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.

 Blacksails wrote:
Nononono.

The worst superheavy is not a baneblade chassis.

Look no further than the might Malcador. Really any of its variants are pretty trash. Weak weapons on a platform hardly more durable than a Russ, for much much more in points.

Truly the king of gakky superheavies.

Forgot about the Malcador. Standard armament is what, twin-linked battle cannon, can be swapped for quint heavy bolters?

Yeah. The hull weapon can be a demolisher cannon...which, I suppose stops it from being utterly useless. Just mostly useless.

Actually, its not even a twin-linked battlecannon; that belongs to the Macharius. The Malcador's is the same bog standard cannon found on the russ.

So its only advantage is that its immune to WD, Immobilized, and stunned/shaken.

The best part is that its not even totally immune to immobilized results. It has an 'Engine Damage' rule, where on 4+, its immobilized rather than reduced speed.

All for the low low price of two russes!

mane11354 wrote:
They are not OP in big 6K matches but compare that to a 1500-2500p match. A baneblade or a titan can oblitirate the enemy if they are not preperad. If they are preperad then they are just realy good.
Think like this. if i took a baneblade against my friends in a 2000p without telling them then i would almoast guarantee that i win because they aren't prepered for something that big in such a smal game but
even if they are preperd then it will take alot from the opposing side to take it down. And when it's down i then it has taken down half the enemys army and i have 1500p left to take the rest down.

You have clearly never played a low point game with or against a baneblade. Any 2k army should be able to handle three LRBT (especially if you know you will be fighting IG) and if you can kill three LRBT then you can kill a baneblade. Then there is the killing power of the baneblade which as others have said is comparable to three Russes (though I would say a punisher-pask with two executioner buddies is probably a fair bit more deadly). The last thing is if you kill the bane blade (unless they have changed it) you get three victory points.
From my personal experience the baneblade, in any situation where it is a lord of war, is just a massive liability.

To answer the OP's question there is nothing inherent to being a super heavy that makes something powerful, it is just that certain super heavies are over powered for their own reason. And people tend to panic when a super heavy is on the opposite end of the table from them for some reason. *shrug*

i feel the biggest part on super heavies is there durability.All super heavies work just as well from 100% until they die are immune to all results on the pen table besides explodes! which can only be gotten now by ap1 weapons vs SH. It is also a combination of TAC list are really slowly dieing out because of to many things to be able to take care of you got your fliers, MSU armies, swarm armies, MC, gunline etc etc. PLus not every army has easy answers to high av high health (or high T in some cases). Dealing with them is doable but most of the time a heads up is needed imo.

To be fair, MC's and GC's work just as well from 100% until they die. With vehicles having the equivalent of wounds now (but still no armor/invul saves...), all vehicles really should work like that, the vehicle damage table is simply a remnant of when it was their kill mechanic.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
On the other hand, prize for the most underpowered SH goes to?...

Probably the Hellhammer. Only thing it's got going for it is ignores cover, but its only something silly like a large blast autocannon.

The tigershark would like a word.





Back to main question-superheavies are not OP. in fact the majorety are UP. even D weapons are not OP at all, and often just not worth the price you paid to get them.
A select few are OP, and they are the ones causing all the rage, and making people think supers are OP.

So what I'm getting from all this is that I stared at the rules for the Warlord for a while, wrote "Sweet Transcendant from Transc'texual Transc'tylvania" on a sticky note, stuck it to my night bringer figure, looked at the rules for the Ancient Egyptian Laser Beam attack and am currently cackling evilly.

I may get destroyed but hell if I'm not having fun while I do it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Destroyer weapons and Stomp. Neither of which are exclusive to super-heavies, but those are the only problems with them.

Baneblades, for example, feature neither, and aren't any kind of overpowered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mane11354 wrote:

Think like this. if i took a baneblade against my friends in a 2000p without telling them then i would almoast guarantee that i win because they aren't prepered for something that big in such a smal game but

A Baneblade costs slightly more than 3 Leman Russes, and has much less than 3x the firepower and survivability. Are your sure that's a guarantee?

 NL_Cirrus wrote:

mane11354 wrote:
They are not OP in big 6K matches but compare that to a 1500-2500p match. A baneblade or a titan can oblitirate the enemy if they are not preperad. If they are preperad then they are just realy good.
Think like this. if i took a baneblade against my friends in a 2000p without telling them then i would almoast guarantee that i win because they aren't prepered for something that big in such a smal game but
even if they are preperd then it will take alot from the opposing side to take it down. And when it's down i then it has taken down half the enemys army and i have 1500p left to take the rest down.

You have clearly never played a low point game with or against a baneblade. Any 2k army should be able to handle three LRBT (especially if you know you will be fighting IG) and if you can kill three LRBT then you can kill a baneblade. Then there is the killing power of the baneblade which as others have said is comparable to three Russes (though I would say a punisher-pask with two executioner buddies is probably a fair bit more deadly). The last thing is if you kill the bane blade (unless they have changed it) you get three victory points.
From my personal experience the baneblade, in any situation where it is a lord of war, is just a massive liability.

it's not like i just use the baneblade (if i had one). I always take my spartan assault tank on 2000p (it always has terminators and my lord in it) + my firestorm redoubt and heldrake. Sure i won't have much else but thats so many threts that they have to choose what to take down first.
But that is speculation. I want so bad to get a baneblade (shooting to get a renegades and heretics army) but they are so hostile against it. The marine player (who can 100% take it down easily) won't play against me. The Tau player are so unshure about what he is going to to against all the models every one else gets and the tyranid player don't se any way to take it down (but he has 4 zoanthropes)

so if what your saying is true then the baneblade is not that good? and i know i can change thier atitude when thinking about SH because i did when i got the Spartan (it's a FW model) and showed them that FW isn't OP