Switch Theme:

How would you fix super heavy auxiliary Detachments?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




so its pretty obvious at this point that the lone big boy is typically a bad idea now. Unless your playing purely for fun it costs too much to take a big guy (Wraithknight/Baneblade/Imperial Knight) now it seems between paying 3cp and the extreme cost for the guy. Also losing access to the chapter tactics doing this, its just not worth it.

In 8th we could use the Supreme command Detachment to make up for this issue, but no longer. So what would you guys think would be a fair fix? Make it cost 2cp? Make it so they get their chapter tactics? Do the models themselves just need better rules to make them stronger? Or am I wrong and big guys work exactly as people now want? I mean it really only seems to hurt Eldar / Imperial Guard / Necrons at this point... imperial and chaos knights already can just take a Detachment to fix this issue with some armigers to cover them.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I wouldn't make them cost 3CP.

They're already a massive points sink, so having to expend further resources on top of the cost you've already paid seems needlessly punitive.

   
Made in ca
Aspirant Tech-Adept






Add one slot for superheavies in battalions and brigades.
Make it so chaos/imperium can include a knight in their detachment without breaking detachment bonuses (similar stuff to assassins/inquisition).
If actual knights want to get their household traits, they have to get a full on superheavy detachment.

That way LoW that don't get a full codexe's worth of support can be played while at least keeping their "chapter" equivalents.
Wraithknights, Baneblades, Lord of skulls would all be playable and benefit from being Ulthwe/Cadian/Night lords.



Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




To me, this is the 'fixed' state. I just wish they would have done the same with aircraft.

So fine as is. (little less so for Knights being able to weasel out of a lot of the CP cost).

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Make it so that the detachment is free and the unit gets faction traits if it's the same faction/subfaction as your warlord. That way you can't cherry pick your faction trait and your encouraged to bring a super heavy your own faction.

Next fix the points for many of the non-knight super heavys that gw seems to hate. There is absolutely no reason why Stompas should be over 900 PPM and Fellblades 880 PPM while Castellans/Tyrants are 635 PPM. This proves gw doesn't know the rules for its own models and game.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






The wraithknight is clearly OP with not having an inbuilt invuln... Not allowed traits

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Voss wrote:
To me, this is the 'fixed' state. I just wish they would have done the same with aircraft.

So fine as is. (little less so for Knights being able to weasel out of a lot of the CP cost).

And points cost, compared with similar units.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Make it so that the detachment is free and the unit gets faction traits if it's the same faction/subfaction as your warlord. That way you can't cherry pick your faction trait and your encouraged to bring a super heavy your own faction.

Next fix the points for many of the non-knight super heavys that gw seems to hate. There is absolutely no reason why Stompas should be over 900 PPM and Fellblades 880 PPM while Castellans/Tyrants are 635 PPM. This proves gw doesn't know the rules for its own models and game.


Yeah, could have it work a bit like the new Supreme Command. Personally I'd still have it cost 1-2 cp, as any other "extra" detachment costs CP as well. To me it's very similar to bringing a Patrol to grab some extra HQs or whatever. However, it should get subfaction keyword/trait if it's from inside the codex and matches the Warlord.

For souping a knight into a different imperium/chaos detachment I figure 2 CP, still lacking a trait, would be a more fair cost, though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 01:23:33


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




This is where I come to a problem with any solution. If you make it so the "penalty" isnt very harsh then it can bring back the days of everyone having a castellen show up across from them. If you leave it the way it is we have what we have now, as in you don't see them at all. I dont personally think its the rules for the units (yeah I know the wraithlord isn't the best when compared to an imperial knight, but thats a different problem that I would gladly overlook if I was allowed to take one without such a bad penalty. )

What about a new type of Detachment? Almost like the old command squad Detachment? 1 hq, 2 troops, and a super heavy? Kind of like a "patrol Detachment", like a super heavy support Detachment? That would soften the blow of the 3cp cost to me at least.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

There are more superheavies in the game beyond Castellans. It'd be nice to be able to include these other big models, with them benefiting from army traits.

Right now my big Hierodules are not worth the points at all, and now you're going to make me pay CP on top of their points to use them? C'mon... no one's dumb enough to do that!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 01:59:29


   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are more superheavies in the game beyond Castellans. It'd be nice to be able to include these other big models, with them benefiting from army traits.

Right now my big Hierodules are not worth the points at all, and now you're going to make me pay CP on top of their points to use them? C'mon... no one's dumb enough to do that!


Yes, exactly. You're getting double charged. First you pay the price of the unit, which in the case of things like Hierodules, Stompas, and the Legion super heavys is massively inflated, then you pay the CP tax. And then to top it off you don't even get a faction trait. Gw needs to treat all super heavys equally, if knights can be competitively priced then all the rest can be as well.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





It certainly sucks that you get charged 3CP AND lose chapter traits. I would be fine with taking a wraithknight at 3CP IF it also got the chapter benefits. Basically, let them take the same trait as the detachment that contains the warlord or none at all. imperial knights wouldn't get this bonus, but they can already access strats to become characters, take relics etc.

I expect we'll see some changes to the wraithknight this edition.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.

It is at least a consistent opinion. Unlike gw, who seems to think some super heavys (knights) deserve rules and prices that allow them to be played without massively penalizing your army, while others such as Stompas and the Legion super heavys are simply priced out of the game and given additional drawbacks such as losing faction traits for good measure.
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 03:11:20


   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".



I know in my local friendly gaming group thats how it is. If you want to play a game, no problem. But if your bringing big guns/competition level army lists its at least considered good manners to let your opponent know that. Otherwise you won't get many games at our group, we have no problem playing that level if thats what someone wants but we wana know so we are not bringing a fluff fun list to a major gun fight.

So the consensus here is if you take a super heavy you get the warlords army trait for free assuming your playing a super heavy that can take said trait. That actually seems fair, knights would never get it (and they dont need the help) but wraith knights / stompas / baneblades / ect... they would because their keywords match properly. I like it. Seems actually a bit better/fair.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





I would eliminate both it, the Supreme Command, and the SH Detachment, and make it:
Battalions get 1 Lord of War slot
Brigades get 3 Lord of War slots

Then, I'd eliminate Imperial Knights and Chaos Knights as all-super heavy codecies, either by adding in troops or better yet, appending them as lords of war choices for Mechanicus and Chaos Space Marine armies.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Change nothing. They're supposed to be harder to play.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Azuza001 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".



I know in my local friendly gaming group thats how it is. If you want to play a game, no problem. But if your bringing big guns/competition level army lists its at least considered good manners to let your opponent know that. Otherwise you won't get many games at our group, we have no problem playing that level if thats what someone wants but we wana know so we are not bringing a fluff fun list to a major gun fight.

So the consensus here is if you take a super heavy you get the warlords army trait for free assuming your playing a super heavy that can take said trait. That actually seems fair, knights would never get it (and they dont need the help) but wraith knights / stompas / baneblades / ect... they would because their keywords match properly. I like it. Seems actually a bit better/fair.

Agreed, sounds good to me. But they still need to fix the points. A quad sponson Baneblade shouldn't cost more than a Castellan/Tyrant, nor should a Stompa, or Fellblade (ok, maybe a little more for a Fellblade).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/08 04:00:38


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I would fix it by removing super-heavies from the game entirely. But I recognize that is never going to happen.


I was going to type this as I went down the comments on my way to the reply box.
As for not happening, I would be comfortable with 'by prior arrangement' as in "I will bring a superheavy detachment on Saturday, OK?".

In such a case, one may say "No."

Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
One good reason to move specifically big Game defining units to a casual non competitive format, like Mini Apoc or special missions. Is then you can Point them Aggressively. With Missions that make the huge center piece of an army, also the center piece of the game.
It also means if one is very powerful, it doesn't cause huge issues with standard competitive meta, and can even have tournaments where they become available.

Right now it feels more like GW sold what it thinks is best and just not really putting the effort needed in to make them play nicely with the systems they have in place.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

 alextroy wrote:
So, nothing to fix here.
If that were the case, this thread wouldn't exist.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 04:21:59


   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I wouldn't.

If anything, I'd totally remove the ability to take any form of Lord of War in matched play. If you want to play with Superheavies and Primarchs, play Apoc.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/08 05:02:35


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 9th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.


I would have removed all the CP costs for detachments entirely. A fluffy Combi-wing army with Ravenwing and Deathwing together - Or Wild Riders, or White Scars Bikers, or the other non-troops but fluffy armies I don't know enough to name - are already suffering too much without ObSec. If they want to eliminate soup - and that's what people assume this sort of thing is for - they need a better mechanic for it. This was a stupid change to Dets/CP that repeated the same mistake they made last edition just going the other direction.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't this already apply to anything? As in "I will be bringing 3×3 Eradicators, 3 twin lascannon Relic Contemptors, a Chapter Master, <insert other cheese units here > Saturday OK?".

In such case one may say "No".
Specific units or types of units that require* opponent permission just creates a situation where whole swathes of the player base will say "No" instantly out of fear of their opponent having a kind of advantage over them, even if such a thing is just perception over reality.

I would personally avoid that if at all possible.

*Completely acknowledging that the entire game "requires opponent permission", so please don't anyone try to bring that up as an actual counter-point. Because it isn't.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that the option to opt out of games against "big SCARY super heavys" already exists, as it does with anything else you're scared of playing against, as you point out in your addendum.

alextroy wrote:GW made a point of adding to the Army Construction rules that model in Auxiliary Support, Super Heavy Auxiliary, and Fortification Network detachments never gain detachment traits. They want to avoid people making very small dips into a faction to gain out-sided power and they want people to really commit to super heavy units if that's the way you want to play.

So, nothing to fix here.

That's why you require the super heavy to take the faction trait of your warlord. You then balance these "big game defining models" with properly balanced points, not extra extraneous rules to further punish their use. You balance units with points.


Points alone i dont think are enough with units like these, The game itself needs to Support them as a whole. As well as the factions themselves be designed in that way, To many factions dont really even have access to them. So We get stuck in a point where Its half way, again and the people doing the design need to work towards fixing all there issues.

Some factions don't have access to cheap chaff troops, flyers, drop pods, or psykers either. Gw doesn't impose extra penalties on those, they balance them with points.


Most of those where supported by the rules well for a long time, and designed with those in mind. With the ones being Issues at times like Flyers and drop pods following the same issues as above, Points can only ballance things so far in a game thats pushing its design limits allready.

One of the big issues Super heavy units have is that people dont like Bullet sponges, When you only have so much of a response to them though design issues rather than Tactical choice. The game and its state are much harder to support with a healthy meta.

Of course there are ways to deal with them, Probably the best way to deal with them is to flatten them on the curve. Both points and power, They can still be powerful units. But act more like Tanks in the army, just taller.
But even that runs into issues when you have factions with a Design to run no smaller units in support.
This is why i think they have done it this way, its to late for them to redesign them to fit nicely so they are left with lopsided rules.
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

Relegate Superheavies to narrative play only or 5000 points matched games. Problem fixed

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: