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 love superheavy units, having a 300+ point unit allows a 2000 point game end in a reasonable amount of time.

That said, I have been working on balancing them out to try and keep them from getting out of hand (like the storm surge and wraithknight) been tinkering with it a while, seems to be working thus far.

The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

Traditio wrote:
I'm taking a wait and see approach to your comments, Illuminini. Before I seriously address your criticisms, I want to know how the numbers end up.

I will direct you again to this post I made:

 IllumiNini wrote:
So I'm going to re-iterate one of my original question:

Why should people have to suck it up and play with Allies if they don't want to? Where is this written?

And so far, the closest I can see that you've given to a good excuse for why SHV should not be in anything other than Apoc games is the following:

They're too tough to kill and have the capacity to invalidate most of the opponent's army.

Not only is this a poor excuse, but the sorts of people that would bring a SHV to a match where said SHV invalidates the entirety of their opponent's army is not the sort of person you want to play against anyway, so what should that matter? And if it doesn't invalidate you entire army, then that means you have something that has a reasonable chance of killing it, which means there isn't a problem.

Also, as a general rule, people should be discussing the potential for taking SHV's at the very least in games where the points limit is sub-2000 (IMO) because the lower the points limit is, the less capability the opponent has of destroying the SHV. So it gets discussed and sorted out, in which case the SHV does not invalidate their opponent's army or it simply isn't taken.

So as far as I'm concerned (and I feel confident in saying I'm likely to not be the only one who thinks this way), you have no good excuse for not allowing SHV into not Apoc games.

As far as how many you should be allowed to take in a non-Apoc game, that's something else - and something you apparently haven't considered.

If you're not going to address these points and questions, then please do enlighten the rest of us as to how the results of the poll affect your opinions on why people should "Buck up and take Allies" and your own opinions on why SHV's should not be allowed in non-Apoc games?

Do you really need the results of a poll in order to form an opinion on these things and thus address these posts?

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine 691903 wrote:PS: still waiting for an answer on why the Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned.

It's not. On the other hand, perhaps Malcador shouldn't be a superheavy. Just saying.

@Peregrine: Notice how he has continued to ignore my questions and statements (even the ones that are valid, on-topic points) and gives a half-arsed answer to your point? Yeah... He's not taking this seriously....

I'm taking a wait and see approach to your comments, Illuminini. Before I seriously address your criticisms, I want to know how the numbers end up.

Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

Neither does a Deathstrike Missile Launcher, and yet you decided it should be banned to Apocalyse-Only even though it ISN'T a super heavy and just has an unreliable one-shot weapon that otherwise has the profile of what you'd normally see as the main weapon of a medium super-heavy.

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

You got a bonus vote from me by mistake, and you're still behind by 2:1. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

Only time will tell. I expect that by this time tomorrow, we should have enough numbers to decide the matter one way or the other.

So your essentially going to rely on blind faith, stubbornness and ignorance to hope the poll changes before you answer anything.
And that's even with it being misleading in its wording.

And even then, I'm sure you will start another poll.


Edit: so traditio, let's say the poll doesn't go your way, what then?

I can see it now "Should Malcadors be made into non-superheavies?" with the poll question being "Should Malcadors be banned in non-Apocalypse games?"

Super-Heavies have been available to non-Apoc games since the middle of 5th Edition with Battle Missions.

They were formalized with the Escalation Expansion, and then incorporated in to the BRB.

Trying to ban them now is kicking against the pricks and will have the same affect as it had on Flyers.

I wouldn't mind seeing them treated like Horus Heresy does to a certain points limit, with the exception of Linebreaker Scenarios, though. Someone expecting a 40K in 40 Minutes game with a Wraithknight is in for a bad experience.

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

However, it is indisputably a LoW, so a blanket ban on LoW would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a LoW that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated LoW hater can argue is a scary unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine's point is easier to deal with apart from the numbers. The Malcador tank just doesn't have the stats or weaponry to justify it's being a super heavy. It doesn't have the fire power, the armor values or the points cost to justify that.

However, it is indisputably a LoW, so a blanket ban on LoW would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a LoW that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated LoW hater can argue is a scary unit.

LoW =/= superheavy.

Calgar is a LoW. He's not a superheavy.

Traditio wrote:
The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

So, you're one of those people who stay up late on election night telling yourself "it could change, there are still votes left to count" long after the race has been called against your candidate and they've given their concession speech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
LoW =/= superheavy.

Calgar is a LoW. He's not a superheavy.

And? What exactly does this nitpicking have to do with the point I was making? Substitute "superheavies" for "LoW" and the argument is just as true.

But the Malcador is, which is the main point of the argument.

Peregrine wrote:And? What exactly does this nitpicking have to do with the point I was making? Substitute "superheavies" for "LoW" and the argument is just as true.

You don't see a clear categorical difference between Calgar and a Wraithknight?

By analogy, a categorical difference between your tank and a wraithknight?

Except a wraithknight isn't a super heavy at all.
And thus has nothing to do with SHV's.
Or anything to do with this topic either.

 Jackal wrote:
Except a wraithknight isn't a super heavy at all.
And thus has nothing to do with SHV's.
Or anything to do with this topic either.

I'm not going to quibble about words. My intention was perfectly clear.

Except you were quibbling about words and your intentions are perfectly clear.
Ban anything you dislike.

If your own poll does not agree, wait longer.

So, what happens when the poll hits 150+ votes and does not go in your favour?
Because I highly doubt you will just accept it.

Yes, but I'm big on Centerpiece Models.

At the End of the Day, it's only Select LoW/GMC/SHV People have issues with.

Most of them are just BIGGER versions, that might be a bit better, might be a bit worse than the normal ( Typhon to Vindicator, Malcador to LRBT) but are just bigger.

The scale of the game is changing and this is no different than "Should flyers be in 40k?" or the 1999+1 point Tourneys that plagued 6th.

Whether or not they "should" They are. You don't have to embrace it and start selling body parts to start an Arms race in your local FLGS, but you have to take into effect that you may come across a Knight and should prepare accordingly

Traditio wrote:
You don't see a clear categorical difference between Calgar and a Wraithknight?

By analogy, a categorical difference between your tank and a wraithknight?

I see a difference, but that has nothing to do with the post you quoted. Substitute "superheavy vehicle(s)" for every instance of "LoW" in that post and the argument is exactly the same. Now could you address what I actually said instead of nitpicking and building straw man arguments?

In fact, I'll even do it for you:

However, it is indisputably a superheavy vehicle, so a blanket ban on superheavy vehicles would ban a Malcador. And having it be a superheavy makes sense. It's definitely on the low end of superheavy tanks, but it's also larger than a LRBT and fluff-wise a more powerful unit. Its rules are entirely appropriate for its fluff concept of "the superheavy you get when your regiment isn't important enough to earn a Baneblade".

Also, in case it wasn't obvious enough for you, the Malcador is just one example of a superheavy vehicle that is not at all scary in normal games. It just happens to be the one that is so obviously weak that not even the most dedicated superheavy vehicle hater can argue is a scary unit.

Traditio wrote:


Suck it up and run allies anyway.

Oh, this is rich,why don't you take your own advice too?

Traditio wrote:

Is it any less ridiculous, in your view, that Necron gauss guns can?

Gauss is cool.

And FYI, the poll title/question is misleading and I wonder if this dishonestly is deliberate to skew the result your way. I nearly clicked the wrong answer and I doubt I am the only one.

IMO I have played better standard games with SHV than APOC games.

Of course its subjective but if its allowed by the rules then me and my opponents just need to discuss the hows rather than the whys of fielding them.

Of course in lower points games SHV can skew results in their favour but 1850 and above or themed games are good to go.

Oh wow. The poll/title mismatch is bad enough to make the results of this thing incredibly suspect.

Ok Traditio, what exactly was going through your head when you made this thread? The emphasis you're putting on this poll implies something even minutely important will come out of it, when in fact it has no purpose at all.

How about you bother to reply coherently to people rather than nitpicking and mentioning the poll.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The numbers in the poll are pretty obvious.
And the lead is growing more obvious as time goes on.

So if your waiting for it to fall inline with your opinion, it could be a long wait.

The average number of poll respondents on the previous polls was roughly 100 or more.

The poll could still swing in my favor.

Except it's not going to

Only time will tell. I expect that by this time tomorrow, we should have enough numbers to decide the matter one way or the other.

How on earth does the answer of a poll affect your ability to answer a question of your opinion? Combined with the leading questions, and (possibly intentional) mix-up of the poll question, this really brings into question the value of your polls as a tool for you to back up your view than as a genuine question to benefit the community.

And besides, I think this quote from you sums up the idea of having to face superheavies, which are very much part and parcel of the game.

Traditio wrote:
Suck it up

As for my own view - I have an issue with broken units. Not Superheavies and Gargantuans. Yes, a portion of those Superheavies and Gargantuans are broken for what they are, but that is no way to fix the issue. If you want to correct the issue, correct the things causing the problems - leave the innocent units like the Thunderhawk, Stompa, Baneblade and Malcador alone, and target the actual problems. Because right now, you're trying to fix a broken toe with a sledgehammer.
This applies to everything - don't just slap a blanket restriction or vague one over the problem - actually take time to sort out a balanced, fair approach that leaves everything more balanced.

All I can say with this poll, is that it's a joke, a poorly phrased and suspiciously set out poll, and a result that is so obvious that people are going to choose.

Number one, Superheavy vehicles are not in any way an overpowered vehicle. Even a titan can be taken down with codex units of appropriate points cost. Yes, superheavies are hard to take down, but they are so because they are a points sink, and means the opponent has to base a game plan around that unit in question.

Simply treat them as ordinary deathstar units, with ranged attacks, and thats them dealt with.

One of my friends kept including a duo of knights in his black templars force, and I countered that tactic, taking more dedicated anti-tank vehicles.

And if you aren't clear on the rules, ring your local GW, and ask, or even ring GW HQ and ask.

I kind of agree; I find my regular games (1,500-2,000 points or so) are better without any super-heavies, gargantuan monsters or flyers, as none of them really fits the scale of these games.

Of course there are some super-heavies etc. that are well balanced or even under powered, but even so I'd still rather be fighting against something else as investing a ton of points into a super-heavy in a small to medium game means there are less units and less tactics. The same is true with Flyers; if you don't bring enough AA you can't bring them down, but if your opponent doesn't take one then any AA you bring is wasted, the same can be true of gargantuan creatures and super-heavies, and the firepower required to destroy them.

With these elements removed, or included only with player consent, we can make list-building less about guessing what your opponent might bring and more about just bring units and having fun. Sure there are still other elements of guess-work (Psykers, regular vehicles and the like) but that's already more than enough, we don't need more in our regular games.


That said, I can't vote that they be banned; rather I don't think they should ever have been added to the regular game in the firs place. Banning just annoys people, the better solution is to talk to your opponents, and allow the use of multiple lists so you can switch to one that's more appropriate.

It's a pretty pointless poll.

Some people might have generally voted for allowing super heavies, some people might have just voted allowing it to spite OP.

Just ask your opponent not to bring super heavies in non-apoc games if you're against them and if they refuse, don't play them. Simple.

I voted No, but with a little bit of a leaning towards kinda of

In 'casual' games I think maybe a gentleman's agreement between players regarding their use or not it's meant to be a game but if one side turns up with something the other side cannot even glance whilst it leafblowers the other army off the table then its not really a game,

Torny wise I'd say it's up to the folks running the torny, so long as all the players know in advance and can make their list accordingly then no problems

I do love seeing the big models on the table, especially well painted ones, which given the time and money investment they represent they usually are