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.

At what point do you think running a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan in a standard game can be considered 'overpowered, cheesy or broken'? (take your pick)

Reason I'm asking this is because I'm going to a 1250 tournament soon and I know one of the armies that I might be facing is AM with a Baneblade.I think I could handle it, but sacrificing the entire armies shooting against other vehicles for a turn.

When do you think a super-heavy is too much for total points, if at all?

Baneblades are a bit much at that level. I'd rather face a Stormlord at that level.

I think 1.5k is a decent level, but I like the HH method the most: at 2k, no more than 25% of your list.

I've always felt that superheavies should have been included like they are in HH. That would be a maximum of 25% of your total points cost. I feel that's a reasonable house rule, being exactly 1 Knight in 1500 games and up.

As for the Baneblade, in a game that small, it just makes up so much of your army that its more or less a battle for who can kill it/do the most damage with it as quickly as possible.

I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

Super heavies are fine at any level. They require less offensive output to take down compared to equal points of other vehicles.

Baneblades are probably one of the weaker super heavies to top it all off.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

I have no issue with super heavies so long as im not going to get sandbagged by a list i literally cannot win (like a list with nothing but knights and i may only have 1 unit of anti tank at a 1000 points or something equally hyperbole.

But i think an all around good game can be hand at the 1500-2000 plus games with a super heavy or two.

Not to say though that spamming ANYTHING makes for a dull game anyway.

I love fighting with and against superheavies. At that point level, you shouldn't be worried about 3 Lehman Russ worth of damage and survivability.

 Frozocrone wrote:
At what point do you think running a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan in a standard game can be considered 'overpowered, cheesy or broken'? (take your pick)

Reason I'm asking this is because I'm going to a 1250 tournament soon and I know one of the armies that I might be facing is AM with a Baneblade.I think I could handle it, but sacrificing the entire armies shooting against other vehicles for a turn.

When do you think a super-heavy is too much for total points, if at all?

I don't see a problem with it, as you said you're pretty sure you can deal with it. you're just gonna have to wait until turn 2 to pop the rest of his vehicles, Lemme ask you this...

Is taking 600 points of lemen russes cheesy? how about Vendetta gunships? Yeah the baneblade is powerful but as others have noted, thats a lot of points that could, argueably, be used more efficantly elsewhere. generally speaking super heavies just aren't that bad. with codex Necrons, the worst offenders have been... corrected as far as I can tell.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

What I meant was: They only BELONG in Escalation and Apoc. Keep them out of my regular 40k.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

What I meant was: They only BELONG in Escalation and Apoc. Keep them out of my regular 40k.

I'm fine with them in regular games, on the condition both players want to play them. I mean if we're playing a friendly game and I want to run an all Slaanesh Daemon army and you bring 5 Knights I'm going to tell you to sit on your army and spin, but if it's something both people can have fun with it then I don't see any harm in them being an option.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

What I meant was: They only BELONG in Escalation and Apoc. Keep them out of my regular 40k.

I'm fine with them in regular games, on the condition both players want to play them. I mean if we're playing a friendly game and I want to run an all Slaanesh Daemon army and you bring 5 Knights I'm going to tell you to sit on your army and spin, but if it's something both people can have fun with it then I don't see any harm in them being an option.

I agree with that, but in competitive play, I don't want to run into 3 knights at the 1500 point level. I believe that there can be a middleground between competitive and casual play, even at tournaments and I find Superheavies (especially knights) are one of the more abusable things that would have been better left for other formats.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

What I meant was: They only BELONG in Escalation and Apoc. Keep them out of my regular 40k.

I'm fine with them in regular games, on the condition both players want to play them. I mean if we're playing a friendly game and I want to run an all Slaanesh Daemon army and you bring 5 Knights I'm going to tell you to sit on your army and spin, but if it's something both people can have fun with it then I don't see any harm in them being an option.

I agree with that, but in competitive play, I don't want to run into 3 knights at the 1500 point level. I believe that there can be a middleground between competitive and casual play, even at tournaments and I find Superheavies (especially knights) are one of the more abusable things that would have been better left for other formats.

Agreed on the Competitive play thing. Locally Knights are limited to 1 per army max for tournaments just to prevent that kind of abuse of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I do think it's too much. I wish they had stayed in special formats (like escalation), but that train has sailed. :p

It's not like you can't bring the Escalation rules into your games. If you and your opponent agree on it at least.

What I meant was: They only BELONG in Escalation and Apoc. Keep them out of my regular 40k.

I'm fine with them in regular games, on the condition both players want to play them. I mean if we're playing a friendly game and I want to run an all Slaanesh Daemon army and you bring 5 Knights I'm going to tell you to sit on your army and spin, but if it's something both people can have fun with it then I don't see any harm in them being an option.

I agree with that, but in competitive play, I don't want to run into 3 knights at the 1500 point level. I believe that there can be a middleground between competitive and casual play, even at tournaments and I find Superheavies (especially knights) are one of the more abusable things that would have been better left for other formats.

Agreed on the Competitive play thing. Locally Knights are limited to 1 per army max for tournaments just to prevent that kind of abuse of the game.

It's something we're looking at locally right now. I think there will be a vote, but in the last tourney they were not limited and that's not a format I'm overly fond of. I've got my fingers crossed!

 docdoom77 wrote:
It's something we're looking at locally right now. I think there will be a vote, but in the last tourney they were not limited and that's not a format I'm overly fond of. I've got my fingers crossed!

If prizes are on the line then I'd say it's a necessity. If it's just about getting as many games in as you can in a day then I can see why people might not do it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
It's something we're looking at locally right now. I think there will be a vote, but in the last tourney they were not limited and that's not a format I'm overly fond of. I've got my fingers crossed!

If prizes are on the line then I'd say it's a necessity. If it's just about getting as many games in as you can in a day then I can see why people might not do it.

There are prizes. First place at our doubles tourney this weekend had 3 Knights. Good guys: They got best opponent, and second best painted army as well, but 3 Knights? Yuck.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
It's something we're looking at locally right now. I think there will be a vote, but in the last tourney they were not limited and that's not a format I'm overly fond of. I've got my fingers crossed!

If prizes are on the line then I'd say it's a necessity. If it's just about getting as many games in as you can in a day then I can see why people might not do it.

There are prizes. First place at our doubles tourney this weekend had 3 Knights. Good guys: They got best opponent, and second best painted army as well, but 3 Knights? Yuck.

Yeah, unless everyone is taking Knights (which could be kind of fun for a tourney) I don't think straight Knight armies are really tourney appropriate in most cases.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm fine with them in regular games, on the condition both players want to play them. I mean if we're playing a friendly game and I want to run an all Slaanesh Daemon army and you bring 5 Knights I'm going to tell you to sit on your army and spin, but if it's something both people can have fun with it then I don't see any harm in them being an option.

I agree in a casual environment it really should be something you discuss with opponents. I have a feeling If I started bringing my warhound for every game I would find myself with a very short list of available opponents. In a competitive environment go ahead and bring the super heavy.

I really tend to avoid competitive games though for the same reason I don't play Magic anymore, the extremely competitive crowd is just not fun to be around.

The extremely competitive crowd pushed me out of MtG during 8th. There are just only so many times you can play against the exact same Darksteel Forge/Colossus deck before you get bored and quit.

 Frozocrone wrote:
At what point do you think running a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan in a standard game can be considered 'overpowered, cheesy or broken'? (take your pick)

Reason I'm asking this is because I'm going to a 1250 tournament soon and I know one of the armies that I might be facing is AM with a Baneblade.I think I could handle it, but sacrificing the entire armies shooting against other vehicles for a turn.

When do you think a super-heavy is too much for total points, if at all?

A lot depends on the superheavy in question.

For something like a simple basic Baneblade, I usually say if you can deal with three Russ tanks, you can deal with a Baneblade. There's a some differences, but they're broadly interchangeable.

Likewise, a Stompa in a 1750 or 2000pt game can be fine, but when you sit a Mek sporting a relic 4+ invul field in it along with a coupe other Mek's and repair most or all of the HP's lost every turn, it becomes absurd.

Unfortunately, most Superheavy units/GC's aren't really costed appropriately, and usually the bigger and more capable they are, the more undercosted they are with things like Heirophants and Reaver Titans easily often being able to engage and armies and units two or three times their value, while the weaker and less capable they are, the more reasonably costed they tend to be, with the smallest superheavies often being barely useable or complete junk like the Malcador and Macharius tanks.

TL;DR no good answer, depends on the superheavy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The extremely competitive crowd pushed me out of MtG during 8th. There are just only so many times you can play against the exact same Darksteel Forge/Colossus deck before you get bored and quit.

That is why I avoid competitive 40k I don't want it to ruin my fun with the game, thankfully most people around my area are more casual players, I am actually going to be running a store campaign and have at least 12 people or so, the rules are setup in a way to make it about having fun(no complete elimination), super heavies and forge world are allowed if both players agree, to bring in allies you actually have to get someone else in as the allies. The overall goal is to get our 40k community to know each other better.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
At what point do you think running a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan in a standard game can be considered 'overpowered, cheesy or broken'? (take your pick)

Reason I'm asking this is because I'm going to a 1250 tournament soon and I know one of the armies that I might be facing is AM with a Baneblade.I think I could handle it, but sacrificing the entire armies shooting against other vehicles for a turn.

When do you think a super-heavy is too much for total points, if at all?

A lot depends on the superheavy in question.

For something like a simple basic Baneblade, I usually say if you can deal with three Russ tanks, you can deal with a Baneblade. There's a some differences, but they're broadly interchangeable.

Likewise, a Stompa in a 1750 or 2000pt game can be fine, but when you sit a Mek sporting a relic 4+ invul field in it along with a coupe other Mek's and repair most or all of the HP's lost every turn, it becomes absurd.

Unfortunately, most Superheavy units/GC's aren't really costed appropriately, and usually the bigger and more capable they are, the more undercosted they are with things like Heirophants and Reaver Titans easily often being able to engage and armies and units two or three times their value, while the weaker and less capable they are, the more reasonably costed they tend to be, with the smallest superheavies often being barely useable or complete junk like the Malcador and Macharius tanks.

TL;DR no good answer, depends on the superheavy.

Yeah, I'm given the impression GW wasn't thinking too hard on the points costing for some of the super heavies. Compare the Revenant Titan to the Lord of Skulls. by the points they should be "reasonably close" but I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

that said sticking your head in the sand and refusing to accept super heavies in 40k isn't the answer. Super Heavies are here, and are activly being folded into codices as they come. Codex Orks and Necrons being notable ones here that have super heavies in their codex, expect that to be a trend that moves along futher. (I'm actually kinda looking forward to the next IG codex just to see how GW handles the sheer number of baneblade varients ) the good news is I expect to see GW approuch these super heavies a little saner. consider the transcendant c'tan. it went from being OMG OVER POWERED! to well... not.

The answer I prefer is no superheavies below 1,500, one above, and if one side brings a superheavy and the other doesn't the side with no superheavy gets a vortex grenade (12" range D-strength small blast) on one Character model.

I recommend using the Horus Heresy formula. Keeps things reasonable.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The answer I prefer is no superheavies below 1,500, one above, and if one side brings a superheavy and the other doesn't the side with no superheavy gets a vortex grenade (12" range D-strength small blast) on one Character model.

So if I take a Malcador, a unit that is worse than its points in LRBTs, my opponent gets a free D-weapon? No thanks.

 Lobukia wrote:
I recommend using the Horus Heresy formula. Keeps things reasonable.

The only problem with the heresy formula is that it's designed for the 2-3000 point level that 30k games are played at. A 25% limit in 40k effectively means "no superheavies" because even Baneblades and similar low-end units are above the limit until you go above 2000 points. And hardly anyone plays 2000+ point games of 40k. The only real options would be a handful of "worse than LRBT" options for IG, and knights. So we're right back to the absurd situations where everyone takes knights, regardless of how unfluffy it is, because none of their own options are legal.

I do agree that the basic idea is good though, the limit just needs to be 33% or so. That would allow you to take a Baneblade-level unit in a standard 1500-1750 point game, while still keeping the titans out of normal games.

As long as people can't take invis buffed warhounds or eldar titans or that nid one it probably doesn't matter. The problem is that if people do take any super heavies, its knights or warhounds or eldar titans or the nid one.

I tend to feel one is OK-ish, depending on what it is. 2 Is pushing it and I'll have to consider what they are and their list, as well as my own. 3 is when I won't even consider putting models on the table.

Melevolence wrote:
I tend to feel one is OK-ish, depending on what it is. 2 Is pushing it and I'll have to consider what they are and their list, as well as my own. 3 is when I won't even consider putting models on the table.

Even if they're crappy Malcadors?

Super heavies aren't the problem. Certain units are a problem. Just like has always been the case.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I tend to feel one is OK-ish, depending on what it is. 2 Is pushing it and I'll have to consider what they are and their list, as well as my own. 3 is when I won't even consider putting models on the table.

Even if they're crappy Malcadors?

Super heavies aren't the problem. Certain units are a problem. Just like has always been the case.

Indeed. It'd be like banning any MC heavy support units because "OMG! WRAITH KNIGHTS AND DREADKNIGHTS!"

 Grey Templar wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
I tend to feel one is OK-ish, depending on what it is. 2 Is pushing it and I'll have to consider what they are and their list, as well as my own. 3 is when I won't even consider putting models on the table.

Even if they're crappy Malcadors?

Super heavies aren't the problem. Certain units are a problem. Just like has always been the case.

I agree, in fun games I am less inclined to bring a large super heavy, knights are fine but not a war hound or larger titan.