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.

The poll, continuing on in my love for collecting data, is very simple.

I propose the following rule for all non-apocalypse games:

No super-heavies.

What say you and why?

Why do you propose banning them? Why ban Super-Heavy units which are non-competitive but fun such as Malcadors, for the sole reason that they're Super-Heavy?

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

Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

Yes they should be fieldable but would need to be balanced correctly - like any other unit...........

 Valkyrie wrote:
Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

It doesn't...in apocalypse games.

That's all that I'm saying.

You want to run your superheavy? Then play apocalypse.

Traditio wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Take my Malcador example then? It's 6HP, armed with a Battle Cannon and sponsons. How does this warrant a ban?

It doesn't...in apocalypse games.

That's all that I'm saying.

You want to run your superheavy? Then play apocalypse.

Then you have to bring another 3000 points along with you.

I go by the reasoning of use the little plastic men you like, just don't be a about it.

So, let me get this straight: you're so terrified of my Malcador (a tank that is worse than its points in LRBTs, and an absolute joke compared to top-tier "normal" units) that you need to ban it? This is about as reasonable as banning all of your tactical marines.

PS: what's your excuse going to be this time, when the poll numbers don't agree with you? Will you accept that your answer is wrong, or will you blame "trolls" again?

PPS: if you think my LoW should be banned then you can give me $1000+ to buy other units and pay someone to paint them to my standards.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, let me get this straight: you're so terrified of my Malcador (a tank that is worse than its points in LRBTs, and an absolute joke compared to top-tier "normal" units) that you need to ban it?

Why do I have the feeling that you are being a liar, liar, pants on fire when you claim that you have or use a Malcador?

PS: what's your excuse going to be this time, when the poll numbers don't agree with you?

"This time"? The poll numbers agreed with me last time.

Will you accept that your answer is wrong, or will you blame "trolls" again?

I'm willing to admit that I could hold a minority opinion.

if you think my LoW should be banned then you can give me $1000+ to buy other units and pay someone to paint them to my standards.

You don't paint your own models?

I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

 War Kitten wrote:
I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

The baneblade fires an apocalyptic blast at 72 inches. It literally has a word, the root of which is "apocalypse," in the statline of the attack.

It clearly doesn't belong in regular games.

And Heavy Flamers have the word Heavy in their name.
Clearly they're meant to be a Heavy Weapon.

Also the Deathstrike Missile now is an Apocalyptic Blast with an Unlimited Range. Are you going to argue that it can only be taken in Apocalypse games, too?

Matt.Kingsley wrote:Also the Deathstrike Missile now is an Apocalyptic Blast with an Unlimited Range. Are you going to argue that it can only be taken in Apocalypse games, too?

Yes.

Traditio wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I don't agree with banning super-heavies in non-apoc games. Are some super-heavies a bit crazy in non-apoc games? Yes. But that doesn't mean ones like the Malcador and the Baneblade (which are so far from OP that it's not even funny) should be banned. With the way 40k is now there are so many ways to take down vehicles like those, that it's almost more of a handicap to me to take the Baneblade than it is trouble for you to kill it

The baneblade fires an apocalyptic blast at 72 inches. It literally has a word, the root of which is "apocalypse," in the statline of the attack.

It clearly doesn't belong in regular games.

So can a Deathstrike, are you going to argue that the Deathstrike should be apoc only as well?

@ Traditio:
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. You can't be serious right now?
Oh wait, it's you. Of course you are.

Can we agree then that any weapon with the graviton rule be apoc only? I've lost more riptides and XV8 to those than any superheavy. Back when I played nids? Grav on table = I don't get to use my not-flyrant MC's.

So, if something is WORSE objectively than it's codex counterpart, or just plain BAD, it still warrants Apocalypse Status?

Also, three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

Anything I can't kill with krak grenades in one turn should be apocalypse only!

Traditio... following you around today and agreed with you in the last argument you started (hahaha). Anyway, I think SHs add a cool aspect to the game and competitive play. I think that if no SHs could be brought, some new player's entire army would go away (IKs).

I just think that 2 things need to happen:

1. Cost needs to go up to balance them internally with the rest of 40k

2. Counters to them need to be available to all codices... (Orks, SoB, AM/MT, BA, DE, CSM) although the last 2 or 3 may be getting better due to the new codex rumor for DE and CSM knights. A simple balance for Orks would be make the Dorkanauts SHs (and up their Xport capacity which is just silly).

 doktor_g wrote:
Traditio... following you around today and agreed with you in the last argument you started (hahaha). Anyway, I think SHs add a cool aspect to the game and competitive play. I think that if no SHs could be brought, some new player's entire army would go away (IKs).

I'm perfectly fine with this result. I don't think that IKs belong in the non-apocalypse game.

No bannarino please

I would rather they all have points restrictions.

On a less tongue in cheek note, yes they work just fine. The vast majority of superheavy vehicles in the game are little more than a distraction carnifex. I'm pretty certain that if you placed in front of me a list of every superheavy in the game, I'd wager maybe 3 would mount a serious threat.

GMC on the other hand, well... aside from the Tyranid and Daemon ones they could all use a 20-50% price hike.

Having an IK army myself, I can attest to how easily they fall if you aren't super careful about where you move, what you shoot, and what your assault. The recent change/clarification on cqb grenades will no doubt be a boon to SHV, but they will ask die the same way they die now. Massed grav shots, fire dragons, TWC, d-spam.

Maybe (as Desubot said) there should be some sort of points or percent restrictions for super heavies? Like they can only be x% of your force (kind of like how WHFB did their force org)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

The squadron bonus should be apocalypse only, imho.

Traditio wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...three Vindicators in a squadron (IIRC) can fire an Apocalyptic Blast shot. Is that now reason for Vindicators to be Apoc only? And of course, if a Vindicator is, a more expensive Land Raider should be too!

This is a very valid point. Traditio: Should Vindicators be Apoc only because of this? Where do you draw the line o things like Linebreaker Squadrons?

The squadron bonus should be apocalypse only, imho.

Then personally Speaking as somebody who has run a full Vindicator Squadron before, you've just made them worthless. The Linebreaker Squadron Special Rule is one of the main reasons (if not, THE main reason) why people take Vindicators. Without it, there are plenty of better choices that simply give you less than no reason to take Vindicators in non-Apoc games. You've effectively made them useless in non-Apoc games...

I voted wrong. Should of been NO.

Regardless the first premise is I don't think all superheavies are created equal. A lot of superheavies right now aren't really that good or that powerful. However I don't think Titans should be playable in non apoc games below 2500pts. Good thing most Titans are worth more than that.

How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

This system (or something equivalent to it) would probably be best if the premise of Traditio's original post is even required. The only problem with that is that not all SHV's are comparable (in points or in stats ).

 IllumiNini wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

This system (or something equivalent to it) would probably be best if the premise of Traditio's original post is even required. The only problem with that is that not all SHV's are comparable (in points or in stats ).

I understand that, and I was thinking of how WHFB did force org, where each selection could be a certain percentage of your total army. Like your Core had to be at least 25% of your army. Maybe LOW/Super Heavies could be a certain max percentage of your force (say 25% out of apoc games), with certain exceptions (such as a IK army)

 IllumiNini wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
How do people feel about maybe restricting super heavies to a certain % of your army's total points? (with the possible exception of an IK army). As in, superheavies can only take up a certain % of your total points

This system (or something equivalent to it) would probably be best if the premise of Traditio's original post is even required. The only problem with that is that not all SHV's are comparable (in points or in stats ).

I'm going to take a wait and see approach to this. So far, there have only been 25 respondents.

If the poll ends up 100 or so people strong and ends in my favor, I am going to reject War Kitten's idea on the grounds that they don't belong in normal games to begin with.

If the poll ends up otherwise...

...

...I may have to question the necessity of War Kitten's proposal in the first place. If superheavies belong in the normal game, what precisely is it that demands a points restriction?

PS:

Furthermore, why should IKs be an exception?