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.

 curran12 wrote:
I love how he goes from "the whole poll is suspect" to "I still have a strong majority" to "if I do a new poll, I will be in the majority".

"Strong minority," not "strong majority."

And corrected.

 curran12 wrote:
And corrected.

Do you disagree with any of the things that I've said?

1. Do you disagree that the poll is suspect, and, as far as we know, I could actually be in the majority simply because most people voted according to the thread title rather than reading the poll?

2. Do you disagree that, even if the poll is accurate, I am still in the strong minority?

3. Do you disagree that, granted the poll results, given that over a third of people voted to ban superheavies outright, that, chances are, at least half would vote to restrict superheavies, though not outright ban them?

Traditio wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
And corrected.

Do you disagree with any of the things that I've said?

1. Do you disagree that the poll is suspect, and, as far as we know, I could actually be in the majority simply because most people voted according to the thread title rather than reading the poll?

2. Do you disagree that, even if the poll is accurate, I am still in the strong minority?

3. Do you disagree that, granted the poll results, given that over a third of people voted to ban superheavies outright, that, chances are, at least half would vote to restrict superheavies, though not outright ban them?

Make the poll already, you know you are going to, it'll feel so good.

Seriously if you need to, do the poll. Personally I would vote to keep the points the same its the whole carcass of rules that have been added since 4th and 5th that need to be edited at minimum. changing points costs or tweaking does litlle in the grand scheme.

The problem stems from the very first point. Your poll is suspect. Nothing else beyond that matters because the numbers are fundamentally flawed. No matter how many times you try to word it, you aren't going to squeeze value from something that was so poorly worded and misleading.

However, it's quite easy to put your claims to the test. So let me just put the money where my mouth is: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/691980.page#8677121

Let's just see how your idea holds up, shall we?

I voted Yes.

Because this circus is fun to watch. Continue.

Traditio wrote:

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).

36% is nothing to sneeze at.

36%... including people who accidentally voted "yes" instead of "no" (there were what, at least 4-5 people who commented and said so of the ~160+ votes)? Doesn't seem like a lot, but that's roughly a 2.46 - 3.08% difference (at time of posting), and when there are only 2 options (yes or no), it isn't much. And that's only the few we know were messed up by the poll question being the exact opposite of the title (which begs the question of why didn't you just copy/paste the title as the question?).

For comparison, would you say Romney in the 2012 election had a "Strong minority"? Of course not, he got MURDERED in the election, scraping barely 38% of total votes. A strong minority would probably be something like 40% to 45%, not 33% to 34%.

You never had a majority, or strong minority, and rewording the poll will simply push it even further in favor of SHVs not being banned.

For me, it's not an issue of "power", but of scale. I believe neither Superheavies nor Gargantuan creatures nor even flyers beyond certain sizes belong to what should be a basic, "normal" 40k game.

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

Things like the Deathstrike feel quite out of place in "normal" 40k as well.

Aye, the Deathstrike should be a terrain/scenario piece, and objective to defend, not something that's going to be launching its missile at a target within small arms distance.

Its a problem with 40k trying to encompass and do what Epic used to do.

I am perfectly fine with Knight Titan equivalents in "regular" games of 40k. They are totally reasonable and characterful. And they speed the game along in a useful way.

It is good that the Wraithknight exists as a dedicated Titan hunter, although it is a about 10% overpriced for what it does...

It is also good that Tau got a Titan of their own.

I look forward to seeing the Orks get a plastic Mega Dredd in the near future, because that would be fething ace.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

I played in an escalation league. Pick up game at 1k pts with my chaos marines. Weak book, as you probably know. My opponent brought 3 flyers and a terminator squad that sat OOLS. There was no ignoring them. I picked up models the entire game. This kind of thing happens in 40k, especially at low pts levels and with new players. Super heavies, gargantuans and multiple flyer are awesome to see, but have the very real potential to auto win in ways that even the most competetive standard armies just don't if your opponent failed to bring the specific tools necessary (the fact that you cited Sisters and BA as not having to worry about IK of all armies kind of illuminates that). Negative play experiences ain't cool. If your group goes beat face 100% of the time or you're at a tourney then cool. Otherwise just know that if you show up to kick some new guy into the dirt with super heavies or WKs for a pick up you look like a dweeb.

Kill his terminator squad and then laugh as his flyers fail to score any objectives the whole game. If you've got plague marines, the flyers will never do enough damage.

Martel732 wrote:
Kill his terminator squad and then laugh as his flyers fail to score any objectives the whole game. If you've got plague marines, the flyers will never do enough damage.

Cool dude. It was a 1k game, he sat his termies on an objective in the back of his deployment zone and out of line of sight. I was tabled before I made it to him, even if I'd just camped on two he would've taken me out. Even if I had won through having one more objective after only rolling staggering cover saves for 5+ turns, so what? That's not a game.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Flyers can't put out that much hurt. Which flyers are we talking about here?

"That's not a game. "

Welcome to every BA victory every in 7th.

Martel732 wrote:
Flyers can't put out that much hurt. Which flyers are we talking about here?

2 talons and a raven.

They very much can.

You're missing the point with the semantics. Those flyers could've easily been 2 WKs, or IKs and I would've been just as fethed. The guy got talked down by the group and for good reason. It's 40k.

Not much AP 3 there. I think he was the one who was fethed. The stormraven is particularly overcosted. Yeah, it sucks not being able to hit them much, but those flyers are VERY ignorable. Unlike a WK or a Riptide.

No, superheavies should not be banned. You should either figure out how to take them down, or ask your opponent not to field them in every game.

I guess there is room for the occasional David and Goliath scenario in a game.
It is just too easy for the opponent to bring Calvary to a Tank battle.

I agree with the idea of scale.
The typical 4'x6' tables seem awfully small when the 10" (or more when talking about Deathstrike) pie plates come out.
Some of these scenarios of largely infantry armies taking on Super Heavies makes you wonder who failed their military intelligence check?

The game always played well in more skirmish type games.
The rules start to creak a bit when we get into Apocalypse sized battles, makes me want to break out the Epic ruleset.

Closing this one as no longer needed.