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

K right now, it wont be balanced as only a few armies have access to them. But in the future when they
do have super heavies released for everyone , maybe we could take ONE slot of it ( like rare choice for fantasy)
wouldnt that be alittle bit more fun?

Also another propsed rule or add on for Instant Death. Imo any weapon strength that doubles compare
to the victim's target should auto wound. Makes sense, not over the top Over powered , and gets rid of the frustrating
moments of rolling a 1.

First part, maybe.

Second part, no. Takes away from the chance that plasma destructor might not kill my IG.

First part, no. Super heavies are fine where they are. In lower point value games they would be a third to half of your army. Far too expensive to use, as well as being too tough for many armies. A lot of the super-heavy weapons are based around Apocalypse killyness level. For example, the ten inch blast. That would cover huge swaths of the average 1500 point army. A lot of Super- Heavies also come with the mighty Destroyer weapons. How are you going to make those work in regular 40k? Ignoring cover and autowounding would allow them to easily eradicate whatever they want to on turn 1. Plus, a lot of players don't have Super Heavies. At the FLGS, I can think of maybe three people that have Super Heavies.

Second part, no. The annoyance of rolling a one should always exist. Like Vindicators and Battlecannons need help anyways.

I'd be open to superheavies in standard games under the following circumstances.

1.) Limit of one per army.
2.) The point value of the superheavy cannot be more than 25% of the total army size. (playing a 2000 pt game you could have a 500 pt SH).
3.) You must tell your opponent you will be using one, so they can plan for it (you can't exactly hide the things )

I think if you did this, and kept the minimum game size around 2000 (1500 pt army + 500 pt SH) then you should be ok. Sure you will have some large templates and D strength weapons, but the just means you need to spread out and not dense pack things.


As for part 2: I can see the real world logic, but I think balance wise there needs to be some chance of survival.

First Part : Sure

Second Part : Weapons of S+8 that also MORE than double the model's toughness, yes.

EX:
T4 Space Marine v. S9 Lascannon = Instant Death auto-wound.

T3 Guardsmen v. S8 Meltagun = Instant Death no-auto-wound.

Basic reason? No need for Battle Cannons becoming uber weapons at R72", they aren't the awesome battle destroying weapons some people think because they occasionally take out half a squad of Space Marines, because more often they scatter to hell or your Space Marines are also getting 4+ Cover Saves from random bits of "shrubbery" in 5th Edition. But it still wouldn't be fair to have them gallivanting around being even scarier than they actually are. Weapons like the Earthshaker (S9), however, would be nice if they could do some damage, considering they will be scattering on average 7" from their intended target. So when they do hit something nice and solid, having it actually matter without having to worry about rolling two 1's out of the six or eight dice you'll be rolling and then your opponent saving half their models, because their guys are standing near some superfluous trees at the moment, would be nice. Just my opinion though.

Skinnattittar wrote:Second Part : Weapons of S8+ that also MORE than double the model's toughness, yes.

EX:
T4 Space Marine v. S9 Lascannon = Instant Death auto-wound.

T3 Guardsmen v. S8 Meltagun = Instant Death no-auto-wound.

Uh, what?

A Meltagun is Strength 8+, which is MORE than double the Guardsman's toughness. Why wouldn't it auto-wound them?

Sorry, weapons of Strength greater than 8. Like S9, used in the example of the Space Marine.

Apocalypse is for super-heavies, super-heavies are for Apocalypse.

If you pay for it, why not? The Death Strike Missile, much more fitting for Apocalypse than regular play is supposed to be in the new IG codex. Why not other Apocalypse-esque systems? Is the Baneblade and Stompa really for different?

Actually, they already have rules for this kind of situation... published in IA books...



You just have to spend a lot of money to get them....

Kilkrazy wrote:Apocalypse is for super-heavies, super-heavies are for Apocalypse.

Absolute nonsense. We had Super-Heavies before Apocalypse was even a hint of a whisper of an idea.

There's nothing wrong with using them in 'regular' 40K. Hell, the Macharius is something that should be a simple HS slot for a Guard army, given that two Russes (for the same cost) out gun it.

I'd say 1/3 of you points may be spent on a super-heavies.
With no other modifications to the FOC.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Apocalypse is for super-heavies, super-heavies are for Apocalypse.

Absolute nonsense. We had Super-Heavies before Apocalypse was even a hint of a whisper of an idea.

There's nothing wrong with using them in 'regular' 40K. Hell, the Macharius is something that should be a simple HS slot for a Guard army, given that two Russes (for the same cost) out gun it.

Use them in regular 40K if you like, voluntarily, but don't force them on those of us who dislike Apocalypse. We don't need two slightly different versions of Apocalypse.

I'd look at a Superheavy as consuming 1 Elite slot *plus* 1 Heavy slot per Structure Point.

So Guard could take a single 3SP Baneblade or Warhound in lieu of their Russes.

Or Chaos could take a 3SP Brass Scorpion in lieu of their Obliterators.

Well one Superheavy and no other heavy armor support is kinda a win-lose. One piece of armor doesn't outweigh several pieces of armor. You can say "well that's the trade off" but forcing people to make maimed army lists isn't really a good decision. How about one Fast Attack, one Elite, and one Heavy Support? Wouldn't help to bite from the Troops options as with the points well a Super Heavy makes, there won't be many points left to max out your troops anyhow.

Kilkrazy wrote:Use them in regular 40K if you like, voluntarily, but don't force them on those of us who dislike Apocalypse. We don't need two slightly different versions of Apocalypse.

Once again I state:

We have Super-Heavies before Apoc, so what has this got to do with Apoc?

All Apoc is is a mission, with rules for formations that have their own special rules, and rules for Strategic Assets. All Super-Heavies are are units, most of which existed with 40K rules long before Apoc ever came around. So using them in 'regular' 40K isn't 'forcing' Apoc on anyone. In fact, it's using Super-Heavies as they were originally written and intended (ie. in games of 2000+ points). So, KK, your line of thinking is flawed.

What people seem to forget is that most Super-Heavies are junk. Why? Because FW wrote most of the Super-Heavy rules. Even the Baneblade, the only truly useful Super-Heavy, was 636 points, about 100+ over what it should have been.

And what do I mean about the Baneblade being the only useful one? Let me explain.

Most superheavies suffer from 'One Big Gun' Syndrome in that they have a single weapon of tremendous power, and then a few piddly backup weapons. A single Gun Crew Stunned result, and the main gun is out of comission, leaving you with a 600+ behemoth that can fire off a few Heavy Bolters. Perfect example of this is the original Shadowsword, armed with a Volcano Cannon and 2 TL-Heavy Bolters. You get a Stunned or (worse) a Weapon Destroyed and you've now got something that puts out as much firepower as an 80-point Fire Support Squad. The Baneblade was the only truly useful one as it had two main guns, and a ton of secondary weapons. You could lose the Demolisher or Mega Battle Cannon and you'd still have 3 TL-HBs, an Autocannon and 2 Lascannons. It was overcosted, but at least you got some damned use out of it.

People have an irrational fear of Super-Heavies. People assume and believe that they will destroy all in their path. This is simply not true. Yes, they have scary weapons, but it doesn't take much to silence them and anything other than a Baneblade is often a liability (not to mention a fire magnet) and if it isn't dead by turn three it will just be an overpriced Heavy Bolter or Shuriken Cannon platform (what does an Eldar Scorpion do once the Pulsars are gone, other than be a massive overpriced target?).

Now someone's going to go "What about Strength D!!!"... well... that's an Apoc rule. This is about using Super-Heavies in regular 40K, and Strength D doesn't exist in regular 40K (and nor should it).

Finally DD's idea for One Elite + 1 Heavy per Structure simple doesn't work at all. Would you rather take a 300 point 2-structure point Macharius that takes up 1 Elite and 2 HS slots... or spend those points on a pair of Russes that both out-gun it, out durability it, and can take up 1 HS slots? What about the Malcador, a tank weaker than most common Russes? Or a Valdor or whatever the new one with the big phallic cannon is - that thing is a laughable excuse for a vehicle (thanks once again to FW's inability to write rules that are actually useful). Would you pay 1 Elite/2 HS for that piece of gak?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Use them in regular 40K if you like, voluntarily, but don't force them on those of us who dislike Apocalypse. We don't need two slightly different versions of Apocalypse.

Once again I state:

We have Super-Heavies before Apoc, so what has this got to do with Apoc?

All Apoc is is a mission, with rules for formations that have their own special rules, and rules for Strategic Assets. All Super-Heavies are are units, most of which existed with 40K rules long before Apoc ever came around. So using them in 'regular' 40K isn't 'forcing' Apoc on anyone. In fact, it's using Super-Heavies as they were originally written and intended (ie. in games of 2000+ points). So, KK, your line of thinking is flawed.

No it's not. When the edition changes, the rules change. 4e and 5e 40K do not make allowance for superheavies in standard games. Apoc does.

Therefore, if people want to use superheavies in standard games, they should play Apoc, because that's the game for superheavies.

A regular 40K player is fully entitled to refuse to play with superheavies in 40K and can receive no legitimate opprobrium for doing so.

To shoehorn superheavies into 40K duplicates a function of Apoc and diminishes both 40K and Apoc.

Next up, can I use WHFB magic rules in 40K?

Really this whole arguement revolves around "can I use it" syndrome. Which pretty much boils out to "what the other players agree to." If you don't want to play against someone who is using Lash of Submission, you don't have to and should suffer no ill treatment from other players. Why? Well because if Lash offends you so much it makes you not want to play, then you don't have to play! Nobody is forcing you to play 40k with them, it is always an option. So if someone says "I would like to use my Baneblade" you can decide whether or not. If you are in a league or tourney, then make sure you can use it before you lynch pin your army around it (or anything). Many leagues and tournaments don't allow special characters (usually shop rules) because they aren't really fit for their battles, or people just don't want to deal with their special rules, etc and what not.

@ Killkrazy and his "...4e and 5e 40K do not make allowance for superheavies in standard games." : Did you play 2nd or 3rd? Do you remember them? A lot has changed, but that has just been in the complimentary spices. 40k is still the same dish, herbs, spices, and sides as it was in 3rd. Superheavies belong just as much now as they did then.

Kilkrazy wrote:No it's not. When the edition changes, the rules change. 4e and 5e 40K do not make allowance for superheavies in standard games. Apoc does.

Bzzt. Wrong. The 40K rulebook never allowed Super-Heavies, the Imperial Armour books did.

And still do.

Kilkrazy wrote:Therefore, if people want to use superheavies in standard games, they should play Apoc, because that's the game for superheavies.

No, Apoc is the game for... Apoc.

Kilkrazy wrote:A regular 40K player is fully entitled to refuse to play with superheavies in 40K and can receive no legitimate opprobrium for doing so.

Just as any 40K player can refuse to play against Necron armies. Doesn't change that Super-Heavies are not native to Apoc.

Kilkrazy wrote:To shoehorn superheavies into 40K duplicates a function of Apoc and diminishes both 40K and Apoc.

Duplicates Apoc? Deminishes 40K? Are you mad?

Kilkrazy wrote:Next up, can I use WHFB magic rules in 40K?

Red Herring is a Red Herring.

WHFB Magic is from a different game system. Super-Heavy rules (as printed in IA's 1-6), are not. They're 40K, and are separate to Apoc.




TRY AGAIN.

The reason i thought of proposing adding 1 super heavy slot, was to add in the fun factor of warhammer fantasy's rare slot. ( giant and dragons and such )

So i thought having 1 super heavy would be cool center piece in a legal list.

@ Luna : While I agree that it would be fun for large scale battles (I think HBMC made a good point of 2000pts+), making up a new slot just for them isn't as good. Once you get over 1750pts, in my opinion at least, your decisions on what to bring to the table have less and less impact on your ability to win, most of the time. By putting up a new slot in the force organization chart it handicaps players and armies that don't take or have effective super heavy units. By taking up regular slots on the chart, I think, taking one is a bigger decision. Do you want that extra Russ squadron and/or Valkyrie squadron instead of a Baneblade? Now in Apoc, it doesn't matter at all what you take because there is no force organization chart at all! So there really are no checks and balances for such decisions.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No it's not. When the edition changes, the rules change. 4e and 5e 40K do not make allowance for superheavies in standard games. Apoc does.

Bzzt. Wrong. The 40K rulebook never allowed Super-Heavies, the Imperial Armour books did.

And still do.

Kilkrazy wrote:Therefore, if people want to use superheavies in standard games, they should play Apoc, because that's the game for superheavies.

No, Apoc is the game for... Apoc.

Kilkrazy wrote:A regular 40K player is fully entitled to refuse to play with superheavies in 40K and can receive no legitimate opprobrium for doing so.

Just as any 40K player can refuse to play against Necron armies. Doesn't change that Super-Heavies are not native to Apoc.

Kilkrazy wrote:To shoehorn superheavies into 40K duplicates a function of Apoc and diminishes both 40K and Apoc.

Duplicates Apoc? Deminishes 40K? Are you mad?

Kilkrazy wrote:Next up, can I use WHFB magic rules in 40K?

Red Herring is a Red Herring.

WHFB Magic is from a different game system. Super-Heavy rules (as printed in IA's 1-6), are not. They're 40K, and are separate to Apoc.




TRY AGAIN.

Are you saying that because superheavies aren't in 40K, but they are in IA and Apoc, they should also be in 40K? I'm saying there are plenty of superheavies in Apoc and IA so we don't need them in 40K.

I think what HBMC is trying to get at is that super heavies are an invent of IA, not of 40k and especially not of Apoc. Way back when they were supposed to be able to be used for any game, though usually only in games with very high point limits (usually above 2k or 3k) and sometimes in mega battles. Apoc itself was made for big battles, over 3000pts, which is also where the super heavies roam. You don't need super heavies to play Apoc and you don't need Apoc to play super heavies.

Okay I know this is kinda posting on a dead thread, but I played at 1500 point game where I let my opponent bring a bane blade. Now it was bad just because I couldn't roll to save my life however it was not as scary as I though it would be. Saying that I don't really see it being a problem if both players bring a super heavy. However 1 vs none in small points its a big no in my book from now on.

First part, no, a lot of super heavies use apocalypse rules, like strength D weapons and whatnot, which would mean more complicated 40k rules.

Second part, no, there's always the chance that the railgun will hit the guardsman in the arm, but the guardsman will cauterize it with his lasgun and keep going.

I'm all for number 1.

Not sure yet about number 2. It sounds cool, but I'm not experienced enough with armies other than Space Marines, so there might be something I'm not considering.

kind of like the idea on having banes on regular games,just use the non-apoc rules for it?
Anyway being a novice in the game, I can see how the 2000+ games should be the minimum for superheavies,but as long as the other army could field one as well. Kind of like balancing the game, it will be more interesting if BOTH sides has a viable chance of winning.
Anyway, there are alot of weapons that could hurt even a bane,right?

mindfield wrote:kind of like the idea on having banes on regular games,just use the non-apoc rules for it?
Anyway being a novice in the game, I can see how the 2000+ games should be the minimum for superheavies,but as long as the other army could field one as well. Kind of like balancing the game, it will be more interesting if BOTH sides has a viable chance of winning.
Anyway, there are alot of weapons that could hurt even a bane,right?

Melta guns.

I would kill to use my Plague Tower in regular 40k. The big templates are the concern for me though. If we take a cue from Space Marine Orbital Bombardment and compare it to Apoc Orbital Bombardment, we might get a clue on how to tone things down appropriately.