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.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

Superheavy vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and D weapons all require rules that go beyond the normal system to accommodate for them. This is most obvious with D-Weapons, since the entire reason they exist is because the Strength scale only goes up to 10.

When you need rules to go beyond your own game system, its a hint that the units shouldn't exist at all. These would be fine in Apocalypse, since Apocalypse is suppose to be whacked out crazyness, so going above the game system is ok, even encouraged. But if the base game was never built to handle these, then they should not be in the base game.

However I'd prefer them to completely overhaul the rules to accommodate for these units rather than just shove them off to Apocalypse. They can be fun, and the game is already due for an overhaul due to the other cluttered rules everywhere (Flyers, Special Weapons, etc, I'm looking at you).

Did you vote "yes" on the poll? Please tell me that you didn't misunderstand the poll prompt and answered "yes" on the poll.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

Superheavy vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and D weapons all require rules that go beyond the normal system to accommodate for them. This is most obvious with D-Weapons, since the entire reason they exist is because the Strength scale only goes up to 10.

When you need rules to go beyond your own game system, its a hint that the units shouldn't exist at all. These would be fine in Apocalypse, since Apocalypse is suppose to be whacked out crazyness, so going above the game system is ok, even encouraged. But if the base game was never built to handle these, then they should not be in the base game.

However I'd prefer them to completely overhaul the rules to accommodate for these units rather than just shove them off to Apocalypse. They can be fun, and the game is already due for an overhaul due to the other cluttered rules everywhere (Flyers, Special Weapons, etc, I'm looking at you).

If you look in your main rulebook you'll find a strength D chart. I'm sure they didn't put that there because it looks pretty. Plus, gw makes the codices and the game, although they make some questionable decisions, if a wraithknight is in your codex, you should be able to field it, just like any other unit.

First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

Traditio wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

He's likely refering to the fact that they are part of the core game mechanics.

Traditio wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say no because of the following reasons:

Superheavy vehicles, Gargantuan Creatures and D weapons all require rules that go beyond the normal system to accommodate for them. This is most obvious with D-Weapons, since the entire reason they exist is because the Strength scale only goes up to 10.

When you need rules to go beyond your own game system, its a hint that the units shouldn't exist at all. These would be fine in Apocalypse, since Apocalypse is suppose to be whacked out crazyness, so going above the game system is ok, even encouraged. But if the base game was never built to handle these, then they should not be in the base game.

However I'd prefer them to completely overhaul the rules to accommodate for these units rather than just shove them off to Apocalypse. They can be fun, and the game is already due for an overhaul due to the other cluttered rules everywhere (Flyers, Special Weapons, etc, I'm looking at you).

Did you vote "yes" on the poll? Please tell me that you didn't misunderstand the poll prompt and answered "yes" on the poll.

If you actually read his post he said he voted no because he thinks they should be part of the main game despite everything else because he thinks the game should be restructured to more properly suit them.

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.

I don't really have a binary answer on this one (though I voted 'Yes' just as a way to signify a desire to see a change), but I think a great many aspects of the current 'basic' game should be relegated to specific scenarios/rules addendums/options.

Having played since 3rd, I think the basic game functions best when it is focused on what are largely small infantry conflicts. I think the default assumption for the game should be that two people will show up and play a largely infantry based "skirmish" (not skirmish in the Mordheim sense).

On the other hand, I don't think that any of the other aspects of the game are bad/wrong, but I think they are different enough that they should be negotiated rather than assumed.

For instance, Super-heavies make some sorts of assumptions about the conflict that should be reflected in the game, while boarding troops make different assumptions. People don't show up at a game and expect to play Zone Mortalis without prior arrangement, but for some reason, it's perfectly reasonable to assume a board that will allow you to deploy large vehicles, and assume a board with an open airspace that will allow the use of Fliers.

I think that a better rulebook by GW would discuss the assumptions inherent in fielding certain types of forces, and the rules necessary for doing so, while presenting them as some sort of 'modular' system that can be used to build a given game. You might agree with your opponent that a game was going to be Fliers and Superheavies, so that both of you would expect to bring anti-armor and anti-air forces.

While it's certainly possible for an unprepared force to be attacked by enemies that they cannot reasonably harm, it can make for a bad game and, by the same token, there would be no reason for a force to not be attacked by a force multiple times larger then themselves, either! Nobody would want to show up and discover that your opponent might be using 10x your points, just because 'it's possible that you got ambushed'.

I also feel that it's disingenuous to claim that 'basic' 40K is 'show up and fight' or 'anything goes'. People DON'T show up to normal games with Zone Mortalis armies. People don't show up with normal army selection only to find a dense cityscape with no room for anything larger than a terminator. We don't show up to find a aerial battlefield set over a steaming, impassable sea of lava. We already make some background assumptions about the types of battles we are fighting, and I just think the game would be stronger and more playable if that process was formalized and expanded.

Sure, it would limit player selection of their force, but we already do that. We're just doing it in some particular ways (points, allies, detachments, formations) while not using others that could serve to make a better matched game.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

Traditio wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
First, any army that beats him is "cheese". Then, it's because of the Wraithknights. Now, it's Superheavies in general. Riiight.

Newsflash, Superheavies are a mandatory part of the game, and all armies should be including them. At full MSRP.

What page of the BRB are you going to cite in support of this?

He's likely refering to the fact that they are part of the core game mechanics.

And every competitive list since the original Imperial Knight released.

@OP: L2P

There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

This actually is a case of incompetence on my part, not malice.

Traditio wrote:

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:My guess honestly is it was done on purpose to round up "votes" for the ops opinion, though I could be wrong.

This actually is a case of incompetence on my part, not malice.

It might also be incompetence and/or malice that you seem to be ignoring the very valid points I raised in this post.

And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

 Peregrine wrote:
And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

I think it's because he doesn't have an answer to that.

 War Kitten wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And also ignoring the question of why a Malcador is so scary that it needs to be banned from normal games.

I think it's because he doesn't have an answer to that.

Traditio doesn't seem to have an answer to much.

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

I just had the same problem, and did end up giving a mistaken vote because I didn't read the prompt vs the thread title. I expect that most of the mistakes will be the same as mine, people voting yes when they meant to vote no.

Superheavies, especially the vehicles, are not particularly frightening. I love the Macharius Vanquisher, and I'll argue that it's a better tank than the Baneblade all week long, but that doesn't actually make it a good unit. I enjoy the narrative options available with SHVs on the table, and the power isn't really enough of a difference for most of them (Wraithknight and Stormsurge excepted) to make me worry. Knights? Most of my lists can kill a Knight in one or two turns with virtually no losses. Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly. GMCs are scarier than SHVs, and I can still put those down without too much trouble. Unless they're a Wraithknight or Stormsurge, in which case it just takes longer.

Really?
I'm sorry, but the malcador is a joke.

Looks amazing, but rules wise it's a hugely over costed LRBT.
I'd rather play against that than the same cost in actual LRBT's.

However, I'm guessing this was sparked from the previous thread where the OP wants wraithknights at 450+ points and IK's raised aswell.


If your unable to kill a SHV or GMC in an average sized game then there's a problem with your own list or abilities.


Obviously if said army is running something like:

Captain
Tac squad
Tac squad
Reaver Titan

That may pose a slight issue.


But people run stuff like the baneblade and variants on a regular basis these days.


So for the poll, im fine with it.

MIni MIehm wrote:
Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly.

Not necessarily - if someone is taking a Baneblade, generally speaking, there should be more dangerous stuff that would be easier to kill, so the big, not-scary Baneblade can sit for a turn until those other threats disappear. Like, say, Knights.

No to banning, but if I don't think my army stands a chance, I don't have to play against them either. Of course, that goes for any unit/combo - I'm there to have fun, not get curb stomped.

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Well, I just pulled this up from one of your threads traditio.
Explains why you want to ban just about everything too.

If your really this against near on every rule or unit these days, are you sure 40k is for you?

MIni MIehm wrote:

Marksman224 wrote:
There is a problem with the name of this thread and the question of the poll.

Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?
vs.
Should Superheavies be banned from non-Apocalypse games?

They are completely completely and directly contrary questions. I very nearly voted "no" to the question because I rushed through reading it assuming it was the same as the thread title. You might want to change this, who knows who else made that mistake.

I just had the same problem, and did end up giving a mistaken vote because I didn't read the prompt vs the thread title. I expect that most of the mistakes will be the same as mine, people voting yes when they meant to vote no.

Superheavies, especially the vehicles, are not particularly frightening. I love the Macharius Vanquisher, and I'll argue that it's a better tank than the Baneblade all week long, but that doesn't actually make it a good unit. I enjoy the narrative options available with SHVs on the table, and the power isn't really enough of a difference for most of them (Wraithknight and Stormsurge excepted) to make me worry. Knights? Most of my lists can kill a Knight in one or two turns with virtually no losses. Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly. GMCs are scarier than SHVs, and I can still put those down without too much trouble. Unless they're a Wraithknight or Stormsurge, in which case it just takes longer.

You are of the opinion that superheavies SHOULD be banned, but voted that they should NOT be?

 Jackal wrote:

40k players are in the business of playing competitive games. That needs to change.

My proposals:

Since STUFF IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN:

1. Do not utilize anything that confers rerollable saves.
2. The vast majority of your army (both in terms of points and model count) should be T4 or less and have "infantry" in the unit type.
3. Don't use Tau.
4. No Decurion.
5. The use of fliers should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.
6. The user of superheavies should be minimized, if not entirely avoided.

Since even the APPEARANCE of unfairness adversely affects fun:

1. NO SUMMONING.
2. No teleportation.
3. No spamming OP, undercosted units. If you use an undercosted unit, then adjust accordingly. You have one wraithknight in your army? You only get 1750 points in an 1850 points game.
4. Minimize the use of barrage.
5. No use of unfair or apparently unfair powers or weapons. (Eldtritch storm, I'm looking at you).
6. No using rules loopholes or rules lawyering.

More to come later.

Well, I just pulled this up from one of your threads traditio.
Explains why you want to ban just about everything too.

If your really this against near on every rule or unit these days, are you sure 40k is for you?

The more Traditio comments as well as the more Traditio continues to ignore people, the more and more Traditio seems to be the sort of person who likes 40K because it allows them to be argumentative and inflammatory while simultaneously trying to push their own opinions on others. Notice that Traditio seems to be completely ignoring a number of people's comments because they're valid points that seem to disagree with his standpoint?

Reading comprehension, it's a thing.

If someone says 'I voted Yes when I meant No', just maybe they mean exactly that.
Especially if they follow that with a paragraph about most Super Heavies not even being scary or threatening in the slightest.

Traditio wrote:
You are of the opinion that superheavies SHOULD be banned, but voted that they should NOT be?

No. Did you read what they said? Your thread title and poll question are different. The title asks "do superheavies belong in normal games", the poll asks "should superheavies be banned from normal games". If you believe that superheavies should be allowed you'll answer "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second. If you click your poll answer without reading the poll question, assuming that it matches the title, you'll give the opposite answer from the one you intended to give. This is what I almost did, but I read it more carefully at the last second because I know not to trust your polls.

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

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.

But guys!
He's trying to claw a vote over and claim the votes are wrong!
They must be as they don't agree with him.

I know, the poll is now invalid

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....

 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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:
Baneblades? Those die in one turn fairly regularly.

Not necessarily - if someone is taking a Baneblade, generally speaking, there should be more dangerous stuff that would be easier to kill, so the big, not-scary Baneblade can sit for a turn until those other threats disappear. Like, say, Knights.

S9 Ordnance Barrages. I have enough cheap kaboom in most lists that I can afford to pop the Baneblade, and still shave some hits off of whatever else. Even if I just burn all my pie plates to kill the Baneblade, and point the Macharius at any other hypothetical SHVs, I'd still feel it was worth it.

The Baneblade is actually more of a danger to my gun line, since it has enough shots over a signle turn to theoretically pop all three shields on the VSG, and actually put hits on my models, or open up my models to hits from other enemies. It's also something that I can reliably kill in one turn with S9 Ordnance Barrages, so it gets target priority, because it doesn't get a save, and Knights do.