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.

So, as an avid reader of Black Libary books, and fairly regular 40K player, I can't help but feel there's something of a disparity between how truly awesome (in the true sense of the word - inspiring awe) some of the characters, creatures and entities in 40K are in the books - and how they never match up on the table.

But then... should they? The bit that got me thinking was the Eldar Avatar in one of the War for Armageddon space battle books. An Avatar takes on and completely ruins a Dark Eldar Archon's entire raiding force. Spinter weapons melt before ever reaching it's molten iron body, Dark Lances and other high power weapons barely leave a mark on it and it rips them to pieces.

Now, that's what I'd like to see in the game, as a reader of books, an Avatar should take the combined shooting of an entire army over several turns to weaken it or bring it down.

If I was playing against it, however, I'd think it was utterly broken.

So how do we feel about the abilities of the big, bad things in the game? Are they too weak and should be nigh unstoppable, but very expensive, are they already game breaking and we shouldn't worry about wanting to play the books on the board, or have we got a nice compromise?

I don't have the answer, but someone else might!

I'll all for powerful and appropriately-costed big models, but they need to have some sort of counter. It doesn't matter if you paid 2000 points for something if it literally cannot be stopped.

You have to keep the game (somewhat) balanced.

What's fun about a unit that's basically an "I win" button?

For an idea of what happens when an awesome unit becomes undercosted, look at the Imperator Titan datasheet. Despite costing 5000 points, it is severely undercosted, being able to more or less wipe out two to three times it's own cost, which is pretty damn awesome for a 5k model.

Well this is very true. Nothing should be a guaranteed win.

In the books, big monsters and war machines are either taken down by very clever tactics, absolutely massed opposition or an equal opponent.

Maybe the only thing that should be able to effectively take down a Bloodthirster is a GK Grand Master, for example. And even then only after a hell of a duel.

Then again, does that just turn 40K into top trumps? My big thing's better than your big thing...

Yes, let's turn 40K into a contest of giant phallic proxies.

I can't really relate to this topic as currently practically everything Tau is overpriced in 5th ed. And we don't have any epic individual characters or models.

SickSix wrote:Yes, let's turn 40K into a contest of giant phallic proxies.

I can't really relate to this topic as currently practically everything Tau is overpriced in 5th ed. And we don't have any epic individual characters or models.

Ahh true, but then, in the Tau Empire everyone is equal, everyone is of equal importance. Tau are strong because we are strong together...

(But I would like a bad-ass character or seven. Please?)

Reminds me of

Lets make the Sanguinor for my BA same point cost, BUT much stronger, like in the background. *pushes the big button of winning*

I'm pretty sure there are various "movie" codexes around for various armies (I know there is one for SM) which beefs them up to the kinds of levels the fluff lays out for them. They are quite entertaining.

So, that's where they got the Dreadknight idea from...