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.

What would you consider the appropriate army size before you can include a Imperial Knight or equivalent superheavy Lord of War like a Baneblade?

I would really like to include one in my army, but I don't want to ruin the game for my opponent. Is 1000 too small?

With the new setup of 8th 1500 as a 1k game is like demo size

I wouldn't run one before 2k, personally.

I think the HH restriction of 25% of total points can go into superheavies is still a valid orientation.

I wouldn't spend more than 1/4 of my points on super heavies. I think it would be fair to do about 1/3 of your points but if you showed up with half your points in a super heavy with no warning I just wouldn't play you.

No such thing as a super heavy anymore, and even if there were? If it fits, it sits. Cheapest knight is what? 400-450? So that's the appropriate size.

Given that lasguns can now wound Knights, it is not such an issue as it was. Someone with a Knight-only army would struggle to fight any other way.

However from a staying friends point of view, I would probably think around 1500 points. At that size, most players should be bringing decent levels of anti-tank weapons anyway so a Knight is not much tougher than a couple of tanks smooshed together.

2500-3000 points, but it depends actually.

I hate apocalypse stuff and IMHO they should belong to that format but some players may like using them even in standard games.

It's up to you and your friends.

In HH I tend to only play my Typhon or Falchion at around 2500+ and always pass it by my opponent.

For casual and friendly games, where I've been planning to play with someone specific, and I plan to bring say, my Knight or my Baneblade in a 1500+ match, I'll ask them if they're cool with playing against it. Nobody at my local area so far as objected, they've all wanted to try their hand against the big stompy bastards, see how their army does in to it.

I'd say, ask your opponent. If it's a pick-up game, maybe bring an alternate list.

I have however, already seen that the tankiness of a Knight is different now. I made the mistake of getting in to Melee with Ork Boyz. They took 7 wounds of a Knight in one fight phase

Supers really aren't broken or destabilizing and can be dealt with by most armies and TAC lists. You spam 5 of them a TAC night not make it but that's just because they turn the game into rock-paper-scissors to some degree at that point.

In short, my answer is 'any'.

500 pts.

I'm just a loner I-Knight, baby!

Warhound in a 100PL game.

Because reasons.

Personally, I think 1 in a 2000pt game is reasonable. A knight or baneblade type tank, no worries. You still have points leftover and it doesn't overwhelm the game.

I kind of wish their was a rule stating 25 or 33 percent of army has to be spent on troops and up to 25% can be spent on LoW using Troop based detachments.

I hear people complain about some armies having better troops than others. I don't know why the response is that less troops should be used rather than the troops just being balanced better.

2500 minimum, IMO. They're ridiculous to put in any small army, and ridiculous to face as any small army.

 Karhedron wrote:
Given that lasguns can now wound Knights, it is not such an issue as it was. .

It takes like 3000 points of lasguns to kill a knight so I don't why you'd think that.


- - -

I liked the old 25% rule. A superheavy/bio-titan can't make up more then 25% of your total points.

Never that crap belongs in another game.

1 in a 2k is not that big a deal.

The Lord of skulls pops out occasionally at 2.5k and its hilarious.

People are weird. Knights are basically just 2 SoB exorcists mushed together. Take one in combat patrol if you want, they're not magic.

I would simply give the opponent a bit of a friendly warning if you're arranging a game. As for pickup games, I would prepare a contingent of troops to fill in for the superheavy in the event that your opponent doesn't feel giggity with it (it's in his full rights to not play you if he doesn't like super heavies).

ERJAK wrote:
People are weird. Knights are basically just 2 SoB exorcists mushed together. Take one in combat patrol if you want, they're not magic.

Titanic feet shuffling ends quite a lot of models in combat. but yeah its like two or 3 tanks shoved together its honestly not thaaaat big a deal unless you forget your anti tank weapons at home.

It's not so much a points issue as a balance issue.

I'm not a WAAC. I enjoy fielding my somewhat fluffy armies and having them give it their best. They are built to be competitive but not cheesy, and I don't care if I win or lose as long as I enjoy the battle.

So for me, I don't care if you want to stick a Baneblade in your 1k point army, but I think a general "SuperHeavy Heads Up" should be given as a basic courtesy. That way I could bring a SuperHeavy of my own, or stick more lascannons in my army as necessary.

In a standard 2000 point game, there is a limit on anything with that many wounds of one per army locally (and I hear ITC is likely to adapt that as well).
They just aren't fun to play against and it turns people off when the majority of their army is made mostly useless. Even when I played tournies that allowed them, I'd just GG them and not play against them. Not a fun use of my time.

More eggs in one basket, makes it tacticly easier for your opponent. Usually disclosure of your list due to LOW choice is not nessesary , its their responsebility to field a list with options.

Baneblade tanks and knights are awsome they are normal stuff in 40k, they belong there. But any of the Super-Super heavy Titans and stuff it starts getting wierd and you might want to talk with your opponent. It really depends alot on how your opponents are. Some people are very open to anything, some sees it as an opportunity to scrutinize your sportsmanship after the match, some might even be silent and avoid you in the future xD

At least ask what their stance are on the LOW choice and work from there.

Ok, thanks guys. Yes, I was referring to Lord of War choices, not the superheavies from forgeworld. I forgot they changed the name, I'm still getting into 40k 8th edition.

Lords of War? Well... Primarchs go there, as do things we used to call GMC's...

Still includes IK and Bananablades...

Is Ghazzy still a LoW choice?

 Selym wrote:
Lords of War? Well... Primarchs go there, as do things we used to call GMC's...

Still includes IK and Bananablades...

Is Ghazzy still a LoW choice?

Nope, Ghazhgkull is an HQ. The only LoW for Orks is the Stompa. The Gorkanaut and Morkanaut are both heavy support.

I think 2k plus is fine. With another appearing every 1k points after that.

I'd rather they be relegated back to Apocalypse. Now that every man and his dog has one Apocalypse should be re-established.

But rules let players take as many as they can manage to fit in a list.