Just trying to get a consensus on how people feel about these things.

What's a super heavy?

Lord of war

Genie is long since out of the bottle. Just balance them for gameplay.

I voted "other." I don't mind super heavies in the occasional narrative game if there is a decent narrative behind it, but I don't believe they have a place in regular matched play games unless they are on very large tables at very high points. I also feel the same way about flyers.

 argonak wrote:
Genie is long since out of the bottle. Just balance them for gameplay.

This. They're part of the standard game now, like it or not, and therefore appropriate for normal games. Nerf the ones that need to be fixed for balance reasons but they aren't going anywhere.

Super heavies are fine. The issue is, as it always has been, with GW balancing specific units.

They are fine. Learn to deal with them or don’t play? That should of been a poll option

They should only be used in Apocalypse. 40K is all about the Tactical marine and other grunts and not about giant tanks & robots.

 argonak wrote:
Genie is long since out of the bottle. Just balance them for gameplay.

Problem is though that they are starting to break the scale. When things get bigger and bigger they become harder and harder to balance until it's pretty much impossible.

Titans on the other end of spectrum are pretty much impossible to balance for example. Knights are pushing the boundaries toward it and especially in smaller games are that making game's black and white knight roflstomps or are totally helpless.

 Strg Alt wrote:
They should only be used in Apocalypse.

Apocalypse is not a game. So they either go in normal 40k games or GW is producing models that can only be used as display pieces. And I think it's obvious which of these is the correct way of handling it.

40K is all about the Tactical marine and other grunts and not about giant tanks & robots.

Disagree. The thing that makes 40k different from other scifi games is the fact that it has the tanks and aircraft and such. If I just want a bunch of infantry I'll go play Infinity.

I think each to their own, and if you want to turn down a casual game because the points level doesn't lend itself to super-heavies then that's fine too.

This was a big consideration for me when choosing to put together a Renegade Kinghts list, and why I'm not including any TITANIC units at 1000 points.

They've been part of our games since 2e....
1st it was Armorcast/Epicast kits/rules, (and a WD baneblade template)
Then we added FW kits/rules, (and the vehicle creation rules out of WD/CA of 3rd/4th ed)
Nowdays we've got direct GWs kits/rules as well.

My opinion? If you've got the pts, field 'em if you want.

What if they are very unfun to play against or you army synergies with them bad, or just not at all?


Now I don't know if heavies are breaking the game, but if they do and they were in the game for so long, maybe GW should do something about it. If they are fine, then the question is moot, as they have legal rules now, and seem to be poping up in every other lists making good money for GW. And IMO GW would only remove something making them money, if they could replace it with something that makes even more money.

It's too late to go back now. Imperial Knights are an army, many people have bought Wraith Knights and Baneblades expressly to use in normal 40k games.

They are part of the game to stay, so there's no use getting worked up about about it. Deal with it, or find another game frankly. Let people enjoy their big toys.

That's not to say that they're perfectly balanced in the game right now. There's definitely some work that could be done there.

Super heavies atleast feel like they should be part of 40K heck even Titans while were way cooler in Epic make sence.

Super sonic Flyers make no sense in 40k, like realy these marines can not move this direction because flyer, and the supersonic fighter with psychic flamers WTF?

Atleast baneblades, knights, primarchs make sence.

I don't have a problem with super heavies, but I do have a problem with skew lists, which I find very boring to play against.
A single SHV in a 1500pts game is perfectly fine, but I really dislike playing against an army of just SHV. The same goes for an army that is all but flyers, or just endless hordes.

SH don't break the game. Player does.
And, as said above, playing against a full flyer list isn't much more fun.

I think that a stricter army composition is the solution, but considering where GW is from a standpoint of company philosophy and business practices... that will never happen.

fresus wrote:
I don't have a problem with super heavies, but I do have a problem with skew lists, which I find very boring to play against.
A single SHV in a 1500pts game is perfectly fine, but I really dislike playing against an army of just SHV. The same goes for an army that is all but flyers, or just endless hordes.

I would agree, except Knights as a full codex basically means that kind of skew list really needs to make sense in the game. You're right that is doesn't right now, but this is something that GW needs to address moving forward. I feel a brand new edition would be required to properly sort this though.

Removing SH from the game is not possible now. Instead we should look at adapting the game to make SH lists work - not overly problematic to either play or play against.

Some of the models are OK, and people obviously like them. My personal preference would be to keep them in apocalypse along with other models too big for a company scale wargame, like Knights, Primarchs, Flyers etc.

Basically I think you could draw a line around the Carnifex. Below that line is 40k, above is apocalypse.

 Peregrine wrote:
Apocalypse is not a game.

Not right now, but it soon will be.

I come from an edition where the biggest vehicle was a Land Raider and the inclusion of super-heavies (now Lords of War) was always a sticking point for me and made the game un-fun based on whether you or your opponent had one and the other didn't. Sure, it's great to have a big stompy dude on the table but they can be poorly balanced and it comes down to whether you can their LOW turn one or not.

They are part of the game now and I accept that, albeit grudgingly.

They're a legitimate part of the game wherever you like it or not. The term "super-heavy" is so broad that a blanket ban will affect some units much more; a Minotaur is a pretty crappy super-heavy, not worth it's points in equivalent Basilisks, but banning it just because it's a super-heavy is ridiculous.

 Valkyrie wrote:
They're a legitimate part of the game wherever you like it or not. The term "super-heavy" is so broad that a blanket ban will affect some units much more; a Minotaur is a pretty crappy super-heavy, not worth it's points in equivalent Basilisks, but banning it just because it's a super-heavy is ridiculous.

I doubt anyone would actually campaign seriously in favor of banning existing models from the game; that would be a rotten injustice to players who've already invested in them, but if this new Apocalypse game turns out to be good, then maybe super heavies will find a place where everyone's happy to play them, and give people who feel they don't belong in 40k proper, a bit of breathing space.

I put other. I'd play against anyone, with anything I even have some super heavies. That said, I don't think super heavies add a whole lot. I didn't like when knights first dropped in and I felt which way the wind was blowing. I personally don't like them in standard games, in apoc they are great though. I'd never play another game of apoc with just tons of standard models, only with super heavies, so much easier and feels tons better. The game can actually finish as well, great. I'd look at them as a mixed bag.

 Valkyrie wrote:
They're a legitimate part of the game wherever you like it or not. The term "super-heavy" is so broad that a blanket ban will affect some units much more; a Minotaur is a pretty crappy super-heavy, not worth it's points in equivalent Basilisks, but banning it just because it's a super-heavy is ridiculous.

They're currently a part of the game, whether we like it or not. And things can change.

Personally, I'm completely against banning anything. I think that's a dodgy move. That said, I am totally for splitting the game into formats and applying unit caps. Have a 'kitchen sink' format where anything goes, have an 'apocalypse' format where super heavies are allowed, have a 'skirmish' format where it's just dudes and walkers etc. Having one single 'anything goes' format ends up becoming problematic in terms of balance at the end of the day. Having some restrictions in terms of what can be played goes a long way.

they have been part of the game for quite a while now. with anything able to wound on a 6 I see no issue with them in any games. I do think their stratagems are too strong and the points need adjustment upwards for most of the knights (castellan by a few hundred points up)

Actual TITANIC units IMHO don't belong in "normal" 40k. Keep them relegated to Apocalypse where they belong. Non-titanic LoW (so primarchs?) are alright but pushing it.

Unfortunately, since GW took the lid off of that Pandora's box, we're stuck with them.

With a few exceptions (mostly the Castellan) I think they are fine and well balanced for their points cost, and would always happily play against and with them

The game literally doesn't have enough granularity to incorporate both guardsmen AND knights in the same scale.

If you disagree with this then you probably:
1. Have 3 knights
2. Have IG brigade and a castellan

There are ways to deal with knights, but the list specifically needs to be tailored to do so. It's hard to match point-by-point to a knight.

Most Superheavies have been pointed increadibly heavy - especially the big ones. I'm drawing a blank on anything over Knight class that's not terrible for it's points. And, in the Knight class, only the IKs are good.

Honestly I think this just boils down to an inherent issues with Knight class. Nothing else is pointed competitively enough other than those.

But even within the Knight class, there are problems; the Castellan is underpriced, and the Ork one is overpriced. The CWE was also overpriced, but is one of the few SuperHeavies that feels right right now.

The cats out of the bag unfortunately.

40k has a scale issue in that it's trying to be a game where you can play literally anything in the game universe, and GW hasn't just doubled down on that, they've triple and quadruple downed on it, with predictable results. 40k is really trying to encompasse 3 or 4 different game scales and increasingly encroaching on Epic's turf. No game really has any business trying to differentiate what sort of pistol or power weapon blade type an individual infantryman carries on the same table as Titans and strategic bombers and ICBM carriers, but damned if GW isn't gonna hamfist it!

Personally, I'd prefer a distinct ruleset for larger battles and units, one where detail in smaller units is minimized and larger units made more complex (unlike 40k's usual trend of the opposite), but alas. That said, at least currently, most Superheavies are not currently major competitive balance issues in and of themselves, the problems associated with them are more in GW trying to shove it all into one basket.

I say this as someone with a closet full of superheavy units.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The cats out of the bag unfortunately.

40k has a scale issue in that it's trying to be a game where you can play literally anything in the game universe, and GW hasn't just doubled down on that, they've triple and quadruple downed on it, with predictable results. 40k is really trying to encompasse 3 or 4 different game scales and increasingly encroaching on Epic's turf. No game really has any business trying to differentiate what sort of pistol or power weapon blade type an individual infantryman carries on the same table as Titans and strategic bombers and ICBM carriers, but damned if GW isn't gonna hamfist it!

Personally, I'd prefer a distinct ruleset for larger battles and units, one where detail in smaller units is minimized and larger units made more complex (unlike 40k's usual trend of the opposite), but alas. That said, at least currently, most Superheavies are not currently major competitive balance issues in and of themselves, the problems associated with them are more in GW trying to shove it all into one basket.

I say this as someone with a closet full of superheavy units.

That second part seems to be what they are doing with the new 40k Apocalypse they announced; a completely new game designed for mass battles. Time will tell though if they use that as a way to slowly wean the "regular" game off of superheavies and push them off into Apoc where they can exist without skewing the size of the game to a ridiculous level.

 skchsan wrote:
The game literally doesn't have enough granularity to incorporate both guardsmen AND knights in the same scale.

If you disagree with this then you probably:
1. Have 3 knights
2. Have IG brigade and a castellan

There are ways to deal with knights, but the list specifically needs to be tailored to do so. It's hard to match point-by-point to a knight.

Things that can kill or deal with Knights, that are not titanic themselves, include -

1) Massed Leman Russ fire
2) Kastellan Robots
3) Smash Captains
4) Harlequin Jetbikes
6) Smite Spam armies
7) Demon Princes
8) Mortarion or Magnus
9) Leviathan Dreadnoughts w/ Guilliman Aura
10) Riptides
11) Tankbustas
12) Warbosses on Bikes

There's probably a lot more I'm forgetting about, but the point is Knights have counters. Yes, you need to plan on how to deal with super heavies. But it's really no different from dealing with lots of any other kind of vehicle.

I have an IK army.

Matches with strangers go well gor either side depending on only a few factors:

1) Opponent's unit count.
2) number of anti-tank weapons the opposing army has
3) lucky dice rolls (either side)

In a 7 knight list(4 are little ones), I still have to split focus-fire between credible threats to my knights(anti-tank weapons), and "obsec" units. Generally, unless luck is with me (and they have few of either/both units), I cannot neuter the opponent before I am left with only a few knights remaining.

If I take my Guard w/baneblade chassis(built with the shadowsword variants); my big tank has too few guns to really do much for the cost(baneblade/hellhammer is only a little better), it is just a really expensive distraction carnifex(that can still put out some serious damage, making it almost worth thr price).

Finally we have my Orks and Stompa. Thing is a beast and can put out rounds; but cannot aim worth a drops.

Superheavies just don't have the damage output to really tip the scales, and can still be laid low by scratch damage from troops basic weapons(if you are fielding enough troops to win via mission, you should have enough shots the harry a single super-heavy). The massive weapons still only kill 1 model/hit(3W and less), and there are usually eith too few anti-infantry weapons, or they wind up costing too much loaded out with them(making them priority targets and reducing target saturation).

The only reason a full knight army does well is that target saturation on your opponent, 3+ big scary models that make up most or all of your army forces focus-fire or spread damage leaving either 2 full(or nearly so) and 1 dead, or multiplr damaged but mostly functional threats(over half wounds each) second turn.

Wraothknights are a pain to shift still, tau giant suits are glass cannons, stompas are sturdy and have the shots but cannot hit, bane-variants don't have the firepower, nor do knights. Only the obelisks are really scary and they are expensive as can be.

Super heavies are fine.

Use as many as you want, whenever.

Not up to me to tell others how to build an army.

Bharring wrote:
But even within the Knight class, there are problems; the Castellan is underpriced, and the Ork one is overpriced. The CWE was also overpriced, but is one of the few SuperHeavies that feels right right now.

The Castellan is actually pretty fairly costed by itself, but the Cawl's Wrath relic and the Order of Companions stratagem boost it to obscene levels. Without those, I think it's pretty fairly costed actually. All the other Knights are pretty fairly costed as well, I mean the Crusader is powerful, but its not guaranteed to wipe out 2 vehicles per turn. The Gallant is good for it's cost, but it's melee only and can be countered with effective screening and positioning.

The Ork one should be closer to 500 points instead of the stupid 900 it's at. The Eldar one is pretty fairly costed IMO, after the CA changes. The Baneblades should all be a little bit cheaper as well, or should get more special rules. If the Shadowsword had a rule to ignore invulnerable saves on Titanics or something, then sure, it's totally worth it. But it doesn't even counter the things it's supposed to (Knights) thanks to their invulnerable save.

See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

I like to play with the big boy toys; Greater Daemons, Daemon Primarchs, giant Daemon Engines...I want to use them. Hell, my current list plan is Mortarion, Magnus, a Kytan, two Flawless Host DPs and minimum troops for an in-your-face LoW pants-party!

Out of the bottle or not, current 40K is poorly designed for including superheavies and flyers. Hopefully the upcoming Apocalypse ruleset will provide options to better handle these huge war machines and we can see these toys move away from general 40K to that format.

I’m not holding my breath though, GW’s writing staff is more likely to bodge Apocalypse that actually fix regular 40K and make the whole mess worse.

Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

I have no problem with super heavies. I have problems with individual units. I have a Valiant (I won it in a tournament). I normally play it with two Warglaives in my tempestus scions army. Nobody has bat an eye about them, because they are mediocre at best.

As always the problem is with specific units. In past editions you could had the problem of a imperial knight list being untouchable, but now? Naaa. Even with things like heavy bolters and rerrolls to hit and to wound you can have your anti infantry units peeling at Imperial Knights without a problem.

Bharring wrote:
Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

GW is not good enough at writing rules to manage this. The overpointing of superheavies is indeed a thing, but that's only with large Forgeworld models like actual Titans and Thunderhawks. Knights, Baneblades, and Wraithknights are costed in such a way to make them usable in regular games of 40k. The Stompa... well that one is a mystery to me.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

See your saying the castellen is broken when bolted to a CP farm, the issue by your own words is the CP farm not the model on it's own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

GW is not good enough at writing rules to manage this. The overpointing of superheavies is indeed a thing, but that's only with large Forgeworld models like actual Titans and Thunderhawks. Knights, Baneblades, and Wraithknights are costed in such a way to make them usable in regular games of 40k. The Stompa... well that one is a mystery to me.

Maybe we just haven't found the secret wombo combo of strategums and buffs that GW is pointing it for?
But yeah it wasn't good in the index and it's not much better under codex rules, but then again look what happened to the new vehicals for said codex, maybe the designer just wanted to push more boys more grots as the playstyle?

They are reason number 1 why I no longer play 40k.

Ice_can wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

See your saying the castellen is broken when bolted to a CP farm, the issue by your own words is the CP farm not the model on it's own.

Yeah but who legitimately takes a castellan on its own? Even without the CP farm, you still have the stratagems and the relic. It's still undercosted.

Back when I was still new, seeing a land raider on the table was this awesome thing. Seeing two was almost a special experiance within the hobby (whole hobby,not GW exclusive).
Now it’s at the point where it’s just a annoyance, where it’s overdone and I am slowly turning my knights into terain.

I would almost welcome a kill team expansion that just ads rules for the smaller vehicles and larger games up to maybe 1000 points.
We already have commanders and elites coming. Easy enough to put a unit activation to spread things up. Probably would not even need balancing as a narrative expansion.

There's really no reason why any given model needs to be able to shoot at 4+ units. The new split fire rule, or rather, lack of restriction on split firing, works for the range before the introduction of super heavies. There were tactics involved before the game was introduced to units/models with 5 gun platforms that can shoot all five of its weapons at five different target in that you needed to bring all the specialized tools to deal with variety of targets. The current state of 40k is reduced to literally "bring the biggest baddest guy with the biggest and baddest gun and the cheapest, weakest guys and utilize the weight of dice to kill things."

The point cost system was very simple prior to the full induction of super heavies and flyers - you pay less for things that die easy and pay more for things that takes a beating. Of course, the system was lot more complicated than simple durability based calculation, but the current system is totally unjustifiable.

A knight is thrice more durable and quintuple more killy than a LR BEFORE stratagems. a LR costs average 280+ while knights average 550+ (but really should just be 600 because the others are outliers). LR has 2 main guns & 1 sub weapon and 3 options. Castellan has 4 main guns and 3 sub weapons, and 2 options (one time use weapons generalized under option) where the main and sub weapons are minimum twice the firepower compared to LR. Don't give me that "oh but LR is a transport and castellan is not. that's why they're costed the way they are" shenanigans. We all know transports are garbage except for raiders.

You say super heavies are overcosted, I say they are undercosted. They are only overcosted if you look at a knight's (castellan particularly) durability and offensive capabilities separately. Combined, I'd say they're about 200~300 pts undercosted.

In a given standard brigade, you have 18 drops/units. A castellan can target 50% of the units. Bring two castellan, you can target 100% of the bridgade. Barring horde armies, a brigade is typically all you can afford. Two castellans only cost you 1200 pts.

The only way you balance out the dynamic between offense and defence, you have to balance 'how fast/well you can kill stuff' and 'how much beating you can take'. You can't offer a unit that does 'I can kill stuff really well and really fast and I can also take a lot of beating' and expect anything that remotely resembles balance.

It would be balanced enough if knights can reliably delete 300~500 pts worth unit or two in a given round and durable enough to last 3 rounds, not 50% of enemy army. 8th edition is designed for shorter games? I think what GW meant to say was "8th edition is designed to end with an alpha strike".

I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

But you're ignoring the opportunity cost for those units to be able to do that though...

The problem, to my mind, with superheavies in general and Knights in particular is that lighter vehicles just become pointless; a Predator, for instance, cannot be anything more than tissue paper in an environment where everyone's armed to fight Knight-Castellans.

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

So two tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons prove to be more of a threat than a single stomp from an IK? Gosh, 8th 40K is truly a dumpster fire!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem, to my mind, with superheavies in general and Knights in particular is that lighter vehicles just become pointless; a Predator, for instance, cannot be anything more than tissue paper in an environment where everyone's armed to fight Knight-Castellans.

This. It doesn't matter if knights have a counter or not. It skews the power balance of the game which leaves 90% of the available units in the game an utter point sink.

Maybe, only allow 25% of your points on one super heavy vehicles etc. therefore most knights will only be played at around 2k or higher points levels.
if you also had to spend 25% or more points on troops models as well it could go quite differently...

I choose other bc I'm ok with super heavies as long as it is agreed upon before the game or it is established that they are allowed in the tournament before hand. They add some flavor to the game and most of the time SHs are expensive enough to limit other options that could be taken.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

So two tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons prove to be more of a threat than a single stomp from an IK? Gosh, 8th 40K is truly a dumpster fire!

Not talking about "tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons"... a Captain is a centuries old veteran of a thousand wars, wielding a thunder hammer, a rare and powerful weapon only entrusted to him because of his experience and rank. A Warboss is a gigantic monster, capable of killing literally anything with vicious cunning and brute force. These are not mere "infantry". It makes sense they'd be able to be more of a threat than a single stomp from a giant robot.

They exist in lore, it would be odd not to have them in some form in 40k.

As for actually using them in a game, I and my gaming buddy, have agreed that they're only for those with huge tabletops (i.e. multiple 8'x4') and huge points games that take weeks to play.

I won't even talk about the monetary cost of such units, especially the Titans...

It would be a step in the right direction on balancing out knights if TITANIC keyword provided -to hit when targetting non-vehicles and those targetting it gains +to hit against it.

I think they should be limited to large scale apocalypse games only. You can't undo the introduction of superheavies into the game, nor should we want to invalidate armies and models, and make people feel like they've invested time and money into models that could just be pulled from the game. Especially when Games Workshop made Imperial Knights a stand alone army, and promoted it as such. You can't take that away from people fairly. Instead, such models should be very expensive points-wise (require building around, not just spamming) or should be limited to played in Apocalypse only. Also, giving all of these Heavy Vehicles invulnerable saves was the worst move Games Workshop have made in this edition, and the sole reason I have little faith in their ability to actually sort this mess.

 skchsan wrote:
It would be a step in the right direction on balancing out knights if TITANIC keyword provided -to hit when targetting non-vehicles and those targetting it gains +to hit against it.

it is interesting that a guardsman has the same 50% chance to hit a nurgling at max range as something the size of several city buses

Seeing all this discussion makes me feel better about attempting Stormlord-Banehammer-Banehammer with lots of infantry for 2k game.

Darsath wrote:
I think they should be limited to large scale apocalypse games only. You can't undo the introduction of superheavies into the game, nor should we want to invalidate armies and models, and make people feel like they've invested time and money into models that could just be pulled from the game. Especially when Games Workshop made Imperial Knights a stand alone army, and promoted it as such. You can't take that away from people fairly. Instead, such models should be very expensive points-wise (require building around, not just spamming) or should be limited to played in Apocalypse only. Also, giving all of these Heavy Vehicles invulnerable saves was the worst move Games Workshop have made in this edition, and the sole reason I have little faith in their ability to actually sort this mess.

Right. You can't say a weapon is a AV weapon and tell you "oh, well this huge model that clearly needs AV weapons to be damage can't reliably be damaged by AV weapons, so your best luck is high strength, low AP weapon!". It is idiotic at best, upsell scheme at worst.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
It would be a step in the right direction on balancing out knights if TITANIC keyword provided -to hit when targetting non-vehicles and those targetting it gains +to hit against it.

it is interesting that a guardsman has the same 50% chance to hit a nurgling at max range as something the size of several city buses

Right?Under this pretense, I have the same chance at hitting a wombat with a blaster as I have against shooting at Jabba the Hut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing all this discussion makes me feel better about attempting Stormlord-Banehammer-Banehammer with lots of infantry for 2k game.

This is lot more manageable because it follows a logical template on what a big bad unit should be - it has 1 main gun that wrecks stuffs to smithereens and handful of side guns for smaller stuff. It doesn't come with 3~4 main guns optimized for ALL SORTS of units. It would be a different story if that Stormlord-Banehammer^2 was in fact, a Stormhammerbanelord, a single model that has the gun of the three superheavy tanks while only priced at 1.5x a single one. Oh wait, I just described a castellan.

They're 40k models that has rules... of course it should be allowed in 40k.

 whembly wrote:
They're 40k models that has rules... of course it should be allowed in 40k.

Well, you're not wrong there. I remember when Age of Sigmar was announced, and that they were going to discontinue my main army (Tomb Kings) I was pretty mad. I don't think players should have the same feelings about their choice of army or units in 40k either.

Rob Lee wrote:
They exist in lore, it would be odd not to have them in some form in 40k.

That's a preposterous statement.

The Planet Killer exists in the lore too, should it be in 40k?

 whembly wrote:
They're 40k models that has rules... of course it should be allowed in 40k.

With that logic, just purchase a cyclonic torpedo bombardment and skip the game - you can even do that just with CPs.

Superheavies have their place, and I own more than my fair share of them, but they shouldn’t be in bog-standard 40K games outside of special scenarios. There instead should be a separate game level that is devised for their proper use. I think something akin to Bolt Action’s Tank War would be appropriate - let everyone leave the lightweights behind and have rumble where tanks, superheavies, and knights can shine (possibly with the occasional “take down the beast” scenario vs. a Titan). That also leaves Adeptus Titanicus for battles against truly monstrous war machines, and maybe Epic for those truly large scale battles with everybody and the Emperor’s sink thrown into the fray.

The hard part is getting GW to recognize this; splitting play out into the likes of Kill Team, Combat Patrol, Combined Arms (general 40K), Lords of War and Apocalypse would, in their mind, dilute the player base and make a headache of supporting several rule tiers of play - but I think it would be best for the player base and allow collections to grow into use for each of the various game sizes and play styles.

Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

Ice_can wrote:
Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

If a 500 pt model soaked up at least 50% of enemy's potential fire power, that's 500 pts well spent. Guess who's left alive after you focused all your firepower bringing down 1 model? The rest of the army.

As far as balance is concerned, a 500 pt model should pose enough threat to divert the opponents attention to it because it can deal significant damage to your army if left alone, but not so powerful that the game is lost if you can't bring it down in turn 1. If knights went down in its offensive capabilities, you still think it will be the 1st and foremost priority in taking it down?

I do agree that hordes pose a bigger issue than knights but this is a post regarding super heavies is it not?

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

If a 500 pt model soaked up at least 50% of enemy's potential fire power, that's 500 pts well spent. Guess who's left alive after you focused all your firepower bringing down 1 model? The rest of the army.

As far as balance is concerned, a 500 pt model should pose enough threat to divert the opponents attention to it because it can deal significant damage to your army if left alone, but not so powerful that the game is lost if you can't bring it down in turn 1. If knights went down in its offensive capabilities, you still think it will be the 1st and foremost priority in taking it down?

Literally the only Knight with that kind of power is the Castellan, when using Cawls and Order of Companions. Don't complain about all Knights when you specifically mean just the Castellan.

 Horst wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

If a 500 pt model soaked up at least 50% of enemy's potential fire power, that's 500 pts well spent. Guess who's left alive after you focused all your firepower bringing down 1 model? The rest of the army.

As far as balance is concerned, a 500 pt model should pose enough threat to divert the opponents attention to it because it can deal significant damage to your army if left alone, but not so powerful that the game is lost if you can't bring it down in turn 1. If knights went down in its offensive capabilities, you still think it will be the 1st and foremost priority in taking it down?

Literally the only Knight with that kind of power is the Castellan, when using Cawls and Order of Companions. Don't complain about all Knights when you specifically mean just the Castellan.

I was under the assumption that I was pretty clear about that I'm complaining about castellan. If not, I'm talking about castellans.

Going forward I will be more direct about castelland and not knights.

Ice_can wrote:
Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

Just how many 700pt+ models in the game *aren't* trash-tier? It's a really small number.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

Is that why the WaveSerpent was so badass in the Index days? The fact that you could pay points for a 6++ (but no invuln or hit modifiers)?

How many Invulns/FNPs/Modfiers did Razorbacks have when they were top dog?

The IK "needs" an Invuln because, without it, it can't soak the firepower of a list tailored to kill it. With it, only certain builds have the firepower to kill one at range. And "fight it in CC" would be a thing if it were a pushover in CC - there are many units that can trump it, but there are whole factions without such options.

Look at the WK: it has to trade half it's firepower for a 5++, otherwise gets none of the above. How do Ork Knight-class options do? (hint: badly)

IK are clearly the outlier.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

I'd rather face a full horde than a full IK list. I might only get 2 turns in 2 hours (I highly doubt it), but at least I get 2 turns. Against a Knight list, only a fraction of my list can actually do anything. And I don't really have many choices with them, either; shoot Gundam Wannabe #1 or #2?

To be fair, a Baneblade is harder to replace than a Company of Astartes. If we go by lore, Baneblades are as much if not more revered than say Grey Knights. It's silly to go by lore about these sorts of things. Because we'd never see Knights, Baneblades, Farseers, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, or Titanic Imperial vehicles like Astraeus or Leviathans. Because they are exceedingly rare and require Chapter Master level approval to move into battle.

So, if we went by lore, it would be 9 million guard, a few platoons of SMs, vs everything else. Maybe a Predator or a Rhino.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Just to point this out your all complaining that oh a 500 point model shouldn't have an invulnerable save, they shouldn't have 2 weapons, which is actually what most knights have, if your gona complain about a Castellen (as usual) atleast be honest.

You know what happend to non-invulnerable save superheavies, they sucked and sucked even harder when GW increased their points. Any model over 700 points without an invulnerable save in 8th edition is always dead long before it has a chance.

Just how many 700pt+ models in the game *aren't* trash-tier? It's a really small number.

For vehicals to actually be useful in 8th they need an invulnerable, hit modifiers or FNP rule.

Is that why the WaveSerpent was so badass in the Index days? The fact that you could pay points for a 6++ (but no invuln or hit modifiers)?

How many Invulns/FNPs/Modfiers did Razorbacks have when they were top dog?

The IK "needs" an Invuln because, without it, it can't soak the firepower of a list tailored to kill it. With it, only certain builds have the firepower to kill one at range. And "fight it in CC" would be a thing if it were a pushover in CC - there are many units that can trump it, but there are whole factions without such options.

Look at the WK: it has to trade half it's firepower for a 5++, otherwise gets none of the above. How do Ork Knight-class options do? (hint: badly)

IK are clearly the outlier.

But counter argument that your all missing in your quest to return to 2nd edition scale games is that as much as you hate super heavies, the worst army to face across the board is the horde spam army, hppe you have a full day otherwise it's turn 2 at best you'll be seeing in a 2 hour game.

I'd rather face a full horde than a full IK list. I might only get 2 turns in 2 hours (I highly doubt it), but at least I get 2 turns. Against a Knight list, only a fraction of my list can actually do anything. And I don't really have many choices with them, either; shoot Gundam Wannabe #1 or #2?

Not to mention that castellan can literally neutralize everything that can potentially pose a threat to it in 1 round of shooting.

In a narrative or casual setting, it's not an issue. That is the type of environment where you should be having a chat with your opponent anyway. You are free to adjust scenarios, etc. that can easily balance out the "offending" parties. So that's not a real issue. At that level if they're extremely imbalanced or unfair that can be addressed by talking with the group, etc. A common question in our games is simply "Hey, you taking anything big or crazy?". Basically any big Knights, Forgeworld models, etc. Sometimes it's the opposite "hey let's take all the big bad stuff".

In tournament gaming, that's entirely different, and I do think the game does not balance the units well enough. Stratagems affect large models much more strongly than they do smaller ones (Daemon Forge being far stronger on a Khytan than a Defiler, etc.). Imperial Knight relics are far and away stronger than anything in any other book. GW generally does very poorly this edition in balancing the scaling of special abilities/buffs/auras/stratagems.

That, unfortunately, puts the onus on the TO's to consider maybe trying to balance them in the future. We'll see.

Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

Those championing for the discontinuation of Super Heavies are aware that a knight army isn't really all that great, right? There are tons of things hugely more effective than IK lists that fall into the infantry+tanks size range.

The only real boogeyman list that involves a knight very specifically only uses one, and a very, very specific one at that. A castellan with cawl's wrath, the 4++ relic, the raven strat up, and the 3++ strat active is insanely powerful, but a list with even two knights suddenly is immensely worse, as you can't double up on any of those things. And without the guard giving them a huge pile of CP to run those very expensive strats every round, an actual knight army would only be able to pop them on turn one. Chaos armies aren't crushing with renegade castellans, so it's not even an issue with the base castellan, just that one specific combo.

Really, the issue is the sharing of CP between books designed to generate and use CP differently. Guard were obviously intended to have tons of CP but use them providing minor buffs to individually ineffectual units (+1 to saves on a single unit of guardsmen isn't going to rock the game board) while IK were meant to have a small pool of CP but use them to provide impactful buffs on expensive, powerful models (getting a 3 wound knight to fire at full capacity is a big swing). If you limit the ability to share CP (whether to within individual books or even all the way to requiring the same chapter/hive fleet/etc.), the issue would go away.

Personally, I think knights and the like are much easier to rationalize on a 40k board than flyers, anyway. I can see how the pivotal point in a larger battle (which is what we're normally playing out, in theory) might feature such machines as defensive linchpins or offensive line-breakers, but why is that stratospheric bomber or supersonic fighter jet hanging around on a 6x4 table? Why can my genestealers or (apparently very motivated) guardsmen keep up with one on foot? Why can't I walk underneath a plane that is presumably, you know, flying? How did this hand-flamer become my best AA weapon?

It'd make a lot more sense to me to have those sorts of things represented by strats or purchased abilities, with only the "hover" vehicles actual on the board. Obviously this is also a ship that's sailed, but at least you could clean up some of the sillier aspects while not invalidating collections (it'd only take a single sentence tacked to every flyer to let people move through, but not end on, their bases, for example).

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

When people mention that Imperial Knights require an Invulnerable Save (or maybe Feel No Pain) to be survivable, I don't feel that they're wrong. But the issue this presents is that regular vehicles have less of a role in the edition. I feel these complaints are actually more about the increased lethality in certain weapons in general over the course of 8th edition (especially when it comes to putting ap on everything) that an invulnerable save feels essential to last any amount of time. My proposal is that these vehicles shouldn't have an invulnerable save because they shouldn't need it to last. The amount of ap and damage in the game right now is way too much, and needs some toning down. Not all weapons (and some armies have very little) but a fair amount to be sure.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because more than 80% missions are kill/wipe based.

Castellan based armies can wipe the table so fast that you won't have enough rounds to accrue objective VP's to win even if you wipe.

While I see the logic for superheavy’s only existencing in apocalypse, I would like to point out there’s next to no chance GW is removing super heavies from regular games. This is for 1 simple reason, super heavies in regular 40k makes GW bucketloads of money. The reason I know this is there once was a time when superheavies where apocalypse only. Since first doing that GW has aggressively moved away from apocalypse only models. It’s easy to guess therefore, that Superheavies have sold more since being moved to regular 40k.

TLDR: GW will keep superheavies in regular 40k because money. These polls are only good for intellectual exercise.

 skchsan wrote:

I was under the assumption that I was pretty clear about that I'm complaining about castellan. If not, I'm talking about castellans.

Going forward I will be more direct about castelland and not knights.

As someone who plays Knights but not Castellans, it just irks me when I see someone say, "Knights are overpowered!"... because my Gallants and Crusaders are good, but they aren't wiping out armies in a single shooting phase. A Krast Crusader with the anti-tank relic will on average kill a Leman Russ in a single round shooting, if it has the Battle Cannon upgrade and Ironstorm pod. It costs 500 points. That seems reasonable, given it's a 500 point model, for it to be able to kill a tank 1/3 it's points in a single round of shooting. For 100 pts more, when you activate the Raven stratagem, the Castellan can on average kill 2 Leman Russ... It's got nearly double the anti-tank firepower. I'd still rather take the Crusader because I think it's a more balanced unit overall, since it can handle hordes better and has better melee ability, but it's the Castellan that's making vehicles useless, and I really hope all the other Knights don't get nerfed into uselessness because of it.

 Horst wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

I was under the assumption that I was pretty clear about that I'm complaining about castellan. If not, I'm talking about castellans.

Going forward I will be more direct about castelland and not knights.

As someone who plays Knights but not Castellans, it just irks me when I see someone say, "Knights are overpowered!"... because my Gallants and Crusaders are good, but they aren't wiping out armies in a single shooting phase. A Krast Crusader with the anti-tank relic will on average kill a Leman Russ in a single round shooting, if it has the Battle Cannon upgrade and Ironstorm pod. It costs 500 points. That seems reasonable, given it's a 500 point model, for it to be able to kill a tank 1/3 it's points in a single round of shooting. For 100 pts more, when you activate the Raven stratagem, the Castellan can on average kill 2 Leman Russ... It's got nearly double the anti-tank firepower. I'd still rather take the Crusader because I think it's a more balanced unit overall, since it can handle hordes better and has better melee ability, but it's the Castellan that's making vehicles useless, and I really hope all the other Knights don't get nerfed into uselessness because of it.

Yes, it would also be nice to not have every strategum in the codex recosted around the you most be taking a battalion/brigade of x so of course the strategums should cost most of a mono lists CP pool.

In ITC Knights are very well balanced. Maybe even weak.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:
They exist in lore, it would be odd not to have them in some form in 40k.

That's a preposterous statement.

The Planet Killer exists in the lore too, should it be in 40k?

No, that's one for Battle Fleet Gothic, seeing as it shares the same lore as the 40k tabeltop game.

40k is infantry, tanks and walkers or anything else land/planet based. Not space ships. Please don't resort to reductio ad absurdum.

Of course if you want to merge BFG and 40k the tabletop game, into one big game system, then yeah why not, so long as you're not using it in something where it'd dominate the game and nothings else being there would make a difference.

I've often thought that GW's game systems could do with a big grand strategy type system, whereby you play on a map made up like the old WFB Mighty Empires, then you drill down to individual battles that are conducted either in BFG or 40k. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

Rob Lee wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Rob Lee wrote:
They exist in lore, it would be odd not to have them in some form in 40k.

That's a preposterous statement.

The Planet Killer exists in the lore too, should it be in 40k?

No, that's one for Battle Fleet Gothic, seeing as it shares the same lore as the 40k tabeltop game.

40k is infantry, tanks and walkers or anything else land/planet based. Not space ships. Please don't resort to reductio ad absurdum.

Of course if you want to merge BFG and 40k the tabletop game, into one big game system, then yeah why not, so long as you're not using it in 1000pt skirmishes.

Having 2 separate boards, where controlling points in BFG grants resources to the 40k game to represent the orbital fight going on at the same time as the planet side fight, could be quite cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem, to my mind, with superheavies in general and Knights in particular is that lighter vehicles just become pointless; a Predator, for instance, cannot be anything more than tissue paper in an environment where everyone's armed to fight Knight-Castellans.

I'd argue it goes further than this. Super-Heavies along with an increase in damage output in general make so many units useless. It doesn't matter what weapons I took or armor save I have when someone can roll up with a mini titan which rolls dice and deletes units.

40k is trying to be to many things at once and doing a poor job at all of them.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because the IK on an objective will just steamrole the one or two squads on the objective in CC. IKs aren't vehicles in the traditional sense - they win CC against most things. Even most of my CC units.

But it's not about being outscored - my complaint isn't about whether I'll win or lose the game. It's about how much of it I get to play. I put my guys on the table, then pull off a bucketload three times a round, and hope I have enough left. I will get to decide what to shoot at for the first turn or two. Aside from that, there's no actual play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

I was under the assumption that I was pretty clear about that I'm complaining about castellan. If not, I'm talking about castellans.

Going forward I will be more direct about castelland and not knights.

As someone who plays Knights but not Castellans, it just irks me when I see someone say, "Knights are overpowered!"... because my Gallants and Crusaders are good, but they aren't wiping out armies in a single shooting phase. A Krast Crusader with the anti-tank relic will on average kill a Leman Russ in a single round shooting, if it has the Battle Cannon upgrade and Ironstorm pod. It costs 500 points. That seems reasonable, given it's a 500 point model, for it to be able to kill a tank 1/3 it's points in a single round of shooting. For 100 pts more, when you activate the Raven stratagem, the Castellan can on average kill 2 Leman Russ... It's got nearly double the anti-tank firepower. I'd still rather take the Crusader because I think it's a more balanced unit overall, since it can handle hordes better and has better melee ability, but it's the Castellan that's making vehicles useless, and I really hope all the other Knights don't get nerfed into uselessness because of it.

I should clarify my position.

I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I picked up 40k when I got sick of seeing Gargants in WMH. It wasn't because I couldn't beat a gargant. It was because I couldn't "play against" a gargant. They removed so much of the game just by being there. It ceased to be fun. I rarely lost to them - I found facing armies with them easier than armies without. But there was no fun to be had.

To that end, it doesn't really matter what the balance is like. As long as SuperHeavies function that way, I simply won't enjoy games dominated by them. I'd rather get trounced in a game I can actually "play" than win a game where i don't get to "play".

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

Meh. I find horde armies boring to play against. Yet here we are. Well except I'm not advocating Hordes players who spent lots of money and time be removed from play.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because the IK on an objective will just steamrole the one or two squads on the objective in CC. IKs aren't vehicles in the traditional sense - they win CC against most things. Even most of my CC units.

But it's not about being outscored - my complaint isn't about whether I'll win or lose the game. It's about how much of it I get to play. I put my guys on the table, then pull off a bucketload three times a round, and hope I have enough left. I will get to decide what to shoot at for the first turn or two. Aside from that, there's no actual play.

Welcome to playing marines vrs guard, Tau vrs Alitoc or non sniper lists vrs charictors spam. Because you can't shoot any of the 6 demon princes because of hidden or superbuffed unit

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

I feel this was the intention with the new, smaller Imperial Knight models (can't remember their name)

As many as you want whenever you want, baby.

Seems like people who complain the loudest don't play the missions and only measure victory by how much they kill?

Voted other. Use them responsibly. I use them when it’s been discussed before hand and when it’s appropriate. I wouldn’t turn up with a knight or baneblade and not warn people.

Quasistellar wrote:
As many as you want whenever you want, baby.

Seems like people who complain the loudest don't play the missions and only measure victory by how much they kill?

Not sure which 40k you play but in most standard missions the controlling objectives don't mean jack because they're counted at the end of the game. If you kill everything they don't have anything that can control an objective at the end of the game.

I am not a fan or large vehicles, super heavies, etc. at the 28mm scale. I like running dense tables (think Stalingrad), and I have had games (not in 40k yet) where special consideration had to be given for large models or else they were completely confined to a small portion of the table top clearly putting them at a disadvantage. The spoiler tag has an image of the Dust Tactics Punisher on a grid of 3" squares as an example. Those models are about 7" wide and almost a 12" long and required clear paths to not completely box them in.



Even without large vehicles, I like to create entire no vehicle zones on the table since historically tank traps, dragon's teeth and anti-vehicle mines were cheap and plentiful. For more sci-fi settings this was also done to justify walkers they would be probably be able to cross tank traps where wheeled/tracked vehicles could not. This wasn't done for an army to gain an advantage, simply to fit the idea of why a setting had combined arms of infantry and armor or why a sci-fi setting had walkers. These games were setup in advance or are very least when both players wouldn't terribly disadvantaged by them which was pretty common since my group rarely brought skew lists even in a game where you could go all infantry, all armor or even all flyers if you really wanted. Just little terrain things to get away from the same old, same old missions.

I don't mind super heavies in 40k in principle, but I also don't think they should be thrown in any old army list intended for PUGs with Marlon Rando. I think they are enough of a special case unit that warrants ensuring the game is going to be heavily favored to one side or the other to not be very interesting. At very least the players should try and consider a custom mission (I always like to re-create Steve Jackson's Ogre when big vehicles are included) so both players have the best possible chance at the beginning.

Reemule wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

Meh. I find horde armies boring to play against. Yet here we are. Well except I'm not advocating Hordes players who spent lots of money and time be removed from play.

Nor am I. I'm saying I'll prefer games that aren't vs Knight-spam. That's a very different proposition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

How?

There are problems with skewing to the extreme ends of the spectrum (Hordes can cause a similar problem).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not jsut about being strong enough/weak enough either. It has to be fun to play against, while also being fun to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Yes; a pure IK list is a skew list. If my army is built around specialists that each do one thing well, then I fall apart against a skew list that basically ignores table position.

how are you loosing objectives etc to a 5 model army with no obsec outside of a single relic?

Because the IK on an objective will just steamrole the one or two squads on the objective in CC. IKs aren't vehicles in the traditional sense - they win CC against most things. Even most of my CC units.

But it's not about being outscored - my complaint isn't about whether I'll win or lose the game. It's about how much of it I get to play. I put my guys on the table, then pull off a bucketload three times a round, and hope I have enough left. I will get to decide what to shoot at for the first turn or two. Aside from that, there's no actual play.

Welcome to playing marines vrs guard, Tau vrs Alitoc or non sniper lists vrs charictors spam. Because you can't shoot any of the 6 demon princes because of hidden or superbuffed unit

T'au vs Alaitoc is nothing like this. They have their choice of which threat to try to eliminate, and each one tends to have very different defensive profiles, and the loss of it impacts the Alaitoc army very differently. They might be boned, but they still have choices.


The 6-DP list or some Guard Spam list might be roughly the same, though.

The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

I would still argue that units aren't to blame.

The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

 Tamwulf wrote:
What's a super heavy?

this, super heavy is a dead term, it really doesn't matter. what's the pratical differance between a land raider and a bane blade?

 Togusa wrote:
The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

What does that have to do with LoW? IGOUGO is a bad system, but that's an entirely unrelated subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

What does that have to do with LoW? IGOUGO is a bad system, but that's an entirely unrelated subject.

I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

No honestly the issue is 1400 points of guard plus a Castellen on a CP binge that makes Tony Montana's coke habit look amateur in comparison.

Ice_can wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

No honestly the issue is 1400 points of guard plus a Castellen on a CP binge that makes Tony Montana's coke habit look amateur in comparison.

CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

Some units have to be at the top, but the difference in power level between the top units and the average can be reduced. And it absolutely is a unit problem because a 400 point Macharius is not even close to as much of a problem as a 300 point knight. There are specific units and list combinations that are utterly broken, on top of any issues caused by the IGOUGO system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Which removes the incentive to bring troops-heavy armies. No thanks.

The correct solution, if you aren't wiling to ban allies entirely, is to make CP locked to the faction that generated it. Want to bring the loyal 32 with your knights? I guess you'll have lots of CP to spend on re-rolling lasgun dice, while your knight has only the base 3 CP for having a battle-forged army. Conveniently that isn't enough to allow even a single use of the IK stratagem set.

The only way a knight would be 300 points was if it payed guard points costs for it's weapon's, they are 400 points bar the 350 points CC specialist, if your calling a 350 heavystubber scary your taking the P.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

yeah I can confirm this, in Battletech a common tactic is to use you light units as bait to draw your opponent into a kill zone of your heavier units

Ice_can wrote:
The only way a knight would be 300 points was if it payed guard points costs for it's weapon's, they are 400 points bar the 350 points CC specialist, if your calling a 350 heavystubber scary your taking the P.

Ok, I remembered wrong, it's 350-400 points not 300. But the point remains. A 400 point Macharius is a joke, and the only way it disrupts the game is that your opponent might get frustrated with having to play down to your level all the time because you insist on throwing away 400 points on utter trash. A knight, whether in the form of a castellan + CP farm or multiple "normal" knights, ranges from "powerful, meta-defining unit" to "blatantly overpowered". This is 100% a unit problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
I'm saying that the LoW isn't an issue when the person using one has to break up his army activation intermixed with yours.

Not necessarily. Alternating activation systems can still have death stars. In fact, having single powerful units can be an advantage because it allows you to exploit an opportunity by activating a large percentage of your army at once instead of having to do it in pieces while your opponent reacts. For example, in Armada one of the popular list archetypes is an expensive "death star" capital ship combined with a few cheap activations to let you manipulate its timing. So merely going to an alternating activation system does not automatically fix the issue with knights.

Everyone is always screaming "nerf this, nerf that" and it hasn't done a thing to change the fact that some units have to be at the top, and others have to be at the very bottom. The problem isn't within the units, it's within the basic structure of the game itself.

Some units have to be at the top, but the difference in power level between the top units and the average can be reduced. And it absolutely is a unit problem because a 400 point Macharius is not even close to as much of a problem as a 300 point knight. There are specific units and list combinations that are utterly broken, on top of any issues caused by the IGOUGO system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Togusa wrote:
CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Which removes the incentive to bring troops-heavy armies. No thanks.

The correct solution, if you aren't wiling to ban allies entirely, is to make CP locked to the faction that generated it. Want to bring the loyal 32 with your knights? I guess you'll have lots of CP to spend on re-rolling lasgun dice, while your knight has only the base 3 CP for having a battle-forged army. Conveniently that isn't enough to allow even a single use of the IK stratagem set.

That doesn't remove the incentive to bring troops. Look at the suggestion to detachments I put in Proposed rules. You can easily have detachments give access to better strats and provide the incentive, while removing the CP battery.

Bharring wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Bharring wrote:


I'm not saying IK lists are, conceptually, OP. I'm saying they're not fun to play against.

I understand this position. But removing IK as an army is not an option at this point. Instead the game should change to make playing against Knights more fun.

How?

I don't know the solution, but it's either they come up with something or we just have unfun Knights. Because they aren't going anywhere, Pandora's box is open.

I'm not convinced it can be resolved adequately without a new edition anyway.

 Togusa wrote:
That doesn't remove the incentive to bring troops. Look at the suggestion to detachments I put in Proposed rules. You can easily have detachments give access to better strats and provide the incentive, while removing the CP battery.

Sure, if you make significant other changes to the game you can move to a fixed CP system. But if you're going to do all of that work then why not remove CP and stratagems entirely? The easiest, minimum changes, system is to just lock CP to the detachment that generates it and solve the CP battery problem without having to worry about the effects of a more complicated change.

Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

 Argive wrote:
Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

1 No you don't that requires 1 a set subfaction and 2 CP spend on the strategums and not being Vected.

You know what also doesn't have moral any single model unit, if you want to start having tanks, charictors etc take moral tests for wounds fine, missing the thing moral is supposed to be balancing, ie lots of uber cheap models, that give brokenly poor return on investment when shot at or Close combated.

My experience is that Super Heavies make a fun centrepiece unit. At 1500 points, I wouldn’t complain about facing one in a “blind” match. Facing 2 SuperHeavies at 2000 points is likewise not a problem for me.

More than that, at those point levels, and I’d want to be warned ahead of time. I don’t really enjoy playing against an army of SuperHeavies, but my friends own a bunch and so we compromise. If they want to play more than 1 or 2 at a time, they let me know ahead and I play a list that gives us both a decent chance to win. I know the Russes are going down the turn they break cover, but I’ll take some anyway kind of thing. It’s almost a narrative game for us, at that point, where I take a list to achieve a “story” in which my army is not specifically tailored to kill Knights, but has enough of the tools in the right combinations to make it possible, while still giving my opponent a good mix of targets. It’s tough, and basically makes me responsible for balancing our game, but it’s better than the alternative.

Ice_can wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Nobody else feels like titanic units should be susceptible to morale to some degree?

A n elite heavy infantry squad with about the same of wounds will most likely run if reduced to 3-4 wounds. A knight will not.

Unless you are taking the last wound off and killing it, you know its firing back at you full profile next round(IKs).

1 No you don't that requires 1 a set subfaction and 2 CP spend on the strategums and not being Vected.

You know what also doesn't have moral any single model unit, if you want to start having tanks, charictors etc take moral tests for wounds fine, missing the thing moral is supposed to be balancing, ie lots of uber cheap models, that give brokenly poor return on investment when shot at or Close combated.

Ohh you would want that options and have it for free would you ?
As discussed 1 knight is equivalent to about 3 tanks.... so its not the same thing Unless those tanks have 23 wounds. Something with 23 or more wounds is just obscene in the same game as a T3 1 wound infantry..

The genie is out of the bottle so no point complaining about it. The issue is IK just gak all over their xenos counterparts. Add soup in the mix and the gap widens still. I would rather play a tide of green than something that's auto target priority.

I think that every Lord of War in the game needs a save of 5++, no matter what army, at a minimum to go along with the idea of being a "Lord of War", they all deserve that at least. I think the Baneblades are more or less well balanced since they only hit on 4+ but they have no invulnerable save, so why bother when you can take a knight instead, which hits on 3+s?

I don't like "mixing" (souping), I just want to play pure IG, the last few games I've played against pure Knights is such a pain in the ass, and I wasn't even min/maxing as much as I could have been, though I guess if I massed Basilisks and Manticores, I may have done better, but I don't really want to play with a parking lot. I don't even own a Baneblade but I would love to, but I have a feeling it'd get chewed up and spit out by any Knight on turn 1.


More on topic, I like Super Heavies, if you play with people who use them it helps you to learn how to deal with them if nothing else. They are a part of the game and I don't like the idea of banning things from the game or parsing things out into different "brackets", just talk it out with your buddies if you don't like them or just find people who don't use them instead.

In my second game of 40K in 1996 I faced an Eldar Cobra grav tank by Armorcast. They've come and gone, but LOW are here to stay. Why do folks want to ban other people's models? Worry about your own list. Don't like Knights? Don't buy one.

I've enjoyed my games against Knights and the big Eldar Wraithdude. I don't enjoy the Tau Riptide due to drone shenanigans, but I've learned to have a counter (besides chewing on the table edge out of frustration). My Baneblade and Shadowsword don't see too much action, but its cool to roll them out every now and then and knock the rust off the tracks.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
In my second game of 40K in 1996 I faced an Eldar Cobra grav tank by Armorcast. They've come and gone, but LOW are here to stay. Why do folks want to ban other people's models? Worry about your own list. Don't like Knights? Don't buy one.

I've enjoyed my games against Knights and the big Eldar Wraithdude. I don't enjoy the Tau Riptide due to drone shenanigans, but I've learned to have a counter (besides chewing on the table edge out of frustration). My Baneblade and Shadowsword don't see too much action, but its cool to roll them out every now and then and knock the rust off the tracks.

This is sadly the core issue. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

GW should never have introduced most flyers or super heavies into standard 40k but they did due to the fact that they make a lot of money selling those models if you can use them more often. Once you blended in Apoc into a standard game you got a weird hybrid that doesn't do either game justice.

It's my opinion that the game has generally suffered for it but at this point I would settle for GW to figure out some way to make most infantry and smaller tanks mean anything against knights being powered by a cheer leading loyal 32.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

It's my opinion that the game has generally suffered for it but at this point I would settle for GW to figure out some way to make most infantry and smaller tanks mean anything against knights being powered by a cheer leading loyal 32.

Welcome to Kill Team, my friend. It's where the spirit of 40k has gone.

I said other to avoid skew. An IK in a 500pt match feels unsportsmanlike but at 2000 is a liability. A castellan and full ik/armiger list at 2000 could be r/p/s'd by mission type or meta list but still doesn't feel like a fair pug fight. A tiered approach perhaps?

Superheavies have weaknesses as well as strengths, so I don't have any problem with them. Yes, I do have a Knight, and two more currently in various stages of building, but honestly look at the armies of pure Knights and see how they aren't dominating tournaments. They aren't as crazy good as some people like to believe. Castellans are pretty gross, but really only when they are supported by all the Guard and Blood Angels stuff. So really it's soup that is what makes some superheavies nasty, and then only because the rest of the army shores up their main weaknesses.

The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Loving Kill Team, which is basically 40k 8th with these changes (alternating unit activation and 1-to-3-command-points-per-turn instead of a pool to burn over the game) and scored-every-turn objectives (in kill team:arena), I feel they're both positive changes. Neither specifically changes things for superheavies, though.

The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

This. TITANIC as a keyword doesn't grant you anything aside from the ability to be painfully sodomised by Macro weapons and Shadowswords. A stompa is not all that dissimilar to a castellan with a melee arm in vague weapons layout and toughness, but at 900-ish points the only people complaining about it are the orks.

The easiest, minimum changes, system is to just lock CP to the detachment that generates it and solve the CP battery problem without having to worry about the effects of a more complicated change.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't mind allies and a really don't want to screw over someone who wants to play an iconic army from the narrative - guard and dark angels at koth ridge, for example. The problem with allies in 7th wasn't their existance, but using mixed battlebrothers units to give units rules they were never intended to have (oh look, this one white scar biker gives the whole unit hit and run...).

The equivalent in 8th is shared command point pools. I've no problem with stratagems being powerful if you need to spend 900-odd points to earn the command points to use them. Being able to bring a pittance of cheap expendables and use their command points on a different faction's units has always felt wierd.

I would much prefer for superheavies (and fliers, if necessary) to be Apocalypse-only. They skew the game too mcc away from infantry, while the game still tries to be infantry-centric but fails at it.

Pure knights sucks. I alwais win against them, even in one game with a casual tau list, he destroyed all my antitank weaponry (3 railgun hammerheads, 3 broadsides and 1 riptide) turn 1 and then I won without shooting a single shoot because why bother with the rest of my army claiming objetives (30ish kroot, 70 ish firewarriors, two 3 man stealth suits units, a couple characters, cadres, one etereal)
Just as pure custodes only work against elite, pure knights only work against parking lots or other superheavies.

I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

Getting the first turn really wasn't that big of a deal back then.

I haven't played in a long time, but the idea of super heavies just feels like too much power for the small scale of battles I enjoy.

That said, it is good that the option is there for players that want them and no one is forcing me to play super heavies so I don't see any need to ban them.

tinbee wrote:
I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

Getting the first turn really wasn't that big of a deal back then.

I haven't played in a long time, but the idea of super heavies just feels like too much power for the small scale of battles I enjoy.

That said, it is good that the option is there for players that want them and no one is forcing me to play super heavies so I don't see any need to ban them.

Yeah the irony that 40k Kill team has more uncommon with 2nd edition than 8th edition has isn't lost on all of us.
I remember when I sold my Pretorians because trying to expand them to keep up with the scale creep wasn't worth it, at the time.
40k has been scaled up over the editions, but even back in second edition people (myself included) did play larger scale games for fun, they just used to take a full day at best to complete. Though 16 by 8 table did make the 2nd edition movement of vehicles make sence.

tinbee wrote:
I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

The game you (and I) actually enjoy in the 40k universe is Kill Team. Sure it needs some support, but it's getting there.

Well maybe titanic units should have higher BS and -1 hit penalty against non titanic units.

Having +1 hit for non titanic units to hit them would be too much the other way...A simple nerf to BS vs standard units would be aight.

To all the people saying "its in the game now has to stay"

Want to buy my squats?
my Imperial army speeders?
Imperial army jet bikes?
Imperial army figures with bolters, power armor, etc.
Stuff has been removed. and in a little bit regular marines will be too.

Super heavies break the scale of a game built on small infantry skirmishes.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
To all the people saying "its in the game now has to stay"

Want to buy my squats?
my Imperial army speeders?
Imperial army jet bikes?
Imperial army figures with bolters, power armor, etc.
Stuff has been removed. and in a little bit regular marines will be too.

Super heavies break the scale of a game built on small infantry skirmishes.

See, the game isn't about small infantry skirmishes anymore though. Maybe that was it's origins, but it hasn't been that way for quite a long time. Hell, in 5th edition armored lists containing land raiders and other tanks were quite common. If you want a small infantry skirmish, play Kill Team. 40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40Ks scale is so off that I'm not sure what anyone can say. Go look up the battle of Kursk and then tell me if there's any way that can happen in 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40Ks scale is so off that I'm not sure what anyone can say. Go look up the battle of Kursk and then tell me if there's any way that can happen in 40K.

Maybe a 2v2 or 3v3 battles, but before apoc scale I thinks!
Scratch that. This is more like 2v2/3v3 apoc match.

Well, at Kursk, they had the advantage of being able to shoot further than they could throw a rock.

Bharring wrote:
Well, at Kursk, they had the advantage of being able to shoot further than they could throw a rock.

True that. Oh, GW.

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40K still meets that definition. A battalion could certainly have a Baneblade, or a few Knights assigned to it. Would they be in every battle? No, but this is a scale where it makes sense for them to operate. Apocalypse is world war scale... where you have Warlord and Emperor Titans, Thunderhawks, multiple lances of Knights (like Battletech style, where you'd have 3 lances of 4 in a company), multiple companies of main battle tanks, etc.

There are probably more Titans, and certainly more Knights, than there are Alaitoc Shining Spear Exarchs, but we certainly see more Shining Spear Exarchs on tables than Titans.

40k is a company scale game. Apocalypse (previously Epic) is a mass battle scale. Kill Team is a skirmish/warband level game.

Despite the org charts erroneous names, the game is company scale and below.

No matter what has been brought into the games.
The rules are not able to properly handle the differences in scale from guy with a knife to walking titanic robot with montain shattering guns. the d6 cant cope with the scale shift.

It is because of that i say the super heavies should not be part of the game.

If we need tiers thats fine. My earlier post was meant to convey GW has and will continue to remove things from the game. The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

 Stux wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

That's why I was so happy that I got years of use out of the expanded Corsairs line! </sarcasm>

More seriously; yes, they're part of the game. Expect to face them. There's nothing wrong with *someone else* liking them and wanting to field them.

Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

Edit - not helpful. As the previous poster said, outside the Castellan, it's not so dire.

Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 42% chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 225 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

224.66 shots > 149.77 hits + 24.96 hits (rerolled 1's); 145.61 ~6's + 29.12 6's > 24.26 wounds + 20.22 wounds (rerolled doom) @ AP 0 + 9.70 + 4.04 wounds (doom reroll) @ AP-3 > 14.83 wounds unsaved at 3+, 9.16 wounds unsaved at 5++.

EDITEDIT bad math. 225 shuriken shots

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

With Jinx, biel-tan CT:

159.96 shots > 106.64 hits + 17.77 hits (rerolled 1's); 103.68 ~6's + 20.73 6's > 17.28 wounds + 14.40 wounds (rerolled doom) @ AP 0 + 6.91 + 2.88 wounds (doom reroll) @ AP-3 > 15.84 wounds unsaved at 3+ minus 1 (from jinx), 8.16 wounds unsaved at 5++ minus 1 (from jinx).

So you're looking at about 640~900 pts of guardians before farseer. I don't think that's a good trade.

EDITEDITEDIT and don't forget the HQ taxes required to bring two battalions to bring 8 to 12 units of guardians

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 1/6 chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 324 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

324 shots > 216 hits + 72 hits rerolled; 240 ~6's + 48 6's > 40 wounds @ AP 0 + 16 wounds @ AP-3 > 13.33 wounds unsaved at 3+, 10.67 wounds unsaved at 5++.

Yeah I suppose its significantly easier to kill a knight with doom + 324 shuriken shots than astartes with boltguns.

How the heck do you have a 1/6 chance to get doom off? It almost always is a successful cast.

 Stux wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

The poll is do you believe they belong, i stated my opinion and reasoning. Your argument seems to be they are in the game now so they belong. I merely pointed out things get removed.

I voted "limited to apoc."

I just find the game less fun when units like this exist. They are invariably just too strong, or designed in such a way that they create a 1 dimensional gaming experience, instant win or lose.

I also think that the FLYER battlefield role should be changed a bit. With a limitation of 1 per battalion, 2 per brigade, and get rid of the FLYER wing.

But maybe i'm just old school.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doom is definitely not a 1/6 chance to get off.

If you have a Seer Council, you get +1. Rerolling 1 or both, thanks to runes, it is rare to fail.

That said, when you factor in denies, culexus, etc, it changes dramatically. Also, if you factor in some armies "deny on a 4+" abilities, that also shifts the bar. Spells aren't cast in a vacuum.

You're also paying over 200 points for 2 HQs that literally don't do much outside of casting Doom, Guide, and probably Quicken, situationally jinx or protect.

 Horst wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 1/6 chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 324 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

324 shots > 216 hits + 72 hits rerolled; 240 ~6's + 48 6's > 40 wounds @ AP 0 + 16 wounds @ AP-3 > 13.33 wounds unsaved at 3+, 10.67 wounds unsaved at 5++.

Yeah I suppose its significantly easier to kill a knight with doom + 324 shuriken shots than astartes with boltguns.

How the heck do you have a 1/6 chance to get doom off? It almost always is a successful cast.

I wouldn't say 1/6...

But, you are not likely in range because it is only 24" on turn1.
Maybe in range turn 2 if you happen run a biker seer with a huge point intensive shining spears screen or flyers.

That 2+4++ is there and you dont have to roll for it. It just happens. And before you say it, only 2 factions have vect and most tournunamets around where I live are sinlge codex events.

Anyting that you dont have to roll for is reliable.
Psychic powers are beneficial but not 100% reliable.. Its a dice game.

In my opinion, both super-heavies and large fliers should've been Apocalypse only, with rules and statlines created with that in mind. Even things like Knights, Riptides, and Wraithknights straddle the line of what I'd call reasonable for a 6x4 board, never mind to try and force into a D6-based game.

But now they're out and so common, I can't see it being changed. I reckon they'd sooner alter the dice system than reverse decisions to merge super-heavies into regular play, not that I feel that move would be one they'd exactly take, either.

At this point I feel it's more a case of trying to cope with the fact they're here and likely not going away. I might not like it, but that might be partly why I've only played one match since the start of 6th. I don't think I enjoy 40k for what it currently is, but lots of people seem to.

 Argive wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 1/6 chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 324 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

324 shots > 216 hits + 72 hits rerolled; 240 ~6's + 48 6's > 40 wounds @ AP 0 + 16 wounds @ AP-3 > 13.33 wounds unsaved at 3+, 10.67 wounds unsaved at 5++.

Yeah I suppose its significantly easier to kill a knight with doom + 324 shuriken shots than astartes with boltguns.

How the heck do you have a 1/6 chance to get doom off? It almost always is a successful cast.

I wouldn't say 1/6...

But, you are not likely in range because it is only 24" on turn1.
Maybe in range turn 2 if you happen run a biker seer with a huge point intensive shining spears screen or flyers.

That 2+4++ is there and you dont have to roll for it. It just happens. And before you say it, only 2 factions have vect and most tournunamets around where I live are sinlge codex events.

Anyting that you dont have to roll for is reliable.
Psychic powers are beneficial but not 100% reliable.. Its a dice game.

Yeah that was based off my terribad math. It's now edited.

People try to come up with reasons/methods on which knights can be taken out with ease under within-a-vacuum circumstances. When you offer a rebuttal within-a-vacuum calculations they say its not realistic.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

Bharring wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

Don't disagree. This part of the thread was a response to "Doom + Shuriken will kill Knights" - technically true, but not effective. Guardsmen (or any other S4 or lower) troop basically do the same.

Those Skyweavers with Doom really do rock a Castellan. 3++ T8 and 24 wounds? Haywire is one of the few tools that it fears. They'll scare just about any unit.

I'm not confident that they'd be cost effective at dropping things like Vypers or others of it's class, but that's a whole other rabbit hole. They're definitely good - and the meta practically demands them.

Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

Mono they are because there is atleast another two 5++ save knights for you to shoot instead.
Really sounds like Knights could be made a lot less contentious by requiring a lance for strategum access.

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

I find Super Heavies - and Knights in particular - make for an incredibly boring game.

Win or lose, there's simply no fun to be had when playing against them because they're so one-dimensional.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Superheavies have weaknesses as well as strengths, so I don't have any problem with them. Yes, I do have a Knight, and two more currently in various stages of building, but honestly look at the armies of pure Knights and see how they aren't dominating tournaments. They aren't as crazy good as some people like to believe. Castellans are pretty gross, but really only when they are supported by all the Guard and Blood Angels stuff. So really it's soup that is what makes some superheavies nasty, and then only because the rest of the army shores up their main weaknesses.

It is not just about winning tournaments, it is also about the overall experience. Pure Knight lists are an extreme skew list with some bad match-ups so if they hit that match they drop out of contention for the tournament. That does not make the experience of playing against them any better for the other 4 players over the weekend.

Obviously the same issue applies to other massive skew lists and could be said of a green tide list - and would be just as true. But this discussion is about superheavies so let us look at the extreme skew that superheavies might bring to the game. A lot of the spam skew lists got fixed by the rule of 3 but I find that there are a few which pretty much escaped the effects of that
* Troop spam lists (hordes)
* Superheavy lists (in which each model is already the equivalent skew factor to 3 or 4 "normal" models IMO)
* Factions with overlapping very similar datasheets (such as Daemon Princes).

I think each of those wants looking at in its own away and to the extent that it can tend to create poor game experiences - especially on the middle tables and pick-up games which is where most of the good or bad gaming experiences will be happening.

The other thing that messes with game balance is the return on investment for any force multiplier when applied to a single unit which has such a huge value. Force multipliers (buffs) are not really scaled to the size of the thing they buff at all - which makes the game simpler and more streamlined but also does create balance issues especially when those buffs get stacked. If the game had equal access to de-buffs then this would all balance out but as currently designed most factions have a lot more buffs available that de-buffs so those super-expensive units benefit hugely.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
To all the people saying "its in the game now has to stay"

Want to buy my squats?
my Imperial army speeders?
Imperial army jet bikes?
Imperial army figures with bolters, power armor, etc.
Stuff has been removed. and in a little bit regular marines will be too.

Super heavies break the scale of a game built on small infantry skirmishes.

Well, you could put your Squats up for sale and see what happens. You might be able to buy a few Knights with the proceeds.

In all seriousness, you are talking about things that happened over 20 years ago (mostly in the transition from RT to 2nd Ed) or a thing that has not happened (regular Space Marines). Knights are premium models that GW appears to be quite proud of. They are also quite popular, and not just for competitive reasons. The models you are talking about from the RT days were, at best, fringe models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I find Super Heavies - and Knights in particular - make for an incredibly boring game.

Win or lose, there's simply no fun to be had when playing against them because they're so one-dimensional.

I've had some very fun tourney games against Lords of War (Baneblades and Knights mostly). I had a hilarious game against a list with three Baneblades and an NPC Warhound (I'm serious). I wouldn't call them one-dimensional. They can be absolutely frustrating if you don't have a plan for facing them. That's true of lots of things.

I think that a maximum 4++ save on Lords of War would go a long way to alleviating some of the anxiety out there. Nobody was worried about Knights before their Codex. Mortarian, Magnus and Guilliman might need a more finesse solution.

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.

You're likely to have reroll, but very unlikely to have bonuses. So it's likely 82%.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

2 units of 6 Skyweavers don't need Guide to reliably delete a Doomed Castellan. It's one of the few reliable ways to do it.

Ice_can wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

Mono they are because there is atleast another two 5++ save knights for you to shoot instead.

A couple of things I'm salty about:
Rotate Ion shields costs ONE command point and can be activated as soon as you're targeted. Grey knights Heed the Prognosticars costs TWO CP and has to be done at the beginning of your turn, so you have to make that commitment before you know if you're going to be shot or not.

Bharring wrote:

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.

You're likely to have reroll, but very unlikely to have bonuses. So it's likely 82%.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

2 units of 6 Skyweavers don't need Guide to reliably delete a Doomed Castellan. It's one of the few reliable ways to do it.

+1 from Seer council is common. And I'm aware of the potency of skyweavers.

Superheavies are a genie that’s out of the bottle. The only way to put them back is to discuss list building with your local group, and that is to say it’s on you not the game.

Don’t like them, don’t use them.

Don’t like playing against them, don’t play against them.

Or you can buckle down and just deal with them. They are here to stay.

SJ

Tomb Kings are a genie out of the bottle. They are simply here to stay now and you just have to deal with it

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tomb Kings are a genie out of the bottle. They are simply here to stay now and you just have to deal with it

Hey, Setra never did kneel, the world broke before he did. #BuiltTombKingTough

I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

I’m playing a 2vs2 match next weekend, 1500 pts each and I asked for a non-super-Heavy game and all agreed. I’m really looking forward to it.

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like. It's fun, and you can always agree limitations with your opponent in casual games if you want to play something specific. Knights have a full codex now and players have invested in the models. Not only that but they sell well so GW are not going to remove them from the game.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

That's an absurd argument. Buying a model and then being told you can't use it in the game you bought it for is an absolutely and completely different situation to not wanting someone else's models in your game.

What a ridiculous false equivalence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, there are armies that have been retired in the past. Squats, and Corsairs. But surely we aren't advocating for the retiring of other people's armies now? Just because it happened to some people, no one would be spiteful enough to wish it on others right?

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers.

But wouldn't it be better to have different systems for this? One for the skirmish games and one for the big, epic battles?

 Brother Castor wrote:
It's fun

[Citation needed.]

 vipoid wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers.

But wouldn't it be better to have different systems for this? One for the skirmish games and one for the big, epic battles?

Personally I like having them all in the same system.

 vipoid wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
It's fun

[Citation needed.]

I guess we have differing opinions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think TITANIC units would be fun for your opponent in a small game unless the point was just to experience what it's like to play against them.

At the same time though, I think it's amazing that Forge World sell models and rules for a Chaos Warlord Titan.

Ice_can wrote:
Super heavies atleast feel like they should be part of 40K heck even Titans while were way cooler in Epic make sence.

Super sonic Flyers make no sense in 40k, like realy these marines can not move this direction because flyer, and the supersonic fighter with psychic flamers WTF?

Atleast baneblades, knights, primarchs make sence.

So Giants robots and tanks who need big transports to get carried from planet to planet are ok and flyers who are used more often are no ?

 Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

That's an absurd argument. Buying a model and then being told you can't use it in the game you bought it for is an absolutely and completely different situation to not wanting someone else's models in your game.

What a ridiculous false equivalence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, there are armies that have been retired in the past. Squats, and Corsairs. But surely we aren't advocating for the retiring of other people's armies now? Just because it happened to some people, no one would be spiteful enough to wish it on others right?

I wonder if it has end up a similar result, when knights come out. I remember it was a play a game or two against them. Then try and avoid them :( No one wanted to play that game at all. When it come to it, if you are not having fun and the other player can only play the game that way. Someone ends up being pushed out.

The problem with wanting 40k to cater to everyone is one set of rules CANNOT do this. Different size games want different levels of detail. In a large scale system you don't want to care about specific weapons, but that information is a must-have in a skirmish game.

We are in the boat we are with 40k precisely because they tried to make a one size fits all game, and showed exactly why that is not done in game design.

It's been the same since RT days though. And back then you treated each model separately, not as units...

Wayniac wrote:
The problem with wanting 40k to cater to everyone is one set of rules CANNOT do this. Different size games want different levels of detail. In a large scale system you don't want to care about specific weapons, but that information is a must-have in a skirmish game.

We are in the boat we are with 40k precisely because they tried to make a one size fits all game, and showed exactly why that is not done in game design.

Has it really shown that though? There are plenty of tournament winning lists that do not include any superheavies, which to me indicates that one set of rules CAN work and make a fairly balanced game.

I'd be interested to know why you think one set of rules can't cater for both. I mean it clearly can because it does. I'm assuming you mean there are disadvantages of it doing so? Just writing an opinion in capitals doesn't make it a fact.

 Brother Castor wrote:
I'd be interested to know why you think one set of rules can't cater for both. I mean it clearly can because it does. I'm assuming you mean there are disadvantages of it doing so? Just writing an opinion in capitals doesn't make it a fact.

Well i would say that knights basicaly broke 40k in a few places not entirly the rules, but how they interact and what they wanted to get out of the rules.

As well as the rules being kinda bad right now, small scaled games and games with a focus on infantry will often have rules that give lots of movement options as well as shorter weapon ranges. Games that forcus more on large scale do not need to focus on infantry details as much. WHich is why so many infanty weapons are kinda useless in 40k.

Good games have a wider range, but considering the state of 40k i do not think they succeeded at all.

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like.

I love that you can have everything from Imperial Guard Conscripts (M6 WS5 BS5 S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld4 Sv5+) to a Warlord Titan (M18 WS4 BS2 S16 T16 W70 A5 Ld10 Sv2+3++), and play out any battle you like from the setting.

Mind you, you might look a bit like a TFG if you turned up at a local gaming club with a £1000 FW titan looking for a pick-up game

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like.

I love that you can have everything from Imperial Guard Conscripts (M6 WS5 BS5 S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld4 Sv5+) to a Warlord Titan (M18 WS4 BS2 S16 T16 W70 A5 Ld10 Sv2+3++), and play out any battle you like from the setting.

Mind you, you might look a bit like a TFG if you turned up at a local gaming club with a £1000 FW titan looking for a pick-up game

A 1000 pound titan belongs in a glass cabinet and not on the tabletop.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like.

I love that you can have everything from Imperial Guard Conscripts (M6 WS5 BS5 S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld4 Sv5+) to a Warlord Titan (M18 WS4 BS2 S16 T16 W70 A5 Ld10 Sv2+3++), and play out any battle you like from the setting.

Mind you, you might look a bit like a TFG if you turned up at a local gaming club with a £1000 FW titan looking for a pick-up game

But, unless you cheat...

You’d almost certainly lose!

Marin wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Super heavies atleast feel like they should be part of 40K heck even Titans while were way cooler in Epic make sence.

Super sonic Flyers make no sense in 40k, like realy these marines can not move this direction because flyer, and the supersonic fighter with psychic flamers WTF?

Atleast baneblades, knights, primarchs make sence.

So Giants robots and tanks who need big transports to get carried from planet to planet are ok and flyers who are used more often are no ?

The way they interact with other units is broken bring able to move block with flyers is dumb.
Having a supersonic fighter that moves slower than running foot sloging infantry.
Flyers on the battlefield of 40k would be better represented by strategums. Landers and thinga like valkaries make sence, but they aren't realy ever leaving VTOL mode if they are remaining in the space represented by a 40k 6x4 table.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I love that you can have everything from Imperial Guard Conscripts (M6 WS5 BS5 S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld4 Sv5+) to a Warlord Titan (M18 WS4 BS2 S16 T16 W70 A5 Ld10 Sv2+3++), and play out any battle you like from the setting.

Mind you, you might look a bit like a TFG if you turned up at a local gaming club with a £1000 FW titan looking for a pick-up game

But, unless you cheat...

You’d almost certainly lose!

It's still cool that the game can cater for it, if only from the point of view of seeing some amazing datasheets.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like.

I love that you can have everything from Imperial Guard Conscripts (M6 WS5 BS5 S3 T3 W1 A1 Ld4 Sv5+) to a Warlord Titan (M18 WS4 BS2 S16 T16 W70 A5 Ld10 Sv2+3++), and play out any battle you like from the setting.

The problem becomes that when things like the Warlord Titan come into play, or even units an order of magnitude smaller, the differences between that Guard Conscripts and a Space Marine or Aspect Warrior or Ork Nob all become largely irrelevant and they might as well all be T1 W1 Sv- with S1 weapons, but many of those units are paying significantly more for stats that are only really relevant when comparing between other Troops, and thus against the Titans and Knights aren't performing any better than the Guardsmen really but die just the same and have far fewer numbers.

Likewise, why on earth do I care or need to bother with what type of pistol or power weapon blade a Sergeant has when we're fighting a Warlord Titan or a Knight Lance? Why am I bothering to keep track of the individual dude armed with a flamer or meltagun when we're engaging in such battles? That level of detail and granularity just becomes pointless and time wasting at such scales. The level of detail scales inversely with unit scale, which is rather bass-ackwards, with larger units largely just getting rules to ignore restrictions on things while the smaller scale a unit is the more rules it has to worry about (a Warlord Titan doesn't have to worry about moving and shooting or often even LoS, doesn't have to worry about losing models with specific weapons, doesn't have to deal with Morale tests, it just shoots and takes penalties according to its damage table).

Yeah the game can physically make all these things work on a table together, but it's really hamfisted and runs into a lot of issues, there's a reason these scales usually get broken up into different rulesets.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem becomes that when things like the Warlord Titan come into play, or even units an order of magnitude smaller, the differences between that Guard Conscripts and a Space Marine or Aspect Warrior or Ork Nob all become largely irrelevant and they might as well all be T1 W1 Sv- with S1 weapons, but many of those units are paying significantly more for stats that are only really relevant when comparing between other Troops, and thus against the Titans and Knights aren't performing any better than the Guardsmen really but die just the same and have far fewer numbers.

That's a good point. Probably quite realistic though. How would another system handle it better? Surely Marines will always need to cost more than Conscripts if they're allowed to fire at each other and retain their relative effectiveness as well?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem becomes that when things like the Warlord Titan come into play, or even units an order of magnitude smaller, the differences between that Guard Conscripts and a Space Marine or Aspect Warrior or Ork Nob all become largely irrelevant and they might as well all be T1 W1 Sv- with S1 weapons, but many of those units are paying significantly more for stats that are only really relevant when comparing between other Troops, and thus against the Titans and Knights aren't performing any better than the Guardsmen really but die just the same and have far fewer numbers.

Likewise, why on earth do I care or need to bother with what type of pistol or power weapon blade a Sergeant has when we're fighting a Warlord Titan or a Knight Lance? Why am I bothering to keep track of the individual dude armed with a flamer or meltagun when we're engaging in such battles? That level of detail and granularity just becomes pointless and time wasting at such scales. The level of detail scales inversely with unit scale, which is rather bass-ackwards, with larger units largely just getting rules to ignore restrictions on things while the smaller scale a unit is the more rules it has to worry about (a Warlord Titan doesn't have to worry about moving and shooting or often even LoS, doesn't have to worry about losing models with specific weapons, doesn't have to deal with Morale tests, it just shoots and takes penalties according to its damage table).

Yeah the game can physically make all these things work on a table together, but it's really hamfisted and runs into a lot of issues, there's a reason these scales usually get broken up into different rulesets.

I was going to make a similar point, but you phrased it a lot more clearly than I would have.

One thing I'll elaborate on is the lack of detail at the level of Knights. You'd think that vehicles of that size might have some more detailed rules. Maybe they're like the Gargantuan creatures in Warmachine, where you attack different parts of them (each with their own damage grids). So maybe you'd have to decide between shooting the left or right side. Or between shooting the torso or legs. Nope. Just a single, standard Wounds score. Okay. Well I'm sure that Knights have some tough decisions to make. Do they have power reactors and have to divert power between shields or weapons? Nope. Do they have more restrictive movement due to their immense size and mass, thus necessitating the use of supporting units to guard their flanks/rear? Nope. Hell, the small ones can match a fething Ravager for speed. Glad DE stripped the armour from their vehicles to make them faster.

Basically, far from having more detailed rules, all they do is ignore existing rules. And this is why I don't find them fun to play against. There's nothing to them. They're just bricks with guns. There's no satisfaction in damaging them because it makes so little difference. And even if you actually manage to destroy one, it just feels so unrewarding. It's like celebrating because you managed to drink an entire bucket of wallpaper paste.

Vipoid nailed it. Couldn't have said it better

 SHUPPET wrote:
Vipoid nailed it. Couldn't have said it better

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

One thing I'll elaborate on is the lack of detail at the level of Knights. You'd think that vehicles of that size might have some more detailed rules. ... far from having more detailed rules, all they do is ignore existing rules. And this is why I don't find them fun to play against. There's nothing to them. They're just bricks with guns. There's no satisfaction in damaging them because it makes so little difference. And even if you actually manage to destroy one, it just feels so unrewarding. It's like celebrating because you managed to drink an entire bucket of wallpaper paste.

That should be immortalized in signature somewhere...

suprised that you don't have a "limited to 1 or 2" option. I'd vote for that. All knights is kinds pants-on-head dumb

D&D has generally had one rulesset that handles both some random goblin scrub and literal gods.

Said rulesset was less balanced than 40k (and deeper), but it didn't make the "game" unfun.

The difference is 40k is more competitive inherently than D&D. But 40k isn't a pure competitive sport.

40k *can* have rules for both ends of the spectrum. It's likely to balance poorly when the far ends of the spectrum get used - much like in D&D, the balance between gods and goblins is likely to be off. That means a matchup between a midrange TAC list and a pure-Superheavy list or a pure-Horde list is likely to be uneven. But it doesn't necessitate which side is more powerful.

Outside the Castellean, 40k seems to have balanced such that Superheavies can be fielded, but lose the skew matchup. I like that. People I play can bring Superheavies, and I'm not going to auto-lose because I didn't bring Superheavies (or a list tailored to beat them). While being balanced would be preferable, it's not viable to balance every point on the spectrum - so if TAC vs SuperheavySpam has to skew one direction, I'm glad it's in TAC's direction.

In other words, I think GW has fixed superheavies the right way. They are legal, but not optimal (mostly). So the game doesn't revolve around them.

All that said, I don't like facing Superheavies personally. But that's my problem; if someone else wants to play superheavies, that's their perogative. Some people don't like playing against Eldar, and that's their perogative - I'll switch to Marines/Tau or arrange to play a team game as their ally if possible, but I'm not going to bin my Eldar just because they don't like them. There are other people I can play my Eldar against (or they can play their Knight-spam list against).

 Lobukia wrote:
suprised that you don't have a "limited to 1 or 2" option. I'd vote for that. All knights is kinds pants-on-head dumb

An all knight army is a lot less oppressive than a souped up castellan with tons of CP. against a pure knight, you can actually easily win by securing objectives. you can also bait out the rotate ion shield to actually kill some knights. They also run out of CP super fast so their efficiency drops early in the game

Question: Other than the Knight Castellan and/or Rotate Ion Shields being uncapped, are there any particular superheavies that are an issue? I might point at the Shadowsword and say it might be an issue, but most Superheavies I've played against (Knights excluded) were big but impractical meme picks.

Play with as many as you want. If you want something more of a tactical game play Kill Team instead.

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem becomes that when things like the Warlord Titan come into play, or even units an order of magnitude smaller, the differences between that Guard Conscripts and a Space Marine or Aspect Warrior or Ork Nob all become largely irrelevant and they might as well all be T1 W1 Sv- with S1 weapons, but many of those units are paying significantly more for stats that are only really relevant when comparing between other Troops, and thus against the Titans and Knights aren't performing any better than the Guardsmen really but die just the same and have far fewer numbers.

Likewise, why on earth do I care or need to bother with what type of pistol or power weapon blade a Sergeant has when we're fighting a Warlord Titan or a Knight Lance? Why am I bothering to keep track of the individual dude armed with a flamer or meltagun when we're engaging in such battles? That level of detail and granularity just becomes pointless and time wasting at such scales. The level of detail scales inversely with unit scale, which is rather bass-ackwards, with larger units largely just getting rules to ignore restrictions on things while the smaller scale a unit is the more rules it has to worry about (a Warlord Titan doesn't have to worry about moving and shooting or often even LoS, doesn't have to worry about losing models with specific weapons, doesn't have to deal with Morale tests, it just shoots and takes penalties according to its damage table).

Yeah the game can physically make all these things work on a table together, but it's really hamfisted and runs into a lot of issues, there's a reason these scales usually get broken up into different rulesets.

I was going to make a similar point, but you phrased it a lot more clearly than I would have.

One thing I'll elaborate on is the lack of detail at the level of Knights. You'd think that vehicles of that size might have some more detailed rules. Maybe they're like the Gargantuan creatures in Warmachine, where you attack different parts of them (each with their own damage grids). So maybe you'd have to decide between shooting the left or right side. Or between shooting the torso or legs. Nope. Just a single, standard Wounds score. Okay. Well I'm sure that Knights have some tough decisions to make. Do they have power reactors and have to divert power between shields or weapons? Nope. Do they have more restrictive movement due to their immense size and mass, thus necessitating the use of supporting units to guard their flanks/rear? Nope. Hell, the small ones can match a fething Ravager for speed. Glad DE stripped the armour from their vehicles to make them faster.

Basically, far from having more detailed rules, all they do is ignore existing rules. And this is why I don't find them fun to play against. There's nothing to them. They're just bricks with guns. There's no satisfaction in damaging them because it makes so little difference. And even if you actually manage to destroy one, it just feels so unrewarding. It's like celebrating because you managed to drink an entire bucket of wallpaper paste.

Yeah, this has always been the greatest missed opportunity I see with the Knights. Rather than a degrading stat line, they should have made them a little more like Knights Renegade, and made them sort of a conglomeration model with multiple profiles for various portions of it. I don't want it to turn into battletech, but giving the various components their own profiles with some extra rules for dealing with damage would be reasonable. But then we're still stuck with D6s sadly.