Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So 2 months ago the 40k world was set ablaze with Escalation and Strong hold. Super heavies and D weapons in a regular 40k games was a rage inducing concept to most players. Still most RTT's and GT's do not allow either of these in main events. Enter the Imperial Knight last week. A super heavy with a D weapon that again had set the interwebs on fire, but for a different reason. Most posts I have seen are about how many to take and who can ally with them ( even if they are 8" or not. LOL you size queens ). No more outrage about a D weapon or a super heavy in a standard game. So now that the majority of players can field a model that most people think looks good it is OK that these are fielded in games? I agree the Eldar titan thing was OP, but most of the other super heavies were ok with the restrictions and points in the escalation book. This all just seems like players hating something that isn't in their army, but as soon as they can field or ally something it's not an issue any longer. I'm I off base with thinking this ?

It's ranged blast strength "D" weapons that had everyone up in arms. Removing swaths of an opponent's army from 48"+ is a lot different from punching 2-3 guys to death in melee per turn.

It's is about how good the phantom, and to a lesser degree, the warhound, is, and how poor the knights are.

2-3 plus stomping 3 templates in CC.

Then don't let it get into CC.

Still not that intimidating.

No-one rages about how broken the Stompa is (well, almost no-one) and it has the same loadout.

D str chainsaw, stomp attacks.

No D weapons at range.

 Ascalam wrote:
Still not that intimidating.

No-one rages about how broken the Stompa is (well, almost no-one) and it has the same loadout.

D str chainsaw, stomp attacks.

No D weapons at range.

The Stompa is quite expensive and its shooting damage is not that high - played it in a APO recently.
However, if you take two Knights (still cheaper than one Stompa and same number of hull points) and let them move by 12'' towards the enemy, then this can become pretty scary for the enemy.

 Wilytank wrote:
Then don't let it get into CC.

So why not say don't let the eldar titan get line of sight? See where this logic is going?

Sleep debt wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
Then don't let it get into CC.

So why not say don't let the eldar titan get line of sight? See where this logic is going?

Really you equate staying out of LoS of a model the size of a toddler to keeping your valuable units out of CC with a Knight?

 Eldarain wrote:

Sleep debt wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
Then don't let it get into CC.

So why not say don't let the eldar titan get line of sight? See where this logic is going?

Really you equate staying out of LoS of a model the size of a toddler to keeping your valuable units out of CC with a Knight?

relax. it was an attempt to say " just don't do X" is not really a answer for anything.

It's called a Super-Heavy, but really, the only thing super-heavy about it is the size of the model and the number of hull points. It doesn't have multiple weapons to take advantage of split targetting rules, it doesn't have void shields, and it doesn't have the ability to remove whole units based on a scatter die.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It's called a Super-Heavy, but really, the only thing super-heavy about it is the size of the model and the number of hull points. It doesn't have multiple weapons to take advantage of split targetting rules, it doesn't have void shields, and it doesn't have the ability to remove whole units based on a scatter die.

true. playing devils adovocate :It does however have a D weapon, uses super heavy rules( how hull points work, 12" movement, special rules ), can be take more than once, and is ~370 points.

So did the Eldar phantom kill the escalation codex? Most other superheavies in the escalation codex can only be taken 1 time, are way more expensive, have no void shields, have no large scatter D weapons.

Again I'm playing devils advocate in did the community over react to escalation to 1 bad unit?

Here's a thought, had the Knights come out before Escelation would they have caught the flak and Escalation been given the pass?

People reacted against the idea that superheavies were intended to become a permanent addition to all 40k games, with escalation intended as a mandatory core piece, and not simply an expansion (ala apocalypse, cities of death, etc.). Not everyone seems to be on board with that idea, and now rumors seem to say that 6.5 or 7th edition (whichever it may be) will put escalation into the core rules, implying that players will no longer have as much of a choice on whether or not superheavies will be playable in regular games.

Sure, not every superheavy is a game changer since apocalypse, like all rules GW seems to produce these days, is not at all balanced. As such, some units are not great (i.e. stompas) and some are so good as to effectively make playing the game an act of absurdity (revenants).

I have a feeling that most knights that people purchase will become very pretty mantle pieces, and GW seems to recognize that purchasing trend. Hence I think people are excited about the model, but not so excited in the idea that they'll be running them around in most future games (the model itself is just really awesome). The icing on the cake of course is that the rules don't make it massively overpowering for a number of reasons. That makes players feel like they can use this unit from time to time and not be guilted too strongly.

I don't think people overreacted at all; I think a lot of people (myself included) don't like the shift 40k is taking to bigger and bigger units. It devalues smaller things, and when you're paying a lot of money for those units, it becomes frustrating.

Jefffar wrote:
Here's a thought, had the Knights come out before Escelation would they have caught the flak and Escalation been given the pass?

I doubt escalation would have been given a pass. People can like the Knights (particularly appearance-wise) and still not like the idea that the game is shoehorning in bigger and bigger models on an already small table.

For instance, I don't recall a lot of complaining about Apocalypse being introduced, but then again it was never a *required* part of the game. Were it the case that Apocalypse rules were suddenly added to the core rulebook, I think the gnashing of teeth would have been exceptional.

Sleep debt wrote:So 2 months ago the 40k world was set ablaze with Escalation

...

Enter the Imperial Knight last week. A super heavy with a D weapon that again had set the interwebs on fire, but for a different reason. Most posts I have seen are about how many to take and who can ally with them

You are treating the internet as if it is a single entity with a single mind and a single purpose.

What's far more likely is that there is a group that likes neither escalation nor knights, a group that likes both escalation and knights, and then only a small group in the middle that changed their minds. It's just that you only noticed the comments of the former group before, and you're seeing the group of the latter now.

For all we know, this is a problem of selective attention on your part, not of gross hypocrisy on ours.

Even if it IS nothing more than player hypocrisy, I don't recall it ever being a crime when a person changes his mind about something.

I personally have always loved the idea of super heavy units and Escalation/Apocalypse style stuff. Giant monstrosities rampaging around the board liquidating entire squads and firing spacecraft level ordinance at each other? Awesome! That is 40k.

The problem is that the units aren't balanced. I mean 40k isn't exactly balanced as it is, but the superheavies are just a complete other level of ridiculousness.

If we got balanced superheavies (i.e. not 800 point Revenant titans or completely useless IG tanks that are worse than their points in Leman Russes) then I don't think there would be as much complaining against Escalation.

Under this assumption...knights are a balanced superheavy designed for standard points level 40k gameplay. They are exactly what I (and other people out there who think like me, if there are any) would want to see on the table. I can understand why there's such a positive reaction from that standpoint.

Not so much hypocrisy as it is GW trying to intervene and state that they feel superheavies/D-Weapons are balanced and put the kibosh on the complaints. Think about it: It's not that easy to blanket ban superheavies in a tournament if Imperial Knights are an actual army, because then you are excluding an entire army; you might as well disallow Eldar or Tau.

This is GW's way of saying "We don't care about your complaints, superheavies are here to stay so you better deal with it". In fact it's just another example of them not caring about balance or listening to the playerbase but thinking that anything they do will get eaten up without question. They ascribe way too much to the incorrect mantra "If you build it, they will come" instead of building what people want.

WayneTheGame wrote:This is GW's way of saying "We don't care about your complaints, superheavies are here to stay so you better deal with it". In fact it's just another example of them not caring about balance or listening to the playerbase

What?

The reason we have superheavies is BECAUSE the fan base wanted it, not in SPITE of what the fan base wanted.

It's like saying that despite what everyone wanted, major car manufacturers made gas-guzzling SUVs. If nobody wanted them, then why did so many buy them?

 Ailaros wrote:

The reason we have superheavies is BECAUSE the fan base wanted it, not in SPITE of what the fan base wanted.

It's like saying that despite what everyone wanted, major car manufacturers made gas-guzzling SUVs. If nobody wanted them, then why did so many buy them?

For serious. There's a reason people want to believe the annual plastic Thunderhawk/Warhound rumors. People want this stuff, even if it's not always the most vocal posters on this forum.

Part of the community reaction was the same as the initial reaction in the past to fliers being allowed in 6th edition.

There was probably more commentary regarding what the game would become when fliers were allowed before fliers were in the game then after.

The same is pretty true for escalation.

Prior to escalation being released many sites had many "well known" internet 40k peoples giving commentary about how these units would pretty much end 40k.

The main Difference IMO is that when fliers came out there were good fliers for the Imperial forces, which are the majority of players. So when the rules for them were release the overall amount of internet posts and topics regarding how fliers would ruin 40k disappeared.

When escalation came out, there were not good units for the imperial forces, despite the fact that escalation was not a set of optional rules, and just like death from the skies[other than the optional dog fighting rules] is part of the current core of 40k, many players still seemed to be very upset at this new part of the game. So much that many people in the "well known" 40k internet community has deemed it not part of the game, and decided it is optional, and do not allow it at tournaments or think it should not be part of casual play, etc.

I honestly believe this is simply because the imperials [space marines] did not get anywhere close to the best, or most iconic unit. The thunderhawk is good, but no one is writing internet posts or topics on it really. Most of the commentary is on the eldar titan, and then some on the stompa.

If the eldar instead had something like the cobra, or a flyer/bomber, and the warhound was released as the space marine Lord of War, IMO I think escalation would be better received then it was.

Despite the fact that escalation was released a little over 2 months ago, the internet banter and overall doomsday complaints about it existed for many months beforehand.

I feel GW knew the community would not accept escalation having 1 "bad unit" especially if it was non imperial [space marine] unit. Therefore they pushed out the knights, as "imperial knights" which although not from the escalation book require rules from it to be used. Supplying an iconic and "good" imperial model will allow for the customer base to calm down and become more accepting of escalation.

One of the possible reasons they are making 6.5/7th edition is so they can take this book, and put its contents into the physical main rulebook, to further force acceptance of superheavies being in the core of 40k, much like how fliers were put into the main rulebook. It is easier for a player to say that something is optional because its a different book, of course this is silly and the same as saying tau are optional because they are not in the core rulebook- but people can be silly . If its in the main rules, its a lot harder for people to say its optional, or try to exclude it.

Let us remember GW is a company that sells models, and they can sell more models if there are more models for people to choose from.

and yes it is hypocracy but many players do not make rules calls or have thoughts that they feel make the most sense RAW or to the background, they have thoughts and make rules and calls based on the armies they play.

Strength D at range is 1 problem i have with escalation.

Super heavies outside of Apocalypse is my other problem with escalation.

Neither is my idea of a fun game.

So, my solution, don't play with or against super heavies outside of apocalypse. It's really not a hard concept and there is no need to rage. You just need to open your pie hole for something other than your 15th mountain dew for the day and tell your opponent what type of game you'd like to play.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I personally have always loved the idea of super heavy units and Escalation/Apocalypse style stuff. Giant monstrosities rampaging around the board liquidating entire squads and firing spacecraft level ordinance at each other? Awesome! That is 40k.

The problem is that the units aren't balanced. I mean 40k isn't exactly balanced as it is, but the superheavies are just a complete other level of ridiculousness.

If we got balanced superheavies (i.e. not 800 point Revenant titans or completely useless IG tanks that are worse than their points in Leman Russes) then I don't think there would be as much complaining against Escalation.

Under this assumption...knights are a balanced superheavy designed for standard points level 40k gameplay. They are exactly what I (and other people out there who think like me, if there are any) would want to see on the table. I can understand why there's such a positive reaction from that standpoint.

This. The knights are pretty solid for their points cost. Some apocalypse units that are now ok via escalation have very arbitrary numbers for their point costs that are way off base. An Imperial Reaver titan, for example, could basically pick 3 units to delete per turn, and the last time I tried it out, it scattered a laser blast and deleted a 4th too.

Shooting str D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melee str D

Sleep debt wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

Sleep debt wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
Then don't let it get into CC.

So why not say don't let the eldar titan get line of sight? See where this logic is going?

Really you equate staying out of LoS of a model the size of a toddler to keeping your valuable units out of CC with a Knight?

relax. it was an attempt to say " just don't do X" is not really a answer for anything.

Why not? Plenty of armies can easily take this thing down in range. Tau Railguns and Fusion Blasters, Imperium meltas and more, Eldar and Dark Eldar Lance weapons, Necron Gauss...hell even Tyranids can take it down in Close Combat before it even can make its attacks with three Carnifexes and their multiple Strength 9 Hammer of Wrath hits.

 kronk wrote:
Strength D at range is 1 problem i have with escalation.

Super heavies outside of Apocalypse is my other problem with escalation.

Neither is my idea of a fun game.

So, my solution, don't play with or against super heavies outside of apocalypse. It's really not a hard concept and there is no need to rage. You just need to open your pie hole for something other than your 15th mountain dew for the day and tell your opponent what type of game you'd like to play.

I agree with this.

The game is a game, and should be about fun.

niv-mizzet wrote:

Shooting str D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melee str D

I would even take this a step further and say that Blast Template D is about that many greater than symbols above non blast template D. I am referring to the Tigershark AX-1-0 here, although that is flying D so that might make it better as well (come to think of it, are there even any other units in the game that have strength D on a non template ranged weapon? I'm actually curious about this and legitimately don't know)

Also I agree with Kronk here. Talk to your opponent about what you want to play! It's not that hard. I always ask stuff like "hey, can I roll out the Barracuda for this game? Are you bringing some anti-air?" The tournament argument where you can't do that is a specific subset of the "some superheavies are really unbalanced" problem. And yes that is a real problem. I'm not going to deny that. I would say that Escalation is an awesome idea that got implemented terribly...that actually sounds like a lot of Games Workshop stuff to be honest.

I understand the comparison to flyers , the problem with flyers then was the same one escalation has now. when flyers first hit the scene a large amount of armies didn't even have a flyer and or any way to deal with a flyer without it running around with basic immunity popping stuff open, however over time most players have gotten flyers or some sort of skyfire added to their army, also at the same time they started to tone down the flyers and balance them out (with the exception of the helldrake of course) other than that most players could likely careless you bring a flyer now cause they are able to beat the dang thing now.

Now taking a look at escalation, the problems are much the same even if you were forced to accept super heavies in games the issue starts to be come one of availability, in order to field super heavies most people must order one from Forge world and give up their first born for one , in all seriousness though its a ton of money for resin that has to be shipped across the pond for most. You can't just go to your FLGS and grab one up off the shelf.

It also suffers from a major imbalance, a problem most would agree the knight doesn't suffer from, it seems fairly balanced. Hell Necrons are just frothing at the mouth to see one of these things and laugh at you as you wasted 25% of your armies points.

So in summary you have a model that a lot of people wanted, not even just to play but to build and paint and show off, it just so happens to be in most people eyes a very balanced unit (on paper) and comes with a price point most people can afford or at the very least willing to pay after saving up.

Escalation has the problem of a lot of models being harder to get a hold of and made of a material many hate, and they cost so much money that its hard for many to get. also add in that some of the same units are going to clear a table off on its own and you have a situation where there can be a pretty legitimate complaint. In other words just cause its good to sell a model doesn't mean its good for the game.

However this is why I am in the camp of 40k should be played for fun and discussed before a game.

No real hypocrisy, the vast majority of escalation complains were, and still are, due to the reverent and the ctan-two OP units even withing the realm of apoc where balanced is assumed not to exist.

Once you take these two out (the necron got 2 other pretty damn good options there, just eldar and Deldar something that IS balanced), esclation turns into a good addition to the game, giving you the opportunity to have new unique armies, and a chance to both be at the side of the "overkill unit", or to fight against one, and it IS possible to take them down, and quite rewarding.

There are some instances where I think that the guys at GW think this gak up just to see what happens. They write up Escalation and Apocalypse books specifically so that players can use these giant ass units in, roughly, a standard 40k game. THEN they write up the Knight, which for all intents and purposes should be in the two previously mentioned books, and make it available to everyone for non-Escalation/Apoc games.

Seriously, doesn't that strike you as a giant, troll-like move? I mean, I love the Knights, and I want thirty of them, but I can't look at them and not see them as a 'haha feth you' move.

That all being said, the fact that you can field an army of these things, complete with a Warlord is pretty cool. It's an army centered around giant mechs and it's certainly priced so that people who don't want to spring for Reavers or Warhounds can get in on the action.

I'm wondering what they'll be like when they finally show up and are usable in tournies and the like.

The Imperial Knight is reasonably balanced.

However, the upper end of Escalation is absurd. The Revenant epitomizes this, completely invalidating any army without ranged D when protected by intercepting Tau. The C'tan is similar, if not as bad.

These super heavies are just out of scale for regular 40k. One model should NEVER take up more than half of an army. It isn't balanced and it isn't fun.

Ummm I'm pretty sure you mean elder revenant Titan - such is 900 pts, has 2 pulsars (2 blasts each), and is about the size of a warhound although skinnier. The phantom, is 24" tall, costs about 1000$ has up to 8 blasts and is warlord class - and NOT mentioned in escalation. (It's 2500 pts)

 Accolade wrote:
People reacted against the idea that superheavies were intended to become a permanent addition to all 40k games, with escalation intended as a mandatory core piece, and not simply an expansion (ala apocalypse, cities of death, etc.). Not everyone seems to be on board with that idea, and now rumors seem to say that 6.5 or 7th edition (whichever it may be) will put escalation into the core rules, implying that players will no longer have as much of a choice on whether or not superheavies will be playable in regular games.

Sure, not every superheavy is a game changer since apocalypse, like all rules GW seems to produce these days, is not at all balanced. As such, some units are not great (i.e. stompas) and some are so good as to effectively make playing the game an act of absurdity (revenants).

I have a feeling that most knights that people purchase will become very pretty mantle pieces, and GW seems to recognize that purchasing trend. Hence I think people are excited about the model, but not so excited in the idea that they'll be running them around in most future games (the model itself is just really awesome). The icing on the cake of course is that the rules don't make it massively overpowering for a number of reasons. That makes players feel like they can use this unit from time to time and not be guilted too strongly.

I don't think people overreacted at all; I think a lot of people (myself included) don't like the shift 40k is taking to bigger and bigger units. It devalues smaller things, and when you're paying a lot of money for those units, it becomes frustrating.

Jefffar wrote:
Here's a thought, had the Knights come out before Escelation would they have caught the flak and Escalation been given the pass?

I doubt escalation would have been given a pass. People can like the Knights (particularly appearance-wise) and still not like the idea that the game is shoehorning in bigger and bigger models on an already small table.

For instance, I don't recall a lot of complaining about Apocalypse being introduced, but then again it was never a *required* part of the game. Were it the case that Apocalypse rules were suddenly added to the core rulebook, I think the gnashing of teeth would have been exceptional.

yes superheavies may be added to the game, but if you just play for fun like i do... you can always just not play against super heavies. I will probably play against a few, but if they are broken and make the game no fun then i just will pass games with players who have them and say sure i will play a game but not with super heavies. heck i know players who only will play with/against foot lists. that is their choice (and a choice my harliquins love mind you).