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 voted wrong because the question in the title and the question in the post are opposites.

That is infuriatingly disingenuous.

I was also caught out by the poll question being different to the topic title, I votes 'yes' but meant to vote 'no' - I don't think SHV should be banned from regular games.

Superheavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures add an enjoyable new dimension to the game and don't necessarily add more power to a list than an equivalent amount of points spent on other units. I wouldn't want to play against one in every game but that's true about most units, I enjoy the variety of things me and my opponents can bring to the table.

I play Orks and while some SH/GC could pose a bit of a problem they aren't necessarily that much harder to deal with than other vehicles or MCs. If I can destroy two vehicles with 3 hull points a piece I should be able to handle one vehicle with 6 hull points even if I'm not rolling on the vehicle damage table. If I can't deal with a SH because of the list I chose then I'll deal with the rest of the army first instead and play for objectives.

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

I know right, I thought I was voting for yes I think they should be a part of it but instead my vote is stuck in the opposite of what I wanted.

I think really you can't expect to see many in an average pick up game anyway and among friends you'll know and come up with something among yourselves anyway. For tournaments TOs will always steer the event they feel works best for everyone. Apocalypse has become a relic pretty much.

"Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?" YES
"Should Superheavies Be Banned from Non-Apocalypse Games?" NO

Your data will now be skewed as the above questions conflict and have caused the voters to vote opposite of their opinion.

Personally I am fine with SuperHeavies in regular games up to a point. A 5 Knight army (while not overly competitive) is not fun to play against since (win or lose) half my army may not be able to damage anything the entire game. Sure I can win based on the missions, but I don't give a $h!+ about winning, I want my stuff to be effective and roll dice.

I "police" myself by limiting to no more than 1/3 of my army spent on Superheavies/GMCs. This means only 2 WKs in 1850, despite the fact that I own 3 (since they used to be Heavy Support MCs) and would enjoy using all 3 in a game every now and then. In casual games, I only field 1 WK and 1 Crimson Hunter as my only anti-AV platforms.

-.

So that's four people thst voted the wrong way because of misleading thread title and questions?

New poll. Should traditio stop making pointless polls?
Yes.
No.

Deadnight wrote:
So that's four people thst voted the wrong way?

New poll. Should traditio stop making pointless polls?
Yes.
No.

*Clicks thread. Question reads: Do Traditio's polls prove anything? Yes. No.*

Curse these dishonest poll makers!

So the count is well over the 100 samples desired.

Admit being wrong? Because public opinion is your gauge of right/wrong, and I'm sure enough people read the actual question and didn't just answer the title.

I've played with and against superheavies and I generally think they're fine.

Unless you're talking about the ~2000 point emperor titans, and even those have the weakness of not being able to fire close to themselves, iirc.

If you restrict anything, I'd restrict being able to take multiple. Stick to the 1 LOW / detachment - no knights/eldar shenanigans.

Super-heavies should be allowed in normal games, so long as the player bringing them isn't being a dick about his list (i.e. super competative list in a game that was KNOWN to only be friendly), however, pull a 30k and make it 25% of total points MAX and only in games of 2,000 beyond.

I accidentally clicked no, how do I change it? Thought it said "Do superheavies belong in normal games" for some reason

Either way surprised to see so many no votes. I highly doubt everyone had a moment of stupidity and clicked the wrong button like I did. (On the other hand, I guess I can't talk about people who claimed to vote for the wrong person anymore )

On topic, I just don't want to see superheavies in a 1500-2000 pt game. Yes some (probably most) are terrible for their points, but that doesn't change the fact that apocalypse also includes things like warhounds or actual superheavies like baneblades (yes I know baneblades aren't good bear with me here)

If I'm playing 1500-2000, I came into it wanting to play with regular units. Having to plan for models that require their own case just doesn't strike me as fun. It'd be like if I went to a "friendly" 500pt game and brought two Leman russes. Yes, I can legally field that, and yes, it's not technically a good list, but it's not going to be fun for the opponent and breaks the game. Not to mention that most apocalypse units were actually created with a separate game mode in mind from the get go, which means many were never intended for standard games to begin with. Even models like the knight or riptide which were intended for "standard" play still use rules and designs that were intended for apocalypse originally. It just strikes me as a bad idea to drag these concepts into a game where there's still challenges and potential for a single character to have over a page of special rules and gear. If GW wanted to make apocalypse more profitable they should've just encouraged a new points level with apocalypse rules and pushed it with routines, not shoehorned them into the regular game.

Please Realize that I started in 5th. If you had walked into a store in 5th and wanted to field an apocalypse unit under 3000pts you would've been laughed out of the store. Even something like a knight or riptide would've raised serious eyebrows. Didn't matter how "good" it was, it's still apocalypse which meant if you wanted to play it you played apocalypse. I can pretty much guarantee that if I ever tried to get in a game again, it would be under those rules too. I'd honestly rather have no game than have to deal with a 6" tall Titan model in a 1500 pt game, let alone more than one, or heaven forbid, an army consisting entirely of them.

I know that apparently that opinion isn't going to be popular here, but I bet that this poll's results would dramatically swing back if fyou had a way to poll all the people who left the game and don't browse dakka out of habit anymore. I have no problems with Titans and all that in general, apocalypse looked fun everytime I saw it, but they weren't originally designed to be part of a standard game and it really shows.

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

Why can my five hull point gorkanaut be one shot by a Las cannon or melta, but yours cannot even lose a weapon? Reduce the cost if you have to and take the regular vehicle penalties. Or would you even bother bringing it at that point.

@Mr. M.

The rules tell us that SHV and LOW are allowed in normal games. As it stands doubt there has ever been a 'standard' game of 40k played anywhere in the world.

All we can do is take what GW tells us are the rules then decide what how we want to play. Which was Rick Priestlys intent with the ghastly Rogue Trader rules (RPG lite DM'd games). You can still thank Rick since the heart of the rules are stil the same as they were 30 or so years ago. Thank the current design team as well, since this ethos is what has allowed some bloody stupid interactions and rules making to be published.

So it was Traditio that said to wait til the morning to see if the poll supports him.

And despite the massive dishonesty in the difference between title and poll, it is still nearly 2:1 against him.

How's that wait and see approach coming?

I think there's nothing wrong with super-heavies.

Just last week I killed a Warhound titan in two turns and I wasn't specifically tailored to deal with a vehicle list.

I took off 5 hullpoints with a single chaos terminator squad in a dreadclaw.

 curran12 wrote:
So it was Traditio that said to wait til the morning to see if the poll supports him.

And despite the massive dishonesty in the difference between title and poll, it is still nearly 2:1 against him.

How's that wait and see approach coming?

I predict another poll in Traditios' future.

Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough look at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies aren't over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

 Vankraken wrote:
Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies are over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

The core rules need to be rewritten in order that add ons and new unit types can be added without totally breaking the game. sticking new rules onto the old just doesn't work.

 Vankraken wrote:
Should superheavies be banned? No

Should GW take a really thorough at the core SHV, SHW, GMC, and Stomp rules to help bring them more in line with the rest of the game so that certain super heavies are over the top OP while others aren't a rolling dumpster fire? Yes.

Should GW also fix some of the gak like near invincible deathstars that basically need stomps to deal with or how useless combat focused non super heavy vehicles/walkers are? Also Yes.

This. I think the idea of super heavies and GMCs are fun. The execution however is poor. Some of them are vastly over powered, some of them are crazily lacklustre. The reality needs to be somewhere in the middle.

I voted no because the idea is ridiculous. I also suspect Traditio's reasoning is similar to saying "Space Marine Centurions are OP therefore I have banned all Space Marine units".

 Galef wrote:
"Do Superheavies Belong in Non-Apocalypse Games?" YES
"Should Superheavies Be Banned from Non-Apocalypse Games?" NO

Your data will now be skewed as the above questions conflict and have caused the voters to vote opposite of their opinion.

This. Poll does not match title of thread. Results are irrelevant.

I can't help but wonder what he will try to spin this as. Even earlier in this thread, when called out on it, he acknowledged it as "incompetence" yet did nothing to correct it (such as editing his title).

Last thing to expect is some kind of admission that his hypothesis was incorrect.

 curran12 wrote:
Last thing to expect is some kind of admission that his hypothesis was incorrect.

But you would expect yet another "poll" from him, right?

curran wrote:Even earlier in this thread, when called out on it, he acknowledged it as "incompetence" yet did nothing to correct it (such as editing his title).

I didn't know that I could do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thoughts:

Again, I wish to offer my apologies for the completely incompetent way that I phrased the poll in comparison to the way that I phrased the thread title, which really does render the results of the poll suspect, as many people in this thread have indicated that they accidentally voted wrong.

However, let us assume that the poll is basically accurate, and that people voted "wrong" both ways enough so that it would basically even things out had they voted "correctly."

I wish to note the following:

1. I do hold a minority view. However, it's a very strong minority that my view enjoys. 36% is nothing to sneeze at. Most people are fine with superheavies, but the acceptance of superheavies is by no means universal. More than 1 in 3 players would like to see them banned.

2. I think what the consensus, even taking into account the majority view, is ultimately "getting at," based collectively on this thread and the previous thread, is that superheavies are fine, as such, but they need to be appropriately priced, and many simply are not.

This is not an unreasonable view. It's a view that I disagree with, but it's a view that I don't consider inherently unreasonable.

3. I think that if I made a further poll about whether superheavies, though being allowed in normal games, should be restricted, the polls would swing much more in my favor, as several persons in this thread have indicated (including, surprisingly, Galef).

Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

If it is priced appropriately, who cares?

 Las wrote:
Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

You're so cute with your list tailoring. There shouldn't be units that I need special knowledge of to deal with.

Traditio wrote:
36% is nothing to sneeze at. Most people are fine with superheavies, b

Make a new poll before you decide to try to use the results of what you've admitted as being suspect mere moments earlier. The poll up the top there as it stands currently is meaningless and nothing short of a restart could save it from that sadly.

Martel732 wrote:

 Las wrote:
Super heavies and gargantuans should be stated prior to games so your opponent can plan for them, as should lists with more than one flyer tbh. They have the ability to completely invalidate an opponents army in ways that a simply hard competetive list just doesn't.

It's the nature of 40k. Nothing wrong with it.

You're so cute with your list tailoring. There shouldn't be units that I need special knowledge of to deal with.

Flyers and super heavies have one or two counters. If you have a pick up game and the opponent shows up without one of those two counters then you just don't have a game.

If you think there shouldn't be units you don't need to be informed about then vote for a ban (maybe you did, I didn't read the thread.) This is the nature of the 40k beast. You gotta deal with it, bud.

I'm never informed of the codex I'm playing, much less what's in the list. Why would anyone think that's a normal thing for a wargame?

Flyers can be ignored as currently implemented. They don't need a counter per se.

Superheavies vary. Most BA and Sister lists, for example, don't fear IK at all, but Riptides, DK, and WKs are magically immune to melta in practice.

Hell, telling me you are bringing a WK doesn't help at all because I have no counters in my codex anyway.

"then you just don't have a game. "

Patently false. Especially with some points bumps to Riptide, Stormsurge, Wraithknight, and Flyrants.

Yeah the poll has little to back it up when it's worded completely opposite of the title.

However, given this is a 40k forum which is populated (mostly) by people who play the game, if you remade the poll and worded it correctly, you'd probably still see a skew towards keeping superheavies in. People who are still playing probably own a few and don't want to see them leave after all. Like I said in my other post, most of the people who would vote to remove them probably already left.

Half tempted to start a "fixed" poll in the poll section but I doubt there's a point.

I love how he goes from "the whole poll is suspect" to "I still have a strong minority" to "if I do a new poll, I will be in the majority".

That's just brilliant. Anything to avoid having to say you might not be correct, eh?