example, base one around the superheavies being ambushed by a smaller force in an area with restricted mobility where they have to defend themselves) and ask people if they want to play those in an effort to make it more fun.
2) Build a fluff compendium for people who kill a tank - since each tank is tracked by it's home Forge World and it's final fate recorded, I could see incentive for people to destroy certain tanks - they get immortalized in fluff!
3) Give opponents free VPs or something for killing a tank like the Price of Failure rule from the Heresy.
4) Try to find another regiment to operate with in a battlegroup style the way the fluff supports.
The problem is that these options aren't really ones people seem interested in - the fluff thing isn't that exciting if they're not really interested in the fluff (and that's a fine way to play too!). Special scenarios people don't like or trust for pickup games, understandably so. Free VPs sounds good but I don't want my opponents to feel like I am giving them "pity points" which is an issue Katherine raised. And number 4 is essentially what I've tried to do by seeking out other models, but even so I think the stigma will remain, simply because "three tanks!"
So I suppose the purpose of this thread (other than to foster discussion, which it seems to be doing well) is also to seek out possible solutions while avoiding silly ones like "why don't you just play something you enjoy less?"
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.
But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.
I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.
I see you ignored my caveat on your post: The difference between me and others is that I do not intend to powergame, and in fact would go ahead and give my opponent the victory in every game and go "0 - however many games of 8th I play" even in tournaments if I believed it would help any thing.
I do see a problem with power gaming in 40k, and this thread exists because I don't want to be a power-gamer but my favorite units are accidentally suddenly some of the best units on the table.
techsoldaten wrote: Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.
I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"
Sort of.
I use a Shadowsword in my lists, and it's pretty averagely decent.
However, it's about to receive a 100% increase in average fire output, re-rolling 1's to hit, and a 40 point reduction in price, which might be a problem
All super-heavy lists are pretty less-than-awesome, in my opinion. They're lists that will wreck "casual" lists, but won't really hold up to "competitive" lists, at least as I see it.
I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?
Trickstick wrote:Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.
7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.
Elbows wrote:I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.
A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.
I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.
Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?
Purifier wrote:Find the guy that plays a "fluffy" Knight house list, and shoot at eachother. That way, you're both playing the same type of army.
I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.
JohnnyHell wrote:Is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.
Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:
1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch.
2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1"
3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely.
4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.
THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.
Peregrine wrote:
jeff white wrote: That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.
It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.
Dude, just use one of them.
But above, you wrote that you weren't interesting in changing army comp to suit the local group...
I am getting confused, here, but maybe this is just you changing your mind.
Anyways, to have a good time with the "local equivalent of me" then just make moves to meet the interests of the other people with whom you share your time,
and sadly this might mean using only one superheavy tank in a standard game at a time.
If you are up to it.
Otherwise, the local equivalent of me wouldn't be putting his eldar/harlequin, ork, or inquisition armies on the table with yours.
The regiment I am building is designed to mesh nicely with my 7th Transport company, allowing me to bring 60-odd IG infantry riding in Banehammers. So it's not exactly altering my comp so much as trying to find a sweet spot where I can have a fluffy army (one regiment riding in a superheavy regiment's transports) that also fields 3 superheavies (Banehammers) while giving the enemy another goal / something to do (fight the infantry that hop out when an objective is reached).
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.
But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.
I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.
I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).
I also saw a lot of thinly veiled unkind words being thrown around (on both sides) so if there is an issue, remember we have the little yellow triangle.
Also this is starting to escalate so I would like to remind everyone that rule #1 is still a thing and that if you strongly disagree, simply walking away is not a concession to the other side.
I didn't ignore your caveat, it just doesn't change a single thing. You're the kind of person that you're afraid will judge you. You're only afraid of this because you know you would have.
I would never judge you for turning up with 3 super heavies, because I don't roll that way, and I don't worry that anyone will judge me for playing half my army as Stygies and half as Mars, even though it doesn't have the paint scheme of either, and I would still do that even if the whole damn army was painted Mars, without a single drop of guilt. I'd get some rubber bands and hang them off of the Stygies units or something.
Because that's how I want to play this game. I want to pick the rules I think will make the game more fun, and I don't worry that you're calling me a power gamer as a result, because honestly I think people that are as picky as you about these things are so rare I will probably never even meet one in real life.
I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).
You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.
Purifier wrote: I didn't ignore your caveat, it just doesn't change a single thing. You're the kind of person that you're afraid will judge you. You're only afraid of this because you know you would have.
I would never judge you for turning up with 3 super heavies, because I don't roll that way, and I don't worry that anyone will judge me for playing half my army as Stygies and half as Mars, even though it doesn't have the paint scheme of either, and I would still do that even if the whole damn army was painted Mars, without a single drop of guilt. I'd get some rubber bands and hang them off of the Stygies units or something.
Because that's how I want to play this game. I want to pick the rules I think will make the game more fun, and I don't worry that you're calling me a power gamer as a result, because honestly I think people that are as picky as you about these things are so rare I will probably never even meet one in real life.
I wouldn't call you a powergamer for having your army mixed regiments/Forge Worlds, not sure where you got that idea. I might chuckle about army loyalty or something, but it'd be a small jab, not like, a dark cloud that I would let hang over the game or anything.
But thanks for not judging me for liking big tanks!
I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).
You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.
I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.
I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).
You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.
I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, I must have confused him with someone else, because the words he used weren't as harsh as I remembered, but he has most certainly said he wouldn't be totally ok with how others choose to play their armies.
And the "no assaults touching" was because he found it worrying that a melee unit could dig through a Conscript unit in 3 turns, which put his tanks in danger. I think it's fair to say that if you're arguing that a specifically tailored melee unit can dig through Conscripts in 3 turns, allowing them to charge you in turn 4, as a problem, then when are they supposed to be able to get to you? The next step up would be that they NEVER get to you.
If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.
If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.
If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN
That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.
I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).
You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.
I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, I must have confused him with someone else, because the words he used weren't as harsh as I remembered, but he has most certainly said he wouldn't be totally ok with how others choose to play their armies.
And the "no assaults touching" was because he found it worrying that a melee unit could dig through a Conscript unit in 3 turns, which put his tanks in danger. I think it's fair to say that if you're arguing that a specifically tailored melee unit can dig through Conscripts in 3 turns, allowing them to charge you in turn 4, as a problem, then when are they supposed to be able to get to you? The next step up would be that they NEVER get to you.
If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.
If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.
If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN
That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.
Considering assault is a very "all or nothing" thing right now, his concerns aren't unfounded. Plus digging straight through a bubble wrap is the brute force way; i.e: the same problem we had with Eldar in a past edition where you simply turned off all tactical thinking and just marched them forward. I'm a world eaters player and I would be flabbergasted at any unit that could destroy an entire unit of Berserkers in 3 turns. From the sounds of it, he never went "the next step up", that's purely your extrapolation.
And in the quote of him you found, the first two he states he's poking fun at. The third one is in jest (I bet he'd have the exact same reaction if someone showed up with an entire new army every game) and the final sentence is him explicitly saying he won't refuse a game (which is the opposite of what you're accusing him of).
Again, I have no idea where you got this idea but Unit has been pretty consistent so far. If you got a bone to pick with him or something, I suggest talking it out like civilized people in PMs rather than coming in harping at him on every thread.
EDIT: Plus I think this discussion of Unit's character has dragged the thread off topic enough and is toeing very close to outright insulting him (rule#1 violation) especially since most of the faults are merely your extrapolations of what he said and not what he actually said. Again if you think there is a problem, that little yellow triangle is right there.
EDIT: Ignore most of this, look about 3 posts down for my apology.
Again, I have no idea where you got this idea but Unit has been pretty consistent so far. If you got a bone to pick with him or something, I suggest talking it out like civilized people in PMs rather than coming in harping at him on every thread.
Oh sod off. If you're such an upstanding citizen why aren't you taking this in PMs? No, because you need your audience as you tell me how I should bring it to PMs, so they can all see how superior you are.
I just admitted I had the wrong of it, thanks for reiterating that to make sure everyone can see how dignified you are. There is nothing that grinds my gears more than people that do this specific thing. If you want to yap on about the highroad, then TAKE IT instead of crawling down here in the muck with me while acting like you're not.
I appreciate that discussions of power-gaming and fluff can get heated, etc.
I appreciate MechaEmperor7000 standing up for me, that's very nice of him.
And I appreciate you, Purifier, for having the intellectual fortitude to admit you misremembered something
That's a good place to put a stop to the tangent I think and move along with the discussion at hand:
Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
I'm willing to concede that it may not be the case, and that would be regrettable and something that I would have to think long and hard about whether I'd like to continue the hobby or just wait until superheavies return to the middle-of-the-road (or worse, I'm not picky). But I would like to investigate options first.
I genuinely apologized for that, I read it as sarcasm. I got caught up in the moment.
Also I have taken the discussion with Unit to the PMs, but my beef isn't with you which is why, apart from the apology, you haven't heard anything from me.
cosmicsoybean wrote: Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,
Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.
cosmicsoybean wrote: Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,
Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.
I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.
As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.
Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.
The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.
I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.
As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.
Oh, OK, well try those and see how it goes.
I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.
I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.
As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.
Oh, OK, well try those and see how it goes.
I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.
Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.
The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?
They also share the "Titanic" keyword for things that care about it (e.g. the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon). The Steel Behemoth and Super-heavy Walker rules are almost identical too.
Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.
The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?
They also share the "Titanic" keyword for things that care about it (e.g. the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon). The Steel Behemoth and Super-heavy Walker rules are almost identical too.
True, though things that were formerly not superheavies have those abilities too, e.g. the Monolith which is Titanic, can fall back + shoot, and ignores moving and shooting penalties for its guns.
Just start playing competitively. You can use whatever you want, and you won't feel bad about smashing people even if they don't have fun.
And you'll run into some people who will wipe the floor with you. It's a good experience. There's a ton of hubris flying around on these forums, of people who stomp out their local meta. Try swimming in a bigger pond. Losing is healthy.
Marmatag wrote: Just start playing competitively. You can use whatever you want, and you won't feel bad about smashing people even if they don't have fun.
And you'll run into some people who will wipe the floor with you. It's a good experience. There's a ton of hubris flying around on these forums, of people who stomp out their local meta. Try swimming in a bigger pond. Losing is healthy.
I did that, and went to NOVA and went 4-4, and I had a blast even in the games where I was tabled bottom of 3. But Peregrine will tell you that I am not a competitive player, really. We had a very long discussion back when Leman Russes had to be the core of the army about how my army is way suboptimal and should be optimized.
I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.
EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.
My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.
I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.
No, reserves are a mission-specific rule. In matched play units can only be placed into reserve if they have a special rule permitting it.
I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.
EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.
My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.
Many of us feel that way. You pretty much just described my outlook on 40k over the last 10 years.
Have always played in a competitive local meta. There are the players who attend tournaments, and the ones who don't but are just as good. The tournament players are always playing brutal lists and have a WAAC mentality, everyone else tones down their lists and builds novel armies. Both sides leach off each other's ideas about what's good and there's a fair amount of trial and error that happens.
Forgeworld has only been appearing on our tables the last few years, mostly as a result of people wanting to use HH units in 40k games. So we've seen quite a few superheavies. I play CSMs and have a Spartan, a Sicaran, some Contemptors, a KAC, some Rapiers and a Fire Raptor. I bought them because they look cool, and I am fully aware of why they are inferior point-for-point to other options from Forgeworld.
But it's not like I am trying to optimize around whatever the newest, best rules are for the game. I like my CSMs and always will. If I know what someone is playing regularly, I can optimize around that with what I have and at least have a good game.
With regards to superheavies - the new IG rules will make them a tougher, but it's not like they are suddenly going to ruin the game for everyone else. So far, the worst I have seen is Baneblades, which die the same way Land Raiders do. All of my lists have plenty of Lascannnons for this purpose. A 2++ save would be hard to deal with, but someone will eventually figure out how to kill them reliably.
It's better than having shelves of models you just don't care about. Take the changes in stride and don't buy into the latest hotness.
I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.
No, reserves are a mission-specific rule. In matched play units can only be placed into reserve if they have a special rule permitting it.
I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.
EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.
My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.
Many of us feel that way. You pretty much just described my outlook on 40k over the last 10 years.
Have always played in a competitive local meta. There are the players who attend tournaments, and the ones who don't but are just as good. The tournament players are always playing brutal lists and have a WAAC mentality, everyone else tones down their lists and builds novel armies. Both sides leach off each other's ideas about what's good and there's a fair amount of trial and error that happens.
Forgeworld has only been appearing on our tables the last few years, mostly as a result of people wanting to use HH units in 40k games. So we've seen quite a few superheavies. I play CSMs and have a Spartan, a Sicaran, some Contemptors, a KAC, some Rapiers and a Fire Raptor. I bought them because they look cool, and I am fully aware of why they are inferior point-for-point to other options from Forgeworld.
But it's not like I am trying to optimize around whatever the newest, best rules are for the game. I like my CSMs and always will. If I know what someone is playing regularly, I can optimize around that with what I have and at least have a good game.
With regards to superheavies - the new IG rules will make them a tougher, but it's not like they are suddenly going to ruin the game for everyone else. So far, the worst I have seen is Baneblades, which die the same way Land Raiders do. All of my lists have plenty of Lascannnons for this purpose. A 2++ save would be hard to deal with, but someone will eventually figure out how to kill them reliably.
It's better than having shelves of models you just don't care about. Take the changes in stride and don't buy into the latest hotness.
I appreciate your endorsement of my bigguns but I am earnestly worried about upsetting people. You can probably tell from one of my opponents who posted here that the superheavy tanks just aren't fun to play against.
I have another game Thursday, we'll see how it goes.
I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
There are 2 issues with this type of list
1) its an all or nothing list and in most friendly games people will not have the most optimized list to take down these units fast enough.
2) I think currently it might be a bit OP but as more codexs come out more and more units will be beefed up to deal multiple wounds easier superheavy tanks just like all knight lists will take a freefall off a cliff.
I actually think Gw is encouraging us to take only 1 LOW superheavy by limiting doctrines to certain detachments as some of these doctrines help super heavies greatly.
Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
gungo wrote:There are 2 issues with this type of list
1) its an all or nothing list and in most friendly games people will not have the most optimized list to take down these units fast enough.
2) I think currently it might be a bit OP but as more codexs come out more and more units will be beefed up to deal multiple wounds easier superheavy tanks just like all knight lists will take a freefall off a cliff.
I actually think Gw is encouraging us to take only 1 LOW superheavy by limiting doctrines to certain detachments as some of these doctrines help super heavies greatly.
I've heard number 1 repeated time and time again and it's not really panned out. Even in 7th I was having tanks one-shotted by their equivalent units in firepower. It's happening in 8th, too - units are simply more effective against tanks than they were before (e.g. heavy bolter devastators are infinitely more effective against baneblades than they were). Even in my most recent game, which was the one that caused this, if my opponent had concentrated fire I'd've lost 1 tank before I had a turn, and I'm not sure his list was especially tailored. At Nova, I got tabled by an Adeptus Mechanicus Brigade detachment by turn 4 - I think a Brigade detachment list brought to a wide tourney in which a huge variety of armies could be expected to show up would be the very definition of Take All Comers.
2) I agree with this, that's why I'm sad. I hope that they become bad, so this problem reduces.
As for your last point, I've heard it like 4 or 5 different ways; this is the first time I've heard superheavies not getting doctrines if taken in the big unit. Are you saying they only get doctrines if taken in a regular Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment?
Unit1126PLL wrote: As for your last point, I've heard it like 4 or 5 different ways; this is the first time I've heard superheavies not getting doctrines if taken in the big unit. Are you saying they only get doctrines if taken in a regular Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment?
Remembered where I read it:
...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.
...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.
So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.
I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.
I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.
Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.
Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.
...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.
So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.
I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.
I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.
You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).
No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.
I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.
As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.
I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.
Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.
Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.
There's a ton I can do to make it different, are you kidding? One game I can bring 1100 points of Valdors and 900 points of support units/ other stuff. Another game I can bring 1260 points of Banehammers and 800 points of random other stuff riding in them. Some games I can bring Stormhammers and focus on long-range gun duels, other games, I can bring Stormswords and assault everything (necessitating different support choices as well). Other games I can bring Baneblades and do a bit of both (as I tried to do in my last game, though losing first turn crippled my plan).
There's so many different variants, it's more than just 3x SHV. I can even mix and match in a scratch company, like a Stormhammer covering two Stormsword assault tanks or a Banehammer full of goodies helping a Valdor tank destroyer and a Baneblade to hold the line.
There really are a bunch of tanks that fufill different roles. I think part of the perception that they're all the same is because people don't really understand them that well, which MechaEmperor7000 I think can attest to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, it's worth noting that every time I've been to the club save two I think I've had a different superheavy tank variant with me, and played a different game each time.
...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.
So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.
I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.
I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.
You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).
No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.
I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.
As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.
I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.
3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.
...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.
So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.
I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.
I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.
You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).
No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.
I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.
As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.
I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.
3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.
3 Russes absolutely do, especially if they're Mordian and overwatching on a 5+ (4+ if you spend 1CP).
You're right that you can kill one, but you still have the firepower from the other two, which can be two lascannons, six heavy bolters, and two battlecannons - one autocannon short of a Baneblade, essentially. So the third actually gave the 3 of them more guns than a Baneblade has.
Leman Russes have 12, not 11 wounds, meaning you have to do 24 to reduce their firepower to below that of a Baneblade (Baneblades have 26, so that's about right) and 36 to remove them as a threat completely.
And yes, 3 Russes might have different guns, just like 3 different Superheavies might have different guns - IG have nine different Baneblade variants, 3 Macharius hulls (used to be 4) and one Malcador-hull superheavy.
The primary differences are: Russes can't overwatch if enemy models are within 1". This is something I am willing to play differently if it helps me get more games! Russes can't park on objectives. This is true, but they get Objective Secured in a Spearhead detachment with a Tank Commander anyways, so they're still pretty damn good at it.
This is why I am worried about guard in general being OP.
EDIT: Oh, one other thing Russes can't do is fall back and shoot, though running a screen for Russes should be doable, I suppose.
Well if your heart isn't in competitive play but you run a competitive list, that's going to put you in a difficult spot. Compounded by the fact that you're playing Astra Militarum, which is the most powerful faction I've ever seen in my limited 40k time.
3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.
3 Russes absolutely do, especially if they're Mordian and overwatching on a 5+ (4+ if you spend 1CP).
3 Russes don't fire overwatch at a single charging unit. You're completely missing the point that one large unit is not the same as several smaller ones (this is one of the problems with conscripts).
I do still have enough I think to make a Leman Russ company, and it looks like the codex supports that as well, so perhaps that would be better for a while?
There is a Guard guy at the club who ran something like 8 Russes, 2 guard blobs, some scions and a Valkyrie. This was pre-buff but it was good game against my Raven Guard.
Even something like 1 SHT, 5 russes, and scions would be an interesting yet very strong list.
To be honest seeing you always post about super heavy detatchments makes be want to run one....But I don't have enough....I spent way too much on Warhammer since 8th dropped as it is.
I guess I could run 2 along with a Marauder destroyer....
rhinoceraids wrote: To be honest seeing you always post about super heavy detatchments makes be want to run one....But I don't have enough....I spent way too much on Warhammer since 8th dropped as it is.
I guess I could run 2 along with a Marauder destroyer....
Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.
Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.
Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.
By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.
No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.
I would rather the latter game, frankly.
Sure, I might admire these tanks on a shelf, but I see no reason to want to roll dice against them.
Maybe one of them, sure.
I have spent my hours and hundreds of dollars collecting what I might be able to use to tackle one of them at a time, along with the rest of an army of course.
See, this is one thing that Peregrine leaves out, that it is up to the other player to come up with the time and money to make playing against three superheavy tanks a good time.
And yes, of course the OP is not really guilty of anything but resisting change, this is to be expected. We all are guilty of this.
But at the end of the day, someone has to come up with the time and money to make these things happen, and to make them enjoyable for all involved.
I guess the burden is on the local equivalent of me, then...
God forbid dude fields something else.
Look, I get that you think I'm an ogre (heh, there was an old game with awesome tanks called Ogre for those that don't get the pun) for playing big tanks, but you're making it into some drama about "oh no, someone has to change..."
That's... just defeatist. I'm looking for some way of making the army fun for everyone without anyone having to do something they don't want. So I'm trying to see if anyone more clever than me has any ideas. Here are a few examples of what I've thought of:
1) Design some scenario games (for example, base one around the superheavies being ambushed by a smaller force in an area with restricted mobility where they have to defend themselves) and ask people if they want to play those in an effort to make it more fun. 2) Build a fluff compendium for people who kill a tank - since each tank is tracked by it's home Forge World and it's final fate recorded, I could see incentive for people to destroy certain tanks - they get immortalized in fluff! 3) Give opponents free VPs or something for killing a tank like the Price of Failure rule from the Heresy. 4) Try to find another regiment to operate with in a battlegroup style the way the fluff supports.
The problem is that these options aren't really ones people seem interested in - the fluff thing isn't that exciting if they're not really interested in the fluff (and that's a fine way to play too!). Special scenarios people don't like or trust for pickup games, understandably so. Free VPs sounds good but I don't want my opponents to feel like I am giving them "pity points" which is an issue Katherine raised. And number 4 is essentially what I've tried to do by seeking out other models, but even so I think the stigma will remain, simply because "three tanks!"
So I suppose the purpose of this thread (other than to foster discussion, which it seems to be doing well) is also to seek out possible solutions while avoiding silly ones like "why don't you just play something you enjoy less?"
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.
But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.
I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.
I see you ignored my caveat on your post: The difference between me and others is that I do not intend to powergame, and in fact would go ahead and give my opponent the victory in every game and go "0 - however many games of 8th I play" even in tournaments if I believed it would help any thing.
I do see a problem with power gaming in 40k, and this thread exists because I don't want to be a power-gamer but my favorite units are accidentally suddenly some of the best units on the table.
No, I don't think that you are an ogre.
Not at all.
I like those models - they are way cool.
I would rather spend that kind of money on other things, and time painting other things, all of which might be more fun for the average casual gamer and ardent hobbyist (into painting, modeling, scenery construction, some tactics and strategy generally speaking, game mechanics, balance and appreciating the labor of love that this all adds up to) and which for me gets my head going, but then again I started with D&D in 1982 and have retained that cooperative RPG gaming mindset, looking to build worlds more than "lists" and so on.
I appreciate that this is also what you are doing, with your collection.
I can appreciate that.
And, I also appreciate the suggestions that you have listed above (bold).
I would throw down on one of those scenarios, once or twice, for kicks.
But, I would not go out and buy more lascannons and flyers to try to do it better next time.
I might convert a few more bomb squigs, and who knows, that could be fun for a second try I guess.
But that is about it.
After that, I would be looking for some movement on your end, towards a middle ground with more variety.
For instance, how about 1000point games? 500 point games? What would you want to bring to the table then?
One tank?
Or, would you not want to play that game, because you have to have three?
Anyways, my only suggestion is to soften up on your stance, and use something else.
A little give and take might go a long way to alleviating your worries that your new group will not be embracing games with you due to your limited list.
After all, this seemed to be the object of the thread.
So, sure, your suggestions seem to allow you to keep things that way that you want them, and maybe could get the local equivalent of me into a few sessions, so maybe this is one way to start.
Good fortune.
Good discussion.
Stayed civil, relatively reasonable.
Good thread.
Exalted.
I would personally hesitate to accept a game against your superheavies, but that's simply because of the fact I don't have the tools to deal with it model-wise. My Chaos Marines are still geared up for the old 4th edition Rhino Rush with Melta strategy, which has fared terribly for the past 5 years or so. My Death Guard are lacking in anything resembling anti-tank until I get my hands on some Blighthaulers. If I had the guns on the other hand, I'd love to play against it!
As for "what should I do?" to me the answer seems fairly straightforwards. If you find that you're doing too well using the new Astra Militarum Codex, just go back to using the Index! Any casual gamer shouldn't have a problem, since you immediately lose all of those fancy regimental rules and stratagems, and you revert to the old points costs and weapons profiles. For more "competitive" games, bring out the codex again to give yourself an edge. Simples.
cosmicsoybean wrote: Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,
Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?
Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.
Well knights are superheavy walkers were they not My big issue with supers last edition it basically made units in your army completely useless since you cant wound it, but now 8th changed that its much better. Now you just deal with getting leafblowered down haha
To me this is the kind of army that is completely at home in Epic Armageddon but 40k is just not the scale to be bringing multiple Super Heavy War Engines.
Hell, in an Epic game there wouldn't be any reason not to take all 20+ SHTs plus supporting elements and both players to have a good time
Well I just can suggest to bring your stuff and see other players' reactions. If you like a certain style and those specific models you shouldn't change that, 40k is just a game and any game's purpose is to have fun.
But also your opponents should have fun, so you can't blame others if they don't want to play against a list such yours. I personally hate LoWs and huge models, I sometimes accept to play against lists with ONE of them, but non very often, since I don't like those kind of units/characters. And I'm not willing to face an army with only LoWs, not because they may be too strong, but because I don't like to play against those kinds of lists. Despite having 3 different armies I've only accepted to play against imperial knights 3-4 times in 3 years, since games against them are absolutely boring IMHO and I won't probably play again against them in the future.
If you local players accept to play against your list and actually enjoy the games, you won't have the slightest problem, just know that not everyone likes to play with and/or against a small amount of huge models.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do still have enough I think to make a Leman Russ company, and it looks like the codex supports that as well, so perhaps that would be better for a while?
What does everyone think?
At least until I get my neat Roman models...
With the new codex this could conceivably be *worse* as they'll have higher damage output - 2k of russ is, for the sake of argument, 20d3 demolisher cannon shots :|
15 russ, 3 SHCs and 10k of various titany things here and over the last 5 years i've come to understand that for the sake of fun, no more than one on the table at a time unless you're facing comparable opponents. The only exception to this is the Marauder Destroyer as it's powerful, sure, but it's priced and powered at a remarkably sensible level now.
Last week for the sake of experimentation I took a single shadowsword against 2k of non optimised primaris marines. The shadowsword wiped them in 3 turns. It's crucial to remember that they work on an entirely different tier to most armies, in a similar manner to the thunderwolves of yore. If your opponents are used to playing structurally even lists with multiple threats, one single black hole unit will break both their plans and their means of enjoying the game at the same level.
No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.
Have you played against them using 3 superheavies? Try to face an imperial knight list using 0-1 LoW. Not that impossible to win (I defeated knights with orks last time I faced them) but it's way to boring to play against lists in which everyting is pretty much immortal unless you tailor your list or you're already fielding a super competitive lists or an hard counter for that LoWs spam.
flyingthruwater wrote:To me this is the kind of army that is completely at home in Epic Armageddon but 40k is just not the scale to be bringing multiple Super Heavy War Engines.
Hell, in an Epic game there wouldn't be any reason not to take all 20+ SHTs plus supporting elements and both players to have a good time
Sadly, epic is dead. Also I do like building and painting 28mm rather than 6mm models.
Blackie wrote:Well I just can suggest to bring your stuff and see other players' reactions. If you like a certain style and those specific models you shouldn't change that, 40k is just a game and any game's purpose is to have fun.
But also your opponents should have fun, so you can't blame others if they don't want to play against a list such yours. I personally hate LoWs and huge models, I sometimes accept to play against lists with ONE of them, but non very often, since I don't like those kind of units/characters. And I'm not willing to face an army with only LoWs, not because they may be too strong, but because I don't like to play against those kinds of lists. Despite having 3 different armies I've only accepted to play against imperial knights 3-4 times in 3 years, since games against them are absolutely boring IMHO and I won't probably play again against them in the future.
If you local players accept to play against your list and actually enjoy the games, you won't have the slightest problem, just know that not everyone likes to play with and/or against a small amount of huge models.
Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?
malamis wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do still have enough I think to make a Leman Russ company, and it looks like the codex supports that as well, so perhaps that would be better for a while?
What does everyone think?
At least until I get my neat Roman models...
With the new codex this could conceivably be *worse* as they'll have higher damage output - 2k of russ is, for the sake of argument, 20d3 demolisher cannon shots :|
15 russ, 3 SHCs and 10k of various titany things here and over the last 5 years i've come to understand that for the sake of fun, no more than one on the table at a time unless you're facing comparable opponents.
Last week for the sake of experimentation I took a single shadowsword against 2k of non optimised primaris marines. The shadowsword wiped them in 3 turns. It's crucial to remember that they work on an entirely different tier to most armies, in a similar manner to the thunderwolves of yore. If your opponents are used to playing structurally even lists with multiple threats, one single black hole unit will break both their plans and their means of enjoying the game at the same level.
So first of all I am usually pretty open about what I am bringing. Second of all, my experience elsewhere has been different than yours, and third of all: do you have any suggestions on how to play it other than "ditch the idea and run something else" that might make it more fun?
Also they are really not on their own level of power anymore. They were, but they aren't. The distinction between something like a Monolith and a Knight or a Land Raider and a Baneblade is like, one keyword and one special rule. There is more difference between a Leman Russ and a Predator than between a Monolith and a Baneblade, just as an example.
I think it is the perception that they are on a "whole other level of power" that causes this in the first place. They aren't - tournament winning lists haven't run any.
That said, maybe in the new codex. We will see.
I liked the idea of going back to the index versions for casual games. May try that.
No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.
Have you played against them using 3 superheavies? Try to face an imperial knight list using 0-1 LoW. Not that impossible to win (I defeated knights with orks last time I faced them) but it's way to boring to play against lists in which everyting is pretty much immortal unless you tailor your list or you're already fielding a super competitive lists or an hard counter for that LoWs spam.
I watched space wolf dreadnought spam table a knight army in 7th. Haven't seen a knight army in 8th but have heard stories of knights blasted off the board Turn 1.
That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.
RedCommander wrote: 1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.
Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.
Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.
2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.
Maybe refers to certain guns like baneblades but those being most common SHV's less common ones don't get mentioned. Rumour but still true. Just not full truth.
Thousandeyes wrote:Running three Lord of War at 2000 points, to me, would just make for boring game.
But then this thread is six pages in and you seem to want to keep it going. People have given you the options and opinions on it.
The purpose of this thread is to look for solutions to the problem, and I've already found a few, including unique scenarios (where people want to play them), using different tank variants in a game (so it's not just 3 of the same tank), team games, not allowing them to fire Overwatch with Steel Behemoth, and going back to the Index versions of the tanks if people want.
Do you have any solutions other than "I find it boring"? I do like my army, and in my experience people have had fun playing against it (until recently, hence this thread) so your experience is an outlier. Care to tell me more? What's the last 3 LOW game you tried? How it went? Why it was boring?
tneva82 wrote:
RedCommander wrote: 1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.
Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.
Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.
2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.
Maybe refers to certain guns like baneblades but those being most common SHV's less common ones don't get mentioned. Rumour but still true. Just not full truth.
Look up Winters SEO on youtube. He has a review of a preview copy of the codex, and you can pause it while he's holding it open to explain stuff and see. Baneblades fire 3d6 shots, Stormswords 2d6, Banehammers 3d6, Baneswords 3d6, etc. etc. Essentially all of them except the Stormlord got more shots, though the Shadowsword's wasn't "tack on an extra d6" but rather "change to 3d3".
As far as moving... I usually move. Back before the codex stuff, I usually kept 2 tanks in overwatch (the warfare term, not the maneuver term) and one assault tank to move forwards. Now that they can fire and maneuver unhindered, I've been trying to press all of them forwards. The ideal end of the game for me is the Baneblades linebreaking (because that's what they do) into the enemy DZ, unless I have to stop to snag objectives. There are, of course, hindrances to this tactic, including being hemmed in by enemy melee units, or the situation radically changing (i.e. a tank getting knocked out changes the plan, obviously).
I find sitting still and shooting boring and usually not effective, though effectiveness depends heavily on terrain. One change I am grateful for in 8th is that Baneblades and their ilk aren't shabby in combat either, which makes driving forwards and assaulting people to try to capture an objective a viable option.
Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?
I never played against something similar to your specific list but I don't like games against 4-15 models. It's not a matter of competitiveness or type of units/characters, I don't have fun in facing armies that don't look like armies but just a small groups of super heroes or super vehicles. To each his own I guess.
That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.
I like big tanks and I like to actually use them.
Yeah, I see that we do have a completely different view of the game. IMHO everything in the game should be killed in one turn, if the opponent focuses on that specific thing, and if he actually manages to wreck it, it should be normal. That's why I don't have problems with my most valuable units obliterated in turn 1, because they're not centerpiece models. Maybe very effective ones, but the game wouldn't be screwed if an alpha strike deletes one of my best units.
Only a few armies can actually delete a superheavy by turn 1 though. And even if it goes down you'll probably have other smaller tanks or flyers anyway, plus the rest of the army, it doesn't seem an issue to me, unless you really like playing with only that specific units, and other ones that complete the lists are there only to make the list legal or because they provide a small but needed support for the big stuff.
Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?
I never played against something similar to your specific list but I don't like games against 4-15 models. It's not a matter of competitiveness or type of units/characters, I don't have fun in facing armies that don't look like armies but just a small groups of super heroes or super vehicles. To each his own I guess.
But you're not playing against an army, you're playing against a company. Even in the real world, Companies vary widely in size and have throughout history. If you help explain to me why you don't have fun, I may be able to get more input on how to fix it.
That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.
I like big tanks and I like to actually use them.
Yeah, I see that we do have a completely different view of the game. IMHO everything in the game should be killed in one turn, if the opponent focuses on that specific thing, and if he actually manages to wreck it, it should be normal. That's why I don't have problems with my most valuable units obliterated in turn 1, because they're not centerpiece models. Maybe very effective ones, but the game wouldn't be screwed if an alpha strike deletes one of my best units.
Only a few armies can actually delete a superheavy by turn 1 though. And even if it goes down you'll probably have other smaller tanks or flyers anyway, plus the rest of the army, it doesn't seem an issue to me, unless you really like playing with only that specific units, and other ones that complete the lists are there only to make the list legal or because they provide a small but needed support for the big stuff.
I don't have a problem with units being alpha'd. I have a problem with the units I enjoy getting alpha'd (so that they never actually do anything). As I've consistently said throughout this thread: I like my Baneblades. If I ran 1 Baneblade and a bunch of other awesome stuff but the Baneblade died before doing much every game, it wouldn't be any fun for me, because I know deep down that I'd be better served losing the Baneblade for more little stuff anyways (because little stuff is harder to alpha).
I would like to avoid retiring my superheavies altogether, while also avoiding feeling bad for enjoying them and wanting to play them.. 1 fairly routinely gets crippled if not outright destroyed in a single turn of every enemy anti-tank weapon shooting it. 2 may be a sweet spot; I've not tried it. 3 is what I've been doing and it's been working well - my only concern is that with the new 'dex it will become unfun.
In the meta where a lot of people use Stormravens, and seeing Repulsors, Magnus, Mortarion isn't uncommon, the Shadowsword is really a beat stick.
It's a meta choice really which superheavy you take, but currently I'd say Shadowsword will always have a target it can nearly earn its points back from in just one turn. Especially if other Imperial players start using more Baneblade chassis tanks, then the Shadowsword is countering the mirror matchups too.
As far as your superheavy getting alphaed is concerned, as long as it's not in rapid fire range to plasmas (bubble wrap), and you give it +1 save with stratagem, they can't get rid of your superheavy in any points efficient manner, so let them shoot it. That's 28 T8 2+ save wounds, so let them go for it. If your superheavy costs 500 points and dies, its a bigger deal than if it only costs 395 points. The Shadowsword is insanely points efficient now in every way imaginable. With an order/stratagem or two it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility that it blows Mortarion off the field in one volley. Vengeance for Cadia. Stratagems aren't really a problem to use nonstop considering we'll have about 20 CPs total if we use the 5+ refund from our own CP and 5+ for a bonus CP every time enemy uses a stratagem.
Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).
We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.
You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.
You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.
Therion wrote:In the meta where a lot of people use Stormravens, and seeing Repulsors, Magnus, Mortarion isn't uncommon, the Shadowsword is really a beat stick.
It's a meta choice really which superheavy you take, but currently I'd say Shadowsword will always have a target it can nearly earn its points back from in just one turn. Especially if other Imperial players start using more Baneblade chassis tanks, then the Shadowsword is countering the mirror matchups too.
As far as your superheavy getting alphaed is concerned, as long as it's not in rapid fire range to plasmas (bubble wrap), and you give it +1 save with stratagem, they can't get rid of your superheavy in any points efficient manner, so let them shoot it. That's 28 T8 2+ save wounds, so let them go for it. If your superheavy costs 500 points and dies, its a bigger deal than if it only costs 395 points. The Shadowsword is insanely points efficient now in every way imaginable. With an order/stratagem or two it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility that it blows Mortarion off the field in one volley. Vengeance for Cadia. Stratagems aren't really a problem to use nonstop considering we'll have about 20 CPs total if we use the 5+ refund from our own CP and 5+ for a bonus CP every time enemy uses a stratagem.
Actually, it's not a meta choice for me which superheavy to take. It's a fluff choice. Shadowswords (in the fluff, not in the crunch) have to disconnect their engines and charge the capacitor to fire. They can travel with the capacitor charged, but after every shot they have to go find somewhere safe to sit for a good 30 seconds with the engine disconnected from the drivetrain while the capacitor recharges. My regiment decided this was a weakness in urban combat, and decided not to field any Shadowswords. If the existing tanks prove unable to meet threats, they'll reconsider, but as it stands I think the Shadowsword's not really a fluffy choice for a siege regiment (save, perhaps, sitting outside the city and nailing stuff with the Volcano Cannon, then recharging well within the Imperial siegeworks).
And I'm pretty sure the problem isn't the points getting alpha'd - even if they only cost 200 points, I'd still be sad if one got alpha'd because I like to play the game with the superheavies, not put the superheavy on the table, take the superheavy off the table, and then play the game.
I am not sure the +1 Save stratagem works on tanks/superheavies; I've never seen a picture/real leak of it. I do have psychic power support to give it +1 save, but that's only if I manage to snag the top of the turn.
Also, they're only 26 wounds. I've seen Knights get alpha'd with a 5++ and 24 wounds, so the extra two wounds (at least it's alive I guess?) is slightly more durable but still won't stop it from getting wounded to the point that it might as well not exist at all. +1 save makes the tank a 5+ against lascannons - exactly the same as what a Knight gets. So I don't agree with you at all that the enemy can't alpha it.
I also don't plan on having a Warlord trait (my tank company commanders are usually the warlords, as they'd actually be in charge in the fluff, but without the Character keyword they get no trait) and I also don't plan on taking any relics (I doubt Baneblades will be able to take relics, and it's probably unfluffy for a random company XO to have something like Kurov's Aquila).
Valentine009 wrote:Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).
We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.
You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.
You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.
My 2c
That seems reasonable for our club, I think we can do that - though I still won't pick heavy flamers, partly because ripping all the tanks apart to put flamer sponsons in them would require me to buy a bunch of new bits and is a huge amount of work, and partly because I like the 'classic' look of the vehicles, to match my Forge World superheavies which cannot be customized.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a question, Valentine 009...
Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?
Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.
Actually, having a shadowsword and it getting taken off the board in 1 turn can be quite valuable, because it takes a concerted effort from hostile AT units to actually do that, hence sparing the harder-hitting part of your army.
This was particularly true in previous editions, Sometimes I'd leave my Shadowsword out on its own with a token escort on the other side of the board from my Manticores and Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tanks [the latter of which were far more vital to me than the Shadowsword and far more vulnerable], while I heavily defended my tanks and guns with a big squad with Coteaz in it. The Shadowsword rarely lived to the end of the game, but it almost always drew off antitank deep strikers and ate fire early game saving my anti-monster and anti-infantry tanks from Destroyer Missiles, Markerlights, Railcannons, and the likes, even if it did nothing with its main gun.
And really, saving me my Command Vanquishers was the most valuable contribution it could have made, since my Command Tanks could remove Riptides half the time while the Shadowsword could only do so one-sixth of the time.
Valentine009 wrote:Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).
We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.
You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.
You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.
My 2c
That seems reasonable for our club, I think we can do that - though I still won't pick heavy flamers, partly because ripping all the tanks apart to put flamer sponsons in them would require me to buy a bunch of new bits and is a huge amount of work, and partly because I like the 'classic' look of the vehicles, to match my Forge World superheavies which cannot be customized.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a question, Valentine 009...
Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?
Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.
Would that help?
I think Macharius should be Heavy Support. I'd actually buy and field one if it was appropriately priced and in an HS slot, but as is there's no way they can compete with a Shadowsword.
Poor Macharius, I really do like their appearance.
Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?
I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.
ohmagoo wrote: Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?
I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.
This is Dauntless, the 3rd Tank of 1st Company, operating in the Regiment's typical fighting environment!
I'll let you decide for yourself about how it looks. I have more, too, but this is one of my favorites, as I think it shows off the battle-damage, crew customizations, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is the army I brought to NOVA, the 5th company! With some support from the personal guard of Regimental Commander Katerina Malinenko as well as the Salamander Abbot's Trace and the Trojan Buccaneer.
The company itself is Tank 0 Mechanicus Deus, Tank 1 Virgin, and Tank 2 Ardnacrush.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here is 2/01 Iron Duke
Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?
Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.
Would that help?
The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.
Honestly even 2 is probably still going to be a bit like bashing your head against the wall, but I think it is a workable compromise.
Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?
Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.
Would that help?
The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.
Because I like 3 and everything's already organized and painted to be fielded in 3's. It's not a huge deal.
What do you mean about target selection and non-interactive matches exactly? People do keep telling me this, but when I ask them what they mean, they don't really tell me anything useful other than "it's just not okay?".
Or, if they do, it's not been anything I've absorbed, which I admit could be my problem.
In a nutshell the target selection issue is that it heavily ties your hands as an opponent. Instead of having say 20 different avenues of attack or options you have 3 targets. If you have models that are equipped with anything but anti-armor (or melee anti-armor), then they effectively have to stand there or hide. It is super uninteractive.
If you look at two lists, each with 10 units, and all the permutations of strategic options you end up with something like 100 different "moves." Against 3 models that make up 90% of the firepower you have only 30 permutations, 20 of which you know will be flat out ineffective against something T8 3+.. This is highly simplified, but is the gist.
Valentine009 wrote: In a nutshell the target selection issue is that it heavily ties your hands as an opponent. Instead of having say 20 different avenues of attack or options you have 3 targets. If you have models that are equipped with anything but anti-armor (or melee anti-armor), then they effectively have to stand there or hide. It is super uninteractive.
If you look at two lists, each with 10 units, and all the permutations of strategic options you end up with something like 100 different "moves." Against 3 models that make up 90% of the firepower you have only 30 permutations, 20 of which you know will be flat out ineffective against something T8 3+.. This is highly simplified, but is the gist.
I can see that now, if you look at the game as "how effective my army is" versus "how effective your army is."
I usually try to play the mission, rather than the army, though. Our game was bad partly because we rolled No Mercy, which is just kill points. In objective missions (such as the NOVA missions or the Open War / Maelstrom missions) units have a lot more to do than shoot badguys, or hide from bad guys.
But I understand the problem now.
I think I could probably fix it by bringing more infantry squads, and trying to get a Battalion detachment of infantry in the list - 500 points or so nets me a good 6 squads and 2 HQs plus a ton of upgrades; I think IG can make a Brigade for like, 550 points, though that's without upgrades. So there's plenty of wiggle room.
Would that help to make it more interactive? Rather than focusing on supporting the big tanks, instead bring other units that perform other tasks? I am happy to make a second regiment to fight alongside my first (in fact, I plan on it... but the last tracking information on my order is from the 23rd of September...).
I think bringing Leman Russes would exacerbate the problem rather than help - that's just 'more of the same' as far as heavy armour.
ohmagoo wrote: Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?
I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.
Spoiler:
This is Dauntless, the 3rd Tank of 1st Company, operating in the Regiment's typical fighting environment!
I'll let you decide for yourself about how it looks. I have more, too, but this is one of my favorites, as I think it shows off the battle-damage, crew customizations, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is the army I brought to NOVA, the 5th company! With some support from the personal guard of Regimental Commander Katerina Malinenko as well as the Salamander Abbot's Trace and the Trojan Buccaneer.
The company itself is Tank 0 Mechanicus Deus, Tank 1 Virgin, and Tank 2 Ardnacrush.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here is 2/01 Iron Duke
Okay now I'll stop...
I am with you in that minority.
Still, sure, those tanks are pretty.... Boring.
Valentine009 wrote: In a nutshell the target selection issue is that it heavily ties your hands as an opponent. Instead of having say 20 different avenues of attack or options you have 3 targets. If you have models that are equipped with anything but anti-armor (or melee anti-armor), then they effectively have to stand there or hide. It is super uninteractive.
If you look at two lists, each with 10 units, and all the permutations of strategic options you end up with something like 100 different "moves." Against 3 models that make up 90% of the firepower you have only 30 permutations, 20 of which you know will be flat out ineffective against something T8 3+.. This is highly simplified, but is the gist.
I can see that now, if you look at the game as "how effective my army is" versus "how effective your army is."
I usually try to play the mission, rather than the army, though. Our game was bad partly because we rolled No Mercy, which is just kill points. In objective missions (such as the NOVA missions or the Open War / Maelstrom missions) units have a lot more to do than shoot badguys, or hide from bad guys.
But I understand the problem now.
I think I could probably fix it by bringing more infantry squads, and trying to get a Battalion detachment of infantry in the list - 500 points or so nets me a good 6 squads and 2 HQs plus a ton of upgrades; I think IG can make a Brigade for like, 550 points, though that's without upgrades. So there's plenty of wiggle room.
Would that help to make it more interactive? Rather than focusing on supporting the big tanks, instead bring other units that perform other tasks? I am happy to make a second regiment to fight alongside my first (in fact, I plan on it... but the last tracking information on my order is from the 23rd of September...).
I think bringing Leman Russes would exacerbate the problem rather than help - that's just 'more of the same' as far as heavy armour.
Well, well, well...
Talking to a brick wall does bring more than an echo after six pages of discourse.
Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?
Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.
Would that help?
The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.
Because I like 3 and everything's already organized and painted to be fielded in 3's. It's not a huge deal.
What do you mean about target selection and non-interactive matches exactly? People do keep telling me this, but when I ask them what they mean, they don't really tell me anything useful other than "it's just not okay?".
Or, if they do, it's not been anything I've absorbed, which I admit could be my problem.
There's nothing engaging to do.
It doesn't feel like our army composition or play matters at all. It's basically "shoot that one with everything until it dies, then repeat," and if we have a critical mass of antitank capacity then we win, otherwise we don't.
Does that make sense? There's nothing wrong with a shootout and I like playing with and against gunlines, but an all super-heavy list is the worst kind. If I'm facing off against a Conscripts-Scions-and-Manticores gunline, I can think and plan about how I'm going to process the Conscripts, incapacitate the Manticores until I can finish them, and defend myself against the incoming drop troops. What I brought and how I use it matters.
Super heavy tanks ignore everything except death, and with the exception of the Stormlord and Shadowsword, are effective against all targets. Even those two are highly versatile.
In a list that's mostly other things, Super Heavy Tanks can present new tactical options and challenges. It can draw fire, anchor a line end, protect lesser units, etc. and there are strategies for defeating the army. Not so much when there's three of them.
As a side note, Valhallan Shadowswords and Stormlords will be totally broken. The thing will practically never degrade.
cosmicsoybean wrote: Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,
Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...
Well knights are superheavy walkers were they not
My big issue with supers last edition it basically made units in your army completely useless since you cant wound it, but now 8th changed that its much better. Now you just deal with getting leafblowered down haha
My sense is that OP is using "superheavy" as shorthand for "superheavy tanks", as he was composed, but I suppose he could have been referring to superheavy vehicles in general. If so, then that would indeed include Knights, Titans and/or mixes thereof.
I'd note that AV14/14/14 Land Raiders had a similar effect against units that lacked S8+ of any sort, and that wasn't considered a problem. (Or was it?)
To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.
A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.
As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.
To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.
A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.
As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.
I think I said that only in the context of the Index, where you had to be immobile to have good firepower. Now that the big tanks have good firepower on the move, you can absolutely move them. I even picked Tallarn for my regiment (the one that makes them faster and nothing else.) in the most recent test game I played.
And I absolutely do care about story - have you read some of my posts? This is exactly the stigma I'm talking about; it's as if I don't care about fluff for the units simply because of the units I run. I do, I care dearly about telling a story. I paint kill-rings on the barrels of tanks when they kill another LoW. In fact, you can even tell that with the command tank of my NOVA army: the later kill-rings have fewer coats of varnish and are brighter than the earlier kill rings (because I use matte varnish).
But I suppose I see everyone's point.
Is the only way to remedy this not play a 3-tank army? That's the impression I'm getting, and it's making me very sad indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I know this is a double post, but I kind of feel bad that my army's not actually fun on the table top.
I've never really had my eyes open to this before.
Not sure what to do, because building a new army doesn't really interest me too much (otherwise this would obviously not be a problem).
I'll just have to settle for not getting games, I suppose.
RedCommander wrote: 1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.
Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.
Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.
I play 40k with lots of terrain. There hasn't been a game where buildings (etc.) didn't block multiple and/or major sections of the battlefield. And there's never been a way to deploy the Shadowsword in a place where there is LoS to every point on the battlefield.
Luckily, there's (usually) no need to. You see, 40k is played with scenarios that have objectives. I only need to control the most important section with the Shadowsword(+enough support). Meanwhile, I move the rest of my guys to secure other areas of the battlefield. To contest the 'Sword-territory, the opponent must bring their list's A-game there... which is usually costly and something that a Shadowsword is suited to destroy. This makes it easier for the part of the army that is elsewhere.
In my experience the machine doesn't really need to move, it's powerful enough and it's good for its points. So, the upgrades to these aspects (which apparently will be a thing) sound a bit too good, if you ask me. But hey, maybe they were implemented more with the other baneblade-chassis tanks in mind?
To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.
A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.
As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.
I think I said that only in the context of the Index, where you had to be immobile to have good firepower. Now that the big tanks have good firepower on the move, you can absolutely move them. I even picked Tallarn for my regiment (the one that makes them faster and nothing else.) in the most recent test game I played.
And I absolutely do care about story - have you read some of my posts? This is exactly the stigma I'm talking about; it's as if I don't care about fluff for the units simply because of the units I run. I do, I care dearly about telling a story. I paint kill-rings on the barrels of tanks when they kill another LoW. In fact, you can even tell that with the command tank of my NOVA army: the later kill-rings have fewer coats of varnish and are brighter than the earlier kill rings (because I use matte varnish).
But I suppose I see everyone's point.
Is the only way to remedy this not play a 3-tank army? That's the impression I'm getting, and it's making me very sad indeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I know this is a double post, but I kind of feel bad that my army's not actually fun on the table top.
I've never really had my eyes open to this before.
Not sure what to do, because building a new army doesn't really interest me too much (otherwise this would obviously not be a problem).
I'll just have to settle for not getting games, I suppose.
Play Vahallan. It will absolutely make your list a living hell to dislodge.
I used to mark kill markers on my vehicles when they killed equivalent targets, but it eventually became rather silly looking if they started to have more than a few, and I was always at a loss for what to actually paint as a kill marker.
I think you'll get games. It's poor form to reject games because you don't like the enemy list.
It's funny how a lot of the feedback is applicable to any static gunline army, yet you say you'll move. Your stats degrade and accuracy drops, whereas trooper-fired weapons don't. Superheavies have counters to some of their advantages built in already. I wouldn't change what you're doing, personally. I don't see any Knight Household players changing their lists or how they play. Crack on! You've options now against those who might sniffle about facing Superheavies, and your self-awareness is commendable. Honestly, they should just try it. I'm surprised how flimsy they are if you focus fire on them. Try and damage all three and you're on a hiding to nothing. Focus fire until one is down/useless then move on.
And a Shadowsword *should* be able to delete anything short of a big Titan in a turn. It's its purpose. It has a starship weapon on it! They were silly in Epic, they *should* be ludicrous in 40K!
But you're not playing against an army, you're playing against a company. Even in the real world, Companies vary widely in size and have throughout history. If you help explain to me why you don't have fun, I may be able to get more input on how to fix it.
I'll try to explain my view. I like a game in which models and units actually die and there's variety of units on the battlefield. I have fun if in my shooting phase I actually kill something rather than stripping a few wounds, and I should be able to kill something in assault as well. I like disposing my squads in order to avoid the enemy assault as well, if it would cripple my units. Even against shooting-only armies, there should be several units with different mechanics on the field otherwise the game is dull. Gunlines in general are boring but at least you can play against them in different ways since they're not (or at least they shouldn't be) a spam of the same unit. An ork green tide is boring as well, that's why I refuse to play orks like that, even if it's their most competitive built at the moment. But at least tons of bodies go down every turn and this is something that many players (including me) like.
Against 3 big tanks and 2 smaller ones any TAC list will have several units that become completely useless and that's something that upset me, like you fear to lose your beloved units in turn 1. I don't care if I win or lose, the tactics against an army like that will be always the same and I've played enough games against imperial knights to have fun facing a bunch of superheavies. My ideal games are built using and facing lists with mixed styles, some shooty units, some close combat beasts and models with different range of movement, expendable dudes, psykers and flyers are optional. Nothing that simply refuse to die if I dedicate more than half my list to delete it. A knight down in turn 1 is not a usual scenario, only a few lists can achieve that.
I don't have a problem with units being alpha'd. I have a problem with the units I enjoy getting alpha'd (so that they never actually do anything). As I've consistently said throughout this thread: I like my Baneblades. If I ran 1 Baneblade and a bunch of other awesome stuff but the Baneblade died before doing much every game, it wouldn't be any fun for me, because I know deep down that I'd be better served losing the Baneblade for more little stuff anyways (because little stuff is harder to alpha).
I would like to avoid retiring my superheavies altogether, while also avoiding feeling bad for enjoying them and wanting to play them.. 1 fairly routinely gets crippled if not outright destroyed in a single turn of every enemy anti-tank weapon shooting it. 2 may be a sweet spot; I've not tried it. 3 is what I've been doing and it's been working well - my only concern is that with the new 'dex it will become unfun.
As I said before, you basically like playing baneblades and nothing else, the reamaining part of the army/company is there only to make the list legal or somehow flexible. That makes games against your lists something very specific, that not everyone may enjoy. Especially if they have played against this kind of lists several times. I don't want to convince you to bench your favorite stuff, you love those tanks and you should continue bringing them into battle, just be aware that some people may not enjoy playing regularly against such lists.
Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.
I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.
I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.
The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?
This has pretty much already been answered but just to illustrate:
Let's assume I have a fairly "normal" SM army - some tanks, a flyer, some infantry of various types, some transports. Let's assume I play against 2 other opponents frequently: you with your SHVs and a Necron player with a variety of vehicles/infantry/bikes etc. None of us ever change our armies.
The big difference is that when I play against the Necron player, even though the armies don't change, the decisions I have to make do. I can vary my target priority depending on the mission type or depending on experience from previous games. Maybe I ignored his Scarabs last game and got punished for it so now I'll prioritise them, or maybe this mission favours mobility so I'll go after his Tomb Blades first. Meanwhile, he's doing the same sort of thing while also trying to protect his Tomb Blades because he recognises their importance in this mission. Additionally, terrain plays a bigger part in these games because it's actually possible to hide entire units of troops more easily than you can hide a SHV.
Against your army the game basically devolves into "which tank do I shoot first?" There's not really more to it than that. The mission doesn't matter because if I can't kill your tanks they'll pummel me to death eventually. Terrain is less relevant because it only really matters for one of the players. Your army gives me no real meaningful choices to make. It's comprised almost entirely of 3 bricks that I have to kill. Sure, they may move a bit, and you may have some support units, but those units are pretty irrelevant. There's also a perception issue you have to deal with. SHVs get a bunch of special rules and pack a lot of punch into one unit. Psychologically that can cause problems for some people because they start to see that unit as unbalanced. Note, it's not about whether it actually is unbalanced, it's just the perception you have to deal with. That's usually fine with one SHV but when you stack up 3 of them it can magnify the problem a lot.
The remedy has nothing to do with your support units. When >50% of your army is represented by 3 models the rest of your army really doesn't matter. For me, the effectiveness of your army isn't the core issue, it's just the fact that it'd be boring to play against more than once or twice.
And a Shadowsword *should* be able to delete anything short of a big Titan in a turn. It's its purpose. It has a starship weapon on it! They were silly in Epic, they *should* be ludicrous in 40K!
Hear, hear. Humanity f*** yeah!
I guess the best upgrade to Shadowsword is the point drop. Point drop is always the king.
That is followed by the ability to move and not suffer -1 to hit. I've been sometimes tempted to move the thing around a corner but then changed my mind and sent something else there while Shadowsword fires at a secondary target. Good thing too, because around the corner was probably a trap for the 'Sword. Moving is not essential for this machine but it can be handy.
Strangely enough, more shots for the Volcano Cannon is the least significant upgrade. I mean, the thing can already kill pretty much any one thing with a single blast, barring extremely poor luck. Don't get me wrong, it's an utterly lethal upgrade but in reality, it just upgrades your overkill potential... though it makes the cannon more versatile: it now kill elite infantry units better.
If I had to pick two, I'd pick the top two of these. If only one, it'd be the point drop.
Enjoy the moment while it lasts Unit, With all the tanks you have your in a unique position to test out alot of different ways to run AM Titanics. With others adding in.. there can finally be a decent tactica on how to run them in a competitive environment
RedCommander wrote: Luckily, there's (usually) no need to. You see, 40k is played with scenarios that have objectives. I only need to control the most important section with the Shadowsword(+enough support). Meanwhile, I move the rest of my guys to secure other areas of the battlefield. To contest the 'Sword-territory, the opponent must bring their list's A-game there... which is usually costly and something that a Shadowsword is suited to destroy. This makes it easier for the part of the army that is elsewhere.
There's usually at least 3 objectives. Shadowsword controls 1 of them with his gun sitting in place. Fine. I go and get the 2-5 others that your shadowsword can't see just like that without moving. I think that is fair trade off for me
I don't get it. This thread has been a cycle of 7 pages of you talking to people, 75% go "just take this reasonable step to make your army not a one-note" and then 25% go "I just don't like superheavies"
then you say "oh well, guess I don't get to play this army I love, I've got to put them on the shelf and never ever play them....oh, woe is me, if only people on the internet would come tell me it's all ok....."
What are you getting out of this? Look, throwing them in Battlescribe, it looks like 3 random Baneblade chassis vehicles average to about 1500 points. Make that all your heavy armor, and that's a completely reasonable fraction of your army for a 2500 or 3000 point game, and your list isn't all that skewed so long as you don't take the additional step of pouring absolutely all of the remainder of your points into MORE heavy armor, like Leman Russes.
The reason many people don't like to play against pure skew lists is because the tactic of "If I take only tanks, all your anti-infantry weaponry is worthless, so really I only have to play against half your army" makes for uninteractive games where your opponent just has to sit and take fire and try to win on objectives. It removes the option to have a fight, which is usually why people like to play 40k.
The solution is so, so simple. Take the remaining 1000 points you've got, and use it on..something else. Anything else. Whatever strikes your fancy really. Take some Skitarii vanguards, some Sydonian Dragoons, and a Techpriest Dominus as a contingent from the mechanicus dedicated to protecting the valuable war machines. Take a contingent of Deathwatch and an Inquisitor and his Henchmen as an Ordo Xenos task force commissioning the superheavies to smash an alien infestation. Bring along a fully decked out infantry regiment of guardsmen with officers, heavy weapon squads, infantrymen and auxilia support, under orders to protect the tanks at all costs.
The list you showed a page before had three tanks, fully upgraded, and almost nothing but units dedicated to buffing those tanks. I see a psyker, at least one of the "+1BS" buff vehicles, and about 15 GEQ with no visible weapon upgrades. That is a skew list that takes the route of "if I present only tanks, anything that's not anti-tank is unable to meaningfully participate" and that's the kind of list that, while perfectly fine at NOVA, is likely to lose you games in a local club setting.
So I'm running into another dilemma with the lack of carapace vets in the Codex (my poor shotgun legionaries)...
... BUT ANYWAYS
I will try to take all of this to heart, and build an army with more infantry/variety and not quite so focused on the tanks, especially now that I've got some models that can work alongside them.
Slipspace's post helped me to understand the difference as well. I'll definitely endeavour to take more variety in the lists.
Playing 2500 point games will help a ton, I am sure - that gives me an extra 1k of units that aren't superheavy armour. I'm sure if I just ask ahead I could arrange a game at this point level instead of the usual 2k.
RedCommander wrote: Luckily, there's (usually) no need to. You see, 40k is played with scenarios that have objectives. I only need to control the most important section with the Shadowsword(+enough support). Meanwhile, I move the rest of my guys to secure other areas of the battlefield. To contest the 'Sword-territory, the opponent must bring their list's A-game there... which is usually costly and something that a Shadowsword is suited to destroy. This makes it easier for the part of the army that is elsewhere.
There's usually at least 3 objectives. Shadowsword controls 1 of them with his gun sitting in place. Fine. I go and get the 2-5 others that your shadowsword can't see just like that without moving. I think that is fair trade off for me
True, it all depends on the scenario... and the placement of the objectives. However, many scenarios let the players pick the places for objectives, so I'm picking half of them. Can you guess where I'm placing the three objectives I control? Yeah. And I don't need to control all of the remaining three objectives to win, the rest of my army is tasked to get one (or two) of them.
Of course, it might be a different story if the placement of objectives was determined randomly.
(As a side note, I'm basically arguing that super heavies didn't need so many buffs.)
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I'm running into another dilemma with the lack of carapace vets in the Codex (my poor shotgun legionaries)...
Eh, buy more?
IMO, just ensure that you have 1,000 pts of non-Superheavies, and you should be fine. 1,000 pts of dudes backed by a Baneblade isn't completely out of the question for 1,500 pts, when the opponent might take a Riptide or WK as their LoW.
Not sure if it was mentioned, but with the Codex in hand - SHVs can only benefit from Regiment doctrines in a SHV 'company' (aka a full Superheavy detachment): [Emphasis mine]
“If your armyis Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT>units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
So no random single Catachan Shadowswords. Helps add fluff/balance to fielding a SHV company instead, though.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I'm running into another dilemma with the lack of carapace vets in the Codex (my poor shotgun legionaries)...
Eh, buy more?
IMO, just ensure that you have 1,000 pts of non-Superheavies, and you should be fine. 1,000 pts of dudes backed by a Baneblade isn't completely out of the question for 1,500 pts, when the opponent might take a Riptide or WK as their LoW.
Buy more? They don't exist in the codex, how can they "buy more" when they don't exist?
GhostRecon wrote: Not sure if it was mentioned, but with the Codex in hand - SHVs can only benefit from Regiment doctrines in a SHV 'company' (aka a full Superheavy detachment): [Emphasis mine]
“If your armyis Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT>units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
So no random single Catachan Shadowswords. Helps add fluff/balance to fielding a SHV company instead, though.
.... Except that the Supreme Command detachment is a thing which grants a LoW slot and we have the cheapest HQ units in creation.
I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
GhostRecon wrote: Not sure if it was mentioned, but with the Codex in hand - SHVs can only benefit from Regiment doctrines in a SHV 'company' (aka a full Superheavy detachment): [Emphasis mine]
“If your armyis Battle-forged, all <REGIMENT>units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."
So no random single Catachan Shadowswords. Helps add fluff/balance to fielding a SHV company instead, though.
.... Except that the Supreme Command detachment is a thing which grants a LoW slot and we have the cheapest HQ units in creation.
Still a minimum of 90pts and one detachment slot to give one SHV a regimental doctrine - so in essence paying 494pts to give one to a Shadowsword? Which one is worth the cost at that point? I'd posit the Valhallan one, probably, since otherwise an opponent only needs to do at least 13 wounds to reduce the effectiveness of your SHV by 33% outright.
Curious how a Shadowsword does against equal points-worth of Stygies VIII Dunecrawlers, though.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it, except to let people know you'll be bringing superheavies. If people know you're bringing them, or if you're a regular and people know about you, they have a chance to prepare and maybe adjust their lists a bit if they can, or at least adjust their tactics. As long as you're not That Fething Guy about rules and are congenial and friendly, should be no problem as far as I'm concerned.
Dionysodorus wrote: I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
Why do people keep forgetting about Valhalla? No degrading stats till basically an inch from death is great.
Dionysodorus wrote: I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
Why do people keep forgetting about Valhalla? No degrading stats till basically an inch from death is great.
I'm not really sure why you'd ever take this doctrine on a lone Shadowsword. It does nothing for you on most turns. On some turns, and probably either only 0 or 1 turn, it gives you +1 BS, and then some bonus movement and attacks. The extra CC ability seems like the only reason to even consider Valhalla, since otherwise you should just make it Vostroyan and use the +1 to hit stratagem when necessary.
I mean, a Shadowsword has 26 wounds. The Valhallan doctrine matters only when it's between 4 and 13 wounds remaining, where its effect on shooting is just to give +1 to hit. It's not very obvious how to value this but surely it is at best worth only about 38% of a flat +1 to hit buff, since that's its average uptime over all 26 wounds, but of course in practice your opponent can attempt to avoid leaving it with a number of wounds that give it a buff.
Valentine009 wrote: 1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points?
Honestly that sounds like a problem with lack of LOS blocking terrain. This is a problem I have been seeing with Guard discussion recently, that people use nowhere near enough. Facing Guard on what is effectively an open field is never going to go well. If your SH company is mowing down all opposition, try to use them in a cityfight. A light infantry company that relies on things like meltas will have a much greater chance if you have dense streets to worry about.
This is a common problem in general for many gamers. People outside of shops that have invested into scenery don't want to have to invest in their own.
As a relatively competitive player, I'd have no problem playing 3 Baneblade variants, so long as there is enough LOS blocking terrain on the table. Baneblades certainly put out a lot of dakka, but I don't think they're anywhere near unstoppable or even OP. People that are complaining may just not have stopped to consider how to deal with that kind of power.
My tournament TAC list is built around having an 85% chance of taking out a Baneblade or Imperial Knight in a single turn. If people aren't planning to be able to do that, I could see why folks might complain, but frankly, that's more because they aren't choosing to adapt, rather than what is in your list.
Valentine009 wrote: 1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points?
Honestly that sounds like a problem with lack of LOS blocking terrain. This is a problem I have been seeing with Guard discussion recently, that people use nowhere near enough. Facing Guard on what is effectively an open field is never going to go well. If your SH company is mowing down all opposition, try to use them in a cityfight. A light infantry company that relies on things like meltas will have a much greater chance if you have dense streets to worry about.
This is a common problem in general for many gamers. People outside of shops that have invested into scenery don't want to have to invest in their own.
I mean, the thing with Guard is that it has the most artillery out of anyone. If there are two shooting armies and a ton of cover advantage goes to the one with a billion mortars. Certainly helps against the OP's superheavy list, of course.
One thing you could do is write GW and tell them that your baneblades are way, way to cheap for what they do. Really work on them to try to fix it in chapter approved, or even in a special errata. If your superheavies are 700 points each I don't think you'll have any more problems.
Valentine009 wrote: 1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points?
Honestly that sounds like a problem with lack of LOS blocking terrain. This is a problem I have been seeing with Guard discussion recently, that people use nowhere near enough. Facing Guard on what is effectively an open field is never going to go well. If your SH company is mowing down all opposition, try to use them in a cityfight. A light infantry company that relies on things like meltas will have a much greater chance if you have dense streets to worry about.
This is a common problem in general for many gamers. People outside of shops that have invested into scenery don't want to have to invest in their own.
Placement is a big problem as well. I see so many table shots where there are 4 big bits of terrain which is just about okay but they've been placed in the corners of the board which drastically reduces their impact.
Still a minimum of 90pts and one detachment slot to give one SHV a regimental doctrine - so in essence paying 494pts to give one to a Shadowsword? Which one is worth the cost at that point? I'd posit the Valhallan one, probably, since otherwise an opponent only needs to do at least 13 wounds to reduce the effectiveness of your SHV by 33% outright.
Curious how a Shadowsword does against equal points-worth of Stygies VIII Dunecrawlers, though.
One does not take naked superheavies; it's a waste of the phenomenal unit tax. 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons is absolutely worth the points on a single, easily buffed model.... so long as you're savy enough to keep it alive.
So with that in mind 630 points of cadian shadowsword with an adjacent 'old grudges' commander would outright kill 1 with the volcano cannon, probably with just one failed save, average 4 wounds on a second with the lascannons and 3.8 wounds with the heavy bolters, factoring in rerolls. If however it could attack after another unit had inflicted one wound on one of them it would be hitting on 4s with the +1 to hit cadian strat.
The main reason not to load it up is that you're creating a vulnerability. A fully-loaded Shadowsword is going to be one of your most fragile units. If you don't go first -- and so can't cast +1 Sv and -1 to hit on it -- you stand to lose a whole lot of firepower to an alpha strike. It's not really about being "savvy enough to keep it alive". It's a huge target.
And there's not much of a unit tax here. A barebones Shadowsword is paying 406 points for its body, its CC ability, and its volcano cannon, twin heavy bolter, and storm bolter. It costs 15.6 points per wound, which is not great but which at least doesn't make it an obvious target (this is comparable to a fully-loaded Russ). You can then pay another 136 points, or 33% of its base cost, for 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons. This is now 20.8 points per wound, which is incredibly fragile, especially for a multi-wound model which is vulnerable to things like lascannons.
What is this really buying you? It's a little hard to directly compare heavy bolters and lascannons. The game values a lascannon at 2.5 times a heavy bolter. So let's say this is 8 lascannons' worth of firepower. Meanwhile the volcano cannon alone is worth at least 15 lascannons, and often much more (I'm assuming the only thing you get out of the volcano cannon is going to 2+ to wound from 3+ and then 2d6 damage instead of d6). So this is at best a ~50% increase in firepower. We'd generally only be willing to pay about 22% (square root of 1.5) more for this kind of increase in offensive ability, so this does not look like a good deal. And this is ignoring its CC output, which this upgrade doesn't help with at all.
Dionysodorus wrote: The main reason not to load it up is that you're creating a vulnerability. A fully-loaded Shadowsword is going to be one of your most fragile units. If you don't go first -- and so can't cast +1 Sv and -1 to hit on it -- you stand to lose a whole lot of firepower to an alpha strike. It's not really about being "savvy enough to keep it alive". It's a huge target.
And there's not much of a unit tax here. A barebones Shadowsword is paying 406 points for its body, its CC ability, and its volcano cannon, twin heavy bolter, and storm bolter. It costs 15.6 points per wound, which is not great but which at least doesn't make it an obvious target (this is comparable to a fully-loaded Russ). You can then pay another 136 points, or 33% of its base cost, for 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons. This is now 20.8 points per wound, which is incredibly fragile, especially for a multi-wound model which is vulnerable to things like lascannons.
What is this really buying you? It's a little hard to directly compare heavy bolters and lascannons. The game values a lascannon at 2.5 times a heavy bolter. So let's say this is 8 lascannons' worth of firepower. Meanwhile the volcano cannon alone is worth at least 15 lascannons, and often much more (I'm assuming the only thing you get out of the volcano cannon is going to 2+ to wound from 3+ and then 2d6 damage instead of d6). So this is at best a ~50% increase in firepower. We'd generally only be willing to pay about 22% (square root of 1.5) more for this kind of increase in offensive ability, so this does not look like a good deal. And this is ignoring its CC output, which this upgrade doesn't help with at all.
Well presented, but I cannot agree with you.
The damage output of a full Shadow sword upgrade kits is, pre-buff, 5 dead marines or 2.5 dead primaris just from the heavy bolters, paying exactly 14 points per wound which is uncanny. ( 30 * 3 * 4 * 3 /216).
For comparison, 6 SWS Guardsmen with 3 plasma guns on overcharge at 24" pay 43.2 points per dead marine average. ( 3 * 5 * 5 * 3 /216)
Double tapped punishers fare horribly in this problem space, With Pask paying in the region of 30 pts per dead marine. (40 * 5 * 4 * 2/216) before buffs.
From which i'd like to point out that the twin heavy bolter is in the top 3 for most efficient marine killer in the guard, which on a shadowsword can reliably wipe a squad of devastator lascannons in the open every turn, or even in cover with Cadian buffs.
The story for the lascannons against their intended target ( t7 sv3+) is actually a bit pitiful in that it's only 4 pts better (24) per wound than the HBolter set ( 28) assuming 3 avg for lascannon damage.
So from that I suggest that TLHBs are actually worth the 'tax' of the lascannons over the course of the game, and certainly in a buffed alpha strike. The standard single HBolter is 2 points worse per kill than the twin gun, i'm guessing because it can split fire more easily.
As to your CC point, it *does* increase its CC effectiveness by virtue of all the sponsons pouring out enough damage for 2 dead marines in over watch, which, combined with the Defensive Gunners Stratagem goes up enough to wipe a charging min/max squad when including the volcano cannon. If it's being multi charged, it would then get to fire again, as having killed the assaulting unit there's no over watch prevention potentially allowing for, as i've experienced, shooting 110 dice in the opponent's assault phase.
Now to be sure this was a bit of a fluke but as you put it the threat profile of the high value target means the opponent can be obliged to pour even the sub-optimal units at it to try and take it out, a prospect which over watch causes to be very risky. There is also the revised Steel Behemoth rules which means the SHC can move and shoot without penalties to either the HBs or LCs, making the SHC investment very viable as a mobile objective spoiler, not least because the thing is big enough to literally roll over an objective and prevent opponents from getting within range for their superior numbers (which would have suffered overwatch lets not forget) to matter.
Finally don't forget that steel behemoth also allows for it to shoot *only* the heavy bolters ( or heavy flamers) into close combat; if there's a particularly stubborn CC unit that can wrap around it to prevent it withdrawing this can actually matter.
If you have a pair of SHCs, one with and one without the upgrade kit you're essentially dictating which unit the opponent has to address first; a major tactical and psychological advantage which goes beyond just the raw damage output. Have the shadowsword at the back at maximm effective range and, say, a half upgraded stormsword revving forward and your opponent has to start asking some serious questions about where he spends his resources as the classic approach of 'ignore the big stuff' becomes non-viable.
Regarding keeping it alive; in a less than ideal situation where low drop count means not going first, placing the SHT last can make enough of a difference as your opponent will have to spread out ranged anti tank drops, allowing you to pick and choose your targets on a typical 6x4 table, and not exposing the thing to what you don't want it exposed to.
Alternatively just take 2 bastions containing single company commanders and screen it from an entire side of the board with 40+ wounds at t9.
In summary, sure it's paying a lot for its own wounds, but it has access to very flexible, very reliable weapons that are very very cheap per wound *caused* combined with excellent mobility not available outside of Punishers, and thats before we apply buffs of any kind - something which that volume of firepower would struggle to fit into the mostly 3/6" bubbles they come from for IG.
Dionysodorus wrote: I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
Yes but it is important to note that that 11% improvement in # of shots will likely result in 7+ extra damage. Since each hit does on avearage 7 damage the more shots/hits becomes absouletly critical since at STR16 and -5 AP means it is going do get through.
Dionysodorus wrote: I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
Yes but it is important to note that that 11% improvement in # of shots will likely result in 7+ extra damage. Since each hit does on avearage 7 damage the more shots/hits becomes absouletly critical since at STR16 and -5 AP means it is going do get through.
The shadow sword isn’t the best super heavy, and his list wasn’t running the. He had 3 souped up Baneblades, three Trojans, and a smattering of support chars, mostly psykers
Which is frankly better than three shadow swords anyways, the shadow sword is too pigeonholed into one thing that the tournament meta doesn’t really do, bring a ton of superheavies, verse a ton of infantry
Still a minimum of 90pts and one detachment slot to give one SHV a regimental doctrine - so in essence paying 494pts to give one to a Shadowsword? Which one is worth the cost at that point? I'd posit the Valhallan one, probably, since otherwise an opponent only needs to do at least 13 wounds to reduce the effectiveness of your SHV by 33% outright.
Curious how a Shadowsword does against equal points-worth of Stygies VIII Dunecrawlers, though.
One does not take naked superheavies; it's a waste of the phenomenal unit tax. 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons is absolutely worth the points on a single, easily buffed model.... so long as you're savy enough to keep it alive.
So with that in mind 630 points of cadian shadowsword with an adjacent 'old grudges' commander would outright kill 1 with the volcano cannon, probably with just one failed save, average 4 wounds on a second with the lascannons and 3.8 wounds with the heavy bolters, factoring in rerolls. If however it could attack after another unit had inflicted one wound on one of them it would be hitting on 4s with the +1 to hit cadian strat.
Telling players to take sponsons on a Shadowsword is terrible advice. Keeping the volcano cannon as cheap as possible is very important. It is such a massive threat on its own it doesn’t need any sponsons. The new Shadowsword only costs 404pts making it a deadly threat that people will focus on while your army is able to punish your enemy. There are multiple ways to make that Shadowsword -1 to hit and once it goes down a level it will start hitting on 5s. If you spread your points out then your remaining points are capable of maneuvering and damaging your opponent as they eye the big guy that wont die due to strategems and psychic abilties.
Dionysodorus wrote: I just did this math for another post, but note that the Catachans doctrine adds very little to the Shadowsword's damage output. Re-rolling 1 die is only worth about an 11% improvement on the result of 3d3, and the Shadowsword will only see a ~6% increase in expected wounds off of this against most targets because it already tends to overkill things. Cadia is better if you're sitting still, but you probably shouldn't be sitting still.
Yes but it is important to note that that 11% improvement in # of shots will likely result in 7+ extra damage. Since each hit does on avearage 7 damage the more shots/hits becomes absouletly critical since at STR16 and -5 AP means it is going do get through.
Against 90+% of targets, that's just overkill.
Meaning you gain nothing.
The Shadowswords job is to kill your enemy’s nastiest big model every turn. Overkill is a welcomed insurance policy to ensure no unlucky dice rolls keep something alive. WIth the old rules using only D6 shots I brought down a Warhound with my Shadowsword in the first turn. Good luck keeping anything smaller than that alive after it fires with the new broken 3D3 profile. If someone decides to take an Imperial Knight just say goodbye to it and 25-30% of your lists points turn one.
NivlacSupreme wrote: This thread made me want to do a lore accurate Artillery company.
Nine artillery pieces too many artillery pieces?
Nine plus a salamander command, an atlas and a trojan.
Wouldn’t need a Trojan if I was using self propelled artillery, apparently atlasses are pretty rare and they can have command chimeras as well.
It’d probably be all plastic. Maybe some DKoK Crewman and Command staff if I went that direction.
If they weren't self propelled then you'd need a trojan for each one. An artillery company can still use a trojan for ferrying ammunition. You don't want to send a gun to collect ammo. Similarly the attached atlas makes a great deal of sense since SPGs have a nasty habit of getting bogged down in their firing positions during inclement weather.
I will try running mixed companies, see if that affects how fun the games are, and maybe spending some points on other support like infantry squads instead of Psykers.
The 40pt decrease in some of them is a blessing in disguise because it lets me bring some real options.
As for which superheavy is best - that is an issue I am happy to chat about but don't particularly care about in my case - fluff dictates what tanks I buy rather than rules usually.
Telling players to take sponsons on a Shadowsword is terrible advice. Keeping the volcano cannon as cheap as possible is very important. It is such a massive threat on its own it doesn’t need any sponsons. The new Shadowsword only costs 404pts making it a deadly threat that people will focus on while your army is able to punish your enemy. There are multiple ways to make that Shadowsword -1 to hit and once it goes down a level it will start hitting on 5s. If you spread your points out then your remaining points are capable of maneuvering and damaging your opponent as they eye the big guy that wont die due to strategems and psychic abilties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Shadowswords job is to kill your enemy’s nastiest big model every turn. Overkill is a welcomed insurance policy to ensure no unlucky dice rolls keep something alive. WIth the old rules using only D6 shots I brought down a Warhound with my Shadowsword in the first turn. Good luck keeping anything smaller than that alive after it fires with the new broken 3D3 profile. If someone decides to take an Imperial Knight just say goodbye to it and 25-30% of your lists points turn one.
So... I think loading a Shadowsword with sponsons is a great idea. The tank isn't going to go away very quickly, and it's very efficient at getting both anti-infantry and anti-tank output onto the board.
The tank isn't worthwhile enough on it's own with just the Volcano Cannon. It will kill a tank a turn, but it's at the extreme high end for antitank units. It pays for a lot of overkill, which unless facing a knight or other super-heavy, it doesn't ever need. However, adding 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons [or 6 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons], definitely improves it's output and versatility. With 30 shots going downrange a turn, it's also capable of thoroughly trashing a light infantry unit, and the lascannons can harass and help other units bring down another tank.
It's job is absolutely to kill the biggest, nastiest thing the enemy has on the board, which, most of the time, is going to be much smaller than the Shadowsword. The only real good targets I can think of for the thing off the top of my head are Leviathan Dreadnoughts and the Swarmlord.
Telling players to take sponsons on a Shadowsword is terrible advice. Keeping the volcano cannon as cheap as possible is very important. It is such a massive threat on its own it doesn’t need any sponsons. The new Shadowsword only costs 404pts making it a deadly threat that people will focus on while your army is able to punish your enemy. There are multiple ways to make that Shadowsword -1 to hit and once it goes down a level it will start hitting on 5s. If you spread your points out then your remaining points are capable of maneuvering and damaging your opponent as they eye the big guy that wont die due to strategems and psychic abilties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Shadowswords job is to kill your enemy’s nastiest big model every turn. Overkill is a welcomed insurance policy to ensure no unlucky dice rolls keep something alive. WIth the old rules using only D6 shots I brought down a Warhound with my Shadowsword in the first turn. Good luck keeping anything smaller than that alive after it fires with the new broken 3D3 profile. If someone decides to take an Imperial Knight just say goodbye to it and 25-30% of your lists points turn one.
So... I think loading a Shadowsword with sponsons is a great idea. The tank isn't going to go away very quickly, and it's very efficient at getting both anti-infantry and anti-tank output onto the board.
The tank isn't worthwhile enough on it's own with just the Volcano Cannon. It will kill a tank a turn, but it's at the extreme high end for antitank units. It pays for a lot of overkill, which unless facing a knight or other super-heavy, it doesn't ever need. However, adding 10 heavy bolters and 4 lascannons [or 6 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons], definitely improves it's output and versatility. With 30 shots going downrange a turn, it's also capable of thoroughly trashing a light infantry unit, and the lascannons can harass and help other units bring down another tank.
It's job is absolutely to kill the biggest, nastiest thing the enemy has on the board, which, most of the time, is going to be much smaller than the Shadowsword. The only real good targets I can think of for the thing off the top of my head are Leviathan Dreadnoughts and the Swarmlord.
And the concept of a tank that already has something called a “volcano cannon” putting out a wall of rocket propelled grenades as well is hella cool.
) but because you have unlimited overwatch this cant be done. I except this rule to be 
game, and find himself having a good deal more fun with two of his tanks - at least - on the shelf. I dunno, maybe 3 or 4 sentinels, maybe a few more squads with mortars, something like that.) Why not?
