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.

I have quite a sizable IG force but wanted to make something with a low model count that I can take with me when I head back over to the UK for weekends. With the new codex I am looking at super heavy tanks in a new light. I thought a Super Heavy Detachment might be the answer with three tooled up Baneblades which comes in at under 1900pts. What do you guys think?
My worries are, getting blocked in by terrain and no obsec. I am looking at this as something fun for me and hopefully my opponents. Something different from the balanced army I would normally play but hopefully still functional.

Vim

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/741017.page

This topic was beat to death a couple of weeks ago. In short -- no, it is incredibly unfun to play against.

Okay, so what we gonna do?

I don't know, what you wanna do?

Look, Flaps, first I say, "What we gonna do?" Then you say, "I don't know, what you wanna do?" Then I say, "What we gonna do?" You say, "What you wanna do?" "What we gonna do?" "What you want..." Let's do SOMETHING!

the_scotsman wrote:
Okay, so what we gonna do?

I don't know, what you wanna do?

Look, Flaps, first I say, "What we gonna do?" Then you say, "I don't know, what you wanna do?" Then I say, "What we gonna do?" You say, "What you wanna do?" "What we gonna do?" "What you want..." Let's do SOMETHING!

Now that's a quality film - unlike the recent remake.

OT: It would be a very one sided game depending on your opponent.

Sadly, it seems like it is not, despite my best efforts to make it so.

I can't imagine it being very fun to play against. the tactics are simple: focus anything heavy and ranged at one at a time, use screening squads to prevent assaults on your best units, stay mobile and scatter, etc.

In the end, if your army has enough anti-armor, you like likely win, if not, you will lose.

I'm not saying don't play it, but nobody is going to enjoy the ride is all.

For some reason it wasn't so bad in the Horus Heresy, where I got a ton of legs from the army.

Not sure why it's different in 40k.

I'd play it all day with zero hesitation.

Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

I accept this is all true. However, please accept that absolutely none of those different options feel much different for me to play against. I really don't care which variant or weapon loadout you chose. It is still boring for me to play. I don't begrudge you for liking super heavy tanks and wanting to play them. I'm just not interested in driving to a store, then spending 2-3 hours trying to advance into your parking lot as you shoot down all my favorite models. It is NOT FUN. If someone asks me what army I played against, I feel like I didn't play against any army. Just 3 tanks. It's a namless, faceless terror without character or charm. There is nothing worth me taking a picture of with my phone to show my friends later, there is no drama or narrative. It feels like time I wasted and could have spent doing something more useful, like painting instead.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

..and because the biggest difference between them is a main gun that, for the most part, is based on fighting other big heavy stuff. For most of the small to medium tank content of normal 2000 point armies, it's a difference between getting overkilled by a few dice that do a whole ton of damage, vs a whole lot of dice that only do a few damage. And then sometimes there's an extra effect that doesn't happen because spoiler alert, a quake cannon can take 11 wounds off a rhino chassis vehicle.

Unit, the repetition isn't in your armament. The repetition is in the tactics required to beat the army. It's what someone in one of the, like, three, other threads called "skew" and how it was all-in in a single direction that is the problem.

I never turn down a game. I'd play against it. The first time would probably even be interesting.

The biggest problem I have with it (and this is a greater issue with 40k in general) is that I can distill it down to its preconceived conclusion based entirely upon list composition + candyland (dice rolls). Really, you can do that with almost any dice based game, but the problem with setting the "skew" to one particular extreme is that it simplifies the math required to do so. You could probably model the game as something roughly resembling my anti-tank over your armor with that game's overall dice randomness providing a coefficient helping either you or me to some degree or another.

I feel like I was super into this edition at one point and I was backing that it still felt like it was a tactical wargame, but the more I write stuff like this, the more I really feel like any sense of tactics has really been stripped out of it. I'm not saying that 7th was not atrocious, but man, 8th is too much the opposite direction.

Anyone want to build an entirely community driven ruleset based on 5th ed?

Mugaaz wrote:I accept this is all true. However, please accept that absolutely none of those different options feel much different for me to play against. I really don't care which variant or weapon loadout you chose. It is still boring for me to play. I don't begrudge you for liking super heavy tanks and wanting to play them. I'm just not interested in driving to a store, then spending 2-3 hours trying to advance into your parking lot as you shoot down all my favorite models. It is NOT FUN. If someone asks me what army I played against, I feel like I didn't play against any army. Just 3 tanks. It's a namless, faceless terror without character or charm. There is nothing worth me taking a picture of with my phone to show my friends later, there is no drama or narrative. It feels like time I wasted and could have spent doing something more useful, like painting instead.

All my tanks have names and each one is different in subtle ways. Each commander is named, and has a storied history. I repaint ones which suffer Explosions, since the tank is unsalvageable and they'll have to be issued a new one.

I find character, drama, and narrative in that. I don't feel faceless at all; Virgin 05/02, poor thing, has been through hell and back again and again and usually manages to be the last survivor of her company. Needless to say, she's not a virgin anymore. Other players at my old store even formed grudges against her, and we had fun games where the whole point was them trying to destroy Virgin while the other two tanks in the company struggled and closed ranks to protect her and her commander, Illius Krasnov.

To assume there's no character or anything is wrong. I understand you'd rather do something else, but I disagree that an all-tank army is drama-less, has no character, or charm.

the_scotsman wrote:
..and because the biggest difference between them is a main gun that, for the most part, is based on fighting other big heavy stuff. For most of the small to medium tank content of normal 2000 point armies, it's a difference between getting overkilled by a few dice that do a whole ton of damage, vs a whole lot of dice that only do a few damage. And then sometimes there's an extra effect that doesn't happen because spoiler alert, a quake cannon can take 11 wounds off a rhino chassis vehicle.

Again that depends on if you include the Baneblade chassis guns or not, but no, I would say the main difference is secondary armament and other things. There's not much difference between a Baneblade Cannon and a Tremor Cannon, but the fact that the Baneblade has a hull mounted demolisher cannon and an autocannon while the Banehammer instead carries 25 models is a pretty significant difference, imo. I just think people do what you do, look at the stat lines, and call it a day, even when vehicles have hugely variant strategic purposes. For example, the Quake Cannon you mentioned is on the Banesword, and does very well against Rhinos because it's Str 14, and therefore is much better against T7 vehicles than T8, and so it would struggle when facing, say, a Land Raider, compared to a Shadowsword. That sort of vehicle-specific weakness is important and knowing it can win you games, imo.

But I understand that they all mostly look the same.

daedalus wrote:Unit, the repetition isn't in your armament. The repetition is in the tactics required to beat the army. It's what someone in one of the, like, three, other threads called "skew" and how it was all-in in a single direction that is the problem.

I never turn down a game. I'd play against it. The first time would probably even be interesting.

The biggest problem I have with it (and this is a greater issue with 40k in general) is that I can distill it down to its preconceived conclusion based entirely upon list composition + candyland (dice rolls). Really, you can do that with almost any dice based game, but the problem with setting the "skew" to one particular extreme is that it simplifies the math required to do so. You could probably model the game as something roughly resembling my anti-tank over your armor with that game's overall dice randomness providing a coefficient helping either you or me to some degree or another.

I feel like I was super into this edition at one point and I was backing that it still felt like it was a tactical wargame, but the more I write stuff like this, the more I really feel like any sense of tactics has really been stripped out of it. I'm not saying that 7th was not atrocious, but man, 8th is too much the opposite direction.

Anyone want to build an entirely community driven ruleset based on 5th ed?

Yes, this is true, but I find it weird that this only applies to superheavies. As you yourself admit, the entire game is like this - if someone brings 3 Land Raiders with his whole army in them, and I can't kill them, then I lose. No superheavies required. I understand it's a skew list, but 40k has always preferred specialization (skew) over combined arms (not skew) - this fundamental reason is why Tactical Marines suck, but scaled up to army size.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, this is true, but I find it weird that this only applies to superheavies. As you yourself admit, the entire game is like this - if someone brings 3 Land Raiders with his whole army in them, and I can't kill them, then I lose. No superheavies required. I understand it's a skew list, but 40k has always preferred specialization (skew) over combined arms (not skew) - this fundamental reason is why Tactical Marines suck, but scaled up to army size.

It's not necessarily only superheavies; they're just the most extreme implementation of it. A similar manifestation of that same sentiment (if never nearly as articulately expressed) can be seen in the myriad conscript threads. I suspect that this is because there are a few (though not nearly as many as claimed) armies out there that still have no legitimate way of dealing with 60+ bodies. Hell, to a lesser extent, my almost all infantry guard list would probably annoy people, and I use zero conscripts in it.

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, this is true, but I find it weird that this only applies to superheavies. As you yourself admit, the entire game is like this - if someone brings 3 Land Raiders with his whole army in them, and I can't kill them, then I lose. No superheavies required. I understand it's a skew list, but 40k has always preferred specialization (skew) over combined arms (not skew) - this fundamental reason is why Tactical Marines suck, but scaled up to army size.

It's not necessarily only superheavies; they're just the most extreme implementation of it. A similar manifestation of that same sentiment (if never nearly as articulately expressed) can be seen in the myriad conscript threads. I suspect that this is because there are a few (though not nearly as many as claimed) armies out there that still have no legitimate way of dealing with 60+ bodies. Hell, to a lesser extent, my almost all infantry guard list would probably annoy people, and I use zero conscripts in it.

It's unfortunate that the game is like this, I think. :/

Well if its for fun... I would say no. Superheavy armies will just point and delete any unit they want and if you dont bring anti tank...good luck stripping wounds off them on 5-6's + their saves.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

That assume there's a reason to use more than 4 of those variants.

Really, when it comes to it, there's the Shadowsword, the Stormlord, and the Baneblade. If you bring in Forgeworld, the Stormhammer is basically a +1 Baneblade [though with the latest changes to the Baneblade, that might not be true anymore.]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Eh, as I stated in Unit's thread...it's not some impossible army to beat, but here's the skinny in my head.

1) You show up with an army which is not equipped to fight nothing but heavy top-tier armour...you lose and have no fun.
2) You show up with an army list tailored to kill big baddie tanks...you win and your opponent has no fun.
3) You show up with a similar army and while the game would be a little on the boring side, you have a decent back and forth (best option)

Main problems:

1) Repetition is boring. It's unlikely that most players with super-heavy based armies have lots of options. Playing you once a month? Sure, and with some heads up? Sure. Every week? Not a chance.
2) The army won't work on some tables with terrain. That's neither here nor there, but neither player is going to want to sacrifice a cool or useful table to accommodate someone's force.
3) Generally speaking, the more units on the table, the more diverse and "cool" the game becomes. Even if you bring an army strong enough to kill 3+ super heavies the game bogs down when it just becomes "my turn...I shoot (again) at the same three targets...and chip wounds off". That doesn't promote a lot of excitement. It's equally boring facing an army which consists of, say, three giant 50-60 model blobs of some sort. There's zero interest for me in that kind of engagement.

Exceptions:

1) Play a super-heavy based scenario of your own design. Could be cool.
2) Partake in very large games with your super heavies not being the entire army. Also cool.

In short; can you do it? Sure. Can it be fun? Sure. But it's going to get real old playing the same 3-4 tanks on similar terrain week-in, week-out unless you have some baller scenarios or can create a campaign story to make it interesting. Most people in 40K (sadly) don't put much effort into terrain, scenarios, etc...so a casual pick-up game environment is not going to suit a super heavy force most of the time. Now, if you have a big gaming group and can find a willing volunteer every week --- go for it.

I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

That assume there's a reason to use more than 4 of those variants.

Really, when it comes to it, there's the Shadowsword, the Stormlord, and the Baneblade. If you bring in Forgeworld, the Stormhammer is basically a +1 Baneblade [though with the latest changes to the Baneblade, that might not be true anymore.]

That is funny. The only two of those I own are the Baneblade and the Stormhammer.

Though I don't suppose you would consider "fluff" a reason?

Heck yea do it THE BANEBLADE!!!!

I agree that it would probably not be a very interesting or enjoyable experience for either side. If you still want to try it, discuss it beforehand with your opponents so they can build a list that's a decent challenge, as has been said.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I will go with one baneblade variant to anchor a russ army with some sentinel out riders or something. Does this sound more interesting to play against?
Basically I want a baneblade as they look cool as..

However. I will keep the 3-4 baneblade variant army idea up my sleeve when playing a certain waac player

Vim

The answer to the OPs question is - Yes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Mugaaz wrote:I accept this is all true. However, please accept that absolutely none of those different options feel much different for me to play against. I really don't care which variant or weapon loadout you chose. It is still boring for me to play. I don't begrudge you for liking super heavy tanks and wanting to play them. I'm just not interested in driving to a store, then spending 2-3 hours trying to advance into your parking lot as you shoot down all my favorite models. It is NOT FUN. If someone asks me what army I played against, I feel like I didn't play against any army. Just 3 tanks. It's a namless, faceless terror without character or charm. There is nothing worth me taking a picture of with my phone to show my friends later, there is no drama or narrative. It feels like time I wasted and could have spent doing something more useful, like painting instead.

All my tanks have names and each one is different in subtle ways. Each commander is named, and has a storied history. I repaint ones which suffer Explosions, since the tank is unsalvageable and they'll have to be issued a new one.

I find character, drama, and narrative in that. I don't feel faceless at all; Virgin 05/02, poor thing, has been through hell and back again and again and usually manages to be the last survivor of her company. Needless to say, she's not a virgin anymore. Other players at my old store even formed grudges against her, and we had fun games where the whole point was them trying to destroy Virgin while the other two tanks in the company struggled and closed ranks to protect her and her commander, Illius Krasnov.

To assume there's no character or anything is wrong. I understand you'd rather do something else, but I disagree that an all-tank army is drama-less, has no character, or charm.

But all those things are mainly (or possibly only) of interest to you. It's great that you've named your tanks and they all have a unique history but as your opponent I may not care. Even if I do, your army fluff may not compensate for the unengaging game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

daedalus wrote:Unit, the repetition isn't in your armament. The repetition is in the tactics required to beat the army. It's what someone in one of the, like, three, other threads called "skew" and how it was all-in in a single direction that is the problem.

I never turn down a game. I'd play against it. The first time would probably even be interesting.

The biggest problem I have with it (and this is a greater issue with 40k in general) is that I can distill it down to its preconceived conclusion based entirely upon list composition + candyland (dice rolls). Really, you can do that with almost any dice based game, but the problem with setting the "skew" to one particular extreme is that it simplifies the math required to do so. You could probably model the game as something roughly resembling my anti-tank over your armor with that game's overall dice randomness providing a coefficient helping either you or me to some degree or another.

I feel like I was super into this edition at one point and I was backing that it still felt like it was a tactical wargame, but the more I write stuff like this, the more I really feel like any sense of tactics has really been stripped out of it. I'm not saying that 7th was not atrocious, but man, 8th is too much the opposite direction.

Anyone want to build an entirely community driven ruleset based on 5th ed?

Yes, this is true, but I find it weird that this only applies to superheavies. As you yourself admit, the entire game is like this - if someone brings 3 Land Raiders with his whole army in them, and I can't kill them, then I lose. No superheavies required. I understand it's a skew list, but 40k has always preferred specialization (skew) over combined arms (not skew) - this fundamental reason is why Tactical Marines suck, but scaled up to army size.

It doesn't only apply to SHVs. Any army that is mainly made up of one element that leaves narrow tactical options for your opponent suffers from the same problem. That could be 3 SHVs, or 5 Land Raiders, or the old Guilliman/Stormraven list. For most people they're all boring to play against.

I think the big problem you seem to have is that you're so invested in the minutiae of your chosen theme and army you don't realise others aren't. Ultimately, your army theme and story don't have nearly as much effect on the game than the fact you have 3 SHVs on the table does. The little differences in armament also don't really matter when each tank has enough firepower to kill 1/3 of my army. Whether that's through spamming my light armour with multiple Heavy Bolter shots or fewer Lascannon shots really isn't the point.

 vim_the_good wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I will go with one baneblade variant to anchor a russ army with some sentinel out riders or something. Does this sound more interesting to play against?
Basically I want a baneblade as they look cool as..

That does sound much more interesting. An idea I have been playing with is an all short range tank army. So a 4x flamer sponson hellhammer surrounded by demolishers, punishers, sentinels and hellhounds. The perfect "shove tanks down their throat" list.

 Trickstick wrote:

 vim_the_good wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I will go with one baneblade variant to anchor a russ army with some sentinel out riders or something. Does this sound more interesting to play against?
Basically I want a baneblade as they look cool as..

That does sound much more interesting. An idea I have been playing with is an all short range tank army. So a 4x flamer sponson hellhammer surrounded by demolishers, punishers, sentinels and hellhounds. The perfect "shove tanks down their throat" list.

That sounds quite cool. The question now is. Which regiment to use. I'm thinking Tallarn to keep all the guns firing at the best BS while moving around the table.

 vim_the_good wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 vim_the_good wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I will go with one baneblade variant to anchor a russ army with some sentinel out riders or something. Does this sound more interesting to play against?
Basically I want a baneblade as they look cool as..

That does sound much more interesting. An idea I have been playing with is an all short range tank army. So a 4x flamer sponson hellhammer surrounded by demolishers, punishers, sentinels and hellhounds. The perfect "shove tanks down their throat" list.

That sounds quite cool. The question now is. Which regiment to use. I'm thinking Tallarn to keep all the guns firing at the best BS while moving around the table.

I've played against an army like the one you describe and it was pretty cool. I can recommend Tallarn especially for Sentinels.

I would love to play against a superheavy-focused army. But I'm working on a few knights (so I'm biased) and one of my friends is super unhappy about that, so we talked about it and I understand where he's coming from. Luckily, I have a couple other armies I can play against him, and he's cool with me bringing one knight to a game, so I just get to switch that up. My other friends and regular opponents seem excited to play against several LoW's sometimes.

Slipspace wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Mugaaz wrote:I accept this is all true. However, please accept that absolutely none of those different options feel much different for me to play against. I really don't care which variant or weapon loadout you chose. It is still boring for me to play. I don't begrudge you for liking super heavy tanks and wanting to play them. I'm just not interested in driving to a store, then spending 2-3 hours trying to advance into your parking lot as you shoot down all my favorite models. It is NOT FUN. If someone asks me what army I played against, I feel like I didn't play against any army. Just 3 tanks. It's a namless, faceless terror without character or charm. There is nothing worth me taking a picture of with my phone to show my friends later, there is no drama or narrative. It feels like time I wasted and could have spent doing something more useful, like painting instead.

All my tanks have names and each one is different in subtle ways. Each commander is named, and has a storied history. I repaint ones which suffer Explosions, since the tank is unsalvageable and they'll have to be issued a new one.

I find character, drama, and narrative in that. I don't feel faceless at all; Virgin 05/02, poor thing, has been through hell and back again and again and usually manages to be the last survivor of her company. Needless to say, she's not a virgin anymore. Other players at my old store even formed grudges against her, and we had fun games where the whole point was them trying to destroy Virgin while the other two tanks in the company struggled and closed ranks to protect her and her commander, Illius Krasnov.

To assume there's no character or anything is wrong. I understand you'd rather do something else, but I disagree that an all-tank army is drama-less, has no character, or charm.

But all those things are mainly (or possibly only) of interest to you. It's great that you've named your tanks and they all have a unique history but as your opponent I may not care. Even if I do, your army fluff may not compensate for the unengaging game.

This is a problem with every army though. I've heard plenty of people saying "I hate tau, I don't care if you have fluff, I hate the anime anime fan tau fluff" about various other armies. Personally, I am incredibly sick of Marine fluff.

If the point was that gameplay /= fluff, I agree, but people not caring about others' fluff has nothing to do with army comp.

vim_the_good wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 vim_the_good wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I will go with one baneblade variant to anchor a russ army with some sentinel out riders or something. Does this sound more interesting to play against?
Basically I want a baneblade as they look cool as..

That does sound much more interesting. An idea I have been playing with is an all short range tank army. So a 4x flamer sponson hellhammer surrounded by demolishers, punishers, sentinels and hellhounds. The perfect "shove tanks down their throat" list.

That sounds quite cool. The question now is. Which regiment to use. I'm thinking Tallarn to keep all the guns firing at the best BS while moving around the table.

For full super-heavy lists, I'm partial to Valhallan. I haven't done anything with or against the new IG codex, but that seems to be potentially back-breakingly strong.

If you're going for a big tank followed by little tanks, Tallarn is absolutely a good choice, though.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I understand most of this with one caveat:

The Imperial Guard have 9 different types of Baneblade chassis superheavies, and each type can choose from a variety of armament loadouts. Against a superheavy army you'll see anything from a tank armed with battlecannons and multilasers to a tank armed with heavy flamers, lascannons, and a souped-up Demolisher cannon, to a tank armed with a demolisher cannon, an autocannon, a big gun, and some heavy bolters with nothing else.

They're actually quite myriad and varied in options, types, specializations, etc.

If you include all guard superheavies than you get the Valdor, which is totally different from the others, and the Macharius hulls, which are different than the 9 Baneblades and friends listed above and also different from the Valdor, giving you a total of 14 different tanks to choose from each of which possessing its own unique loadout and a variety of options.

That assume there's a reason to use more than 4 of those variants.

Really, when it comes to it, there's the Shadowsword, the Stormlord, and the Baneblade. If you bring in Forgeworld, the Stormhammer is basically a +1 Baneblade [though with the latest changes to the Baneblade, that might not be true anymore.]

That is funny. The only two of those I own are the Baneblade and the Stormhammer.

Though I don't suppose you would consider "fluff" a reason?

Your personal fluff is the only reason to bring one of the lesser types of Baneblade. Baneblades aren't actually diverse. First off, most of their power derives from the chassis and sponsons, not the main gun. Hence, there's not a whole lot of difference between facing a Shadowsword and facing a Banesword, or facing a Baneblade and facing a Hellhammer. Second, the main guns of the lesser types are basically slightly inferior versions of the Baneblade Cannon or Volcano Cannon.

And then we can look at the Macharii, and realize that now that Leman Russ can shoot twice, they're not even 2 Leman Russes stuck together anymore. The Vulcan is okay.


Really, among Baneblades, the Stormlord is the only one that's really different from the others.



And then, of course, we go back to a previous poster's comment: For the most part, we [your opponents], couldn't care less about your army's personal fluff. We're not invested in your force and it's successes and failures, because they're your dudes, not our dudes. To me, facing a Banesword is facing a Shadowsword.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, this is true, but I find it weird that this only applies to superheavies. As you yourself admit, the entire game is like this - if someone brings 3 Land Raiders with his whole army in them, and I can't kill them, then I lose. No superheavies required. I understand it's a skew list, but 40k has always preferred specialization (skew) over combined arms (not skew) - this fundamental reason is why Tactical Marines suck, but scaled up to army size.

That's where you're wrong.

I don't have to deal with 3 Land Raiders to win, I can just clog them up and ignore them.


It's more that there are a lot of ways to mission-kill a lesser tank, but only one way to mission-kill a Baneblade. Flyers are similar, but the new clause means you can just shoot the ground units out from under them.