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.

Remaking this poll for proper wording, as the last poll created confusion as the title read one one and the poll asked a different question.

I am Traditio and I endorse this poll.

The last one had too much of a mismatch between title and poll question.

I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

Voting yes.

The only way to stop the bloat and massive discrepancies between units is to make a core game more suitable for SHV's, SHW's special units and other add on rules.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades. Superheavies and gargantuans are a relatively recent change tacked onto a system that wasn't built for them.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

You say it so much better than me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades.

Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Traditio wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I have absolutely no philosophical objection to massive stuff with big guns being allowed in regular play, as long as the whole game is designed from the ground up to ensure that they're integrated fairly.

It's not. The core game has been essentially the same for decades. Superheavies and gargantuans are a relatively recent change tacked onto a system that wasn't built for them.

Thanks kid, I'm well aware of my 40kistory.

We're also on the cusp of a new edition, which may well change the landscape for super heavies, and I'll also qualify the initial post by stating that most are fine as is, most of the remainder need the smallest of tweaks and then there's only one or two outliers that, should they be here to stay, that need wholesale changes.

In fact, most units, now I think about it, have Codex, rather than Core Game problems, so I'd revise my initial statement to reflect that. The issue isn't with the unit type, purely with the inherent poor balance in the game, which is largely army book related.

Mr. Burning wrote:Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Would you agree that 40k was more balanced/playable in 4th and 5th editions than in 6th and 7th respectively?

so long as both players are mature enough to not bring them when they obviously shouldn't by the standards of a friendly game (i.e. bringing a wraithknight to a 1,000 pt. game), Yes. ESPECIALLY since certain armies get a needed buff when they do bring them (IG, Blood Angels, Orks, Chaos, etc.)

There is no evidence for either of these unit types to be, by definition, imbalanced. I posit that the perception of their imbalance is caused by a select few extremely common examples, as well as an extremely common misreading of how D-weaponry works.

I've seen too many people JUST complaining about Wraithknights, Stormsurges, and IKs, and too many people going "two D shots from a Wraithknight can wipe out a WHOLE SQUAD of terminators! That's broken!" to see it any other way.

The majority of superheavies and gargantuans currently supported in the rules of the game are actually inefficient for their points. That does not speak to an overpowered, universally undercosted unit type.

For a counter-example, look at Flying Monstrous Creatures, and bike/jetbike units. Compare the number of those units that are considered on the high end of the competitive spectrum within their codexes vs the number of those units that are considered on the low end.

Powerful, imbalanced supers (within each codex): Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Stormsurges, Supremacy Suits, and I've heard (but not played against) Revenant Titans and Warhounds are too strong.

Underpowered Supers (within each codex): Allllllllll the baneblades/malcador variants, the mega-land raiders, all the tau Super-flyers, both nid gargants, all ork superheavies, the Dark Eldar superheavy skimmer, all three necron supers.

Powerful or Imbalanced Bike/Jetbike units (within each codex): Windriders, Seer Councils, Bike Eldar HQs, Bike SM Hqs, SM bike squads, SM bike command squads, Ravenwing, Reavers, Warbikers, Nob Bikers, Warbosses on Bikes, Tomb Blades

Underpowered bikes/Jetbikes (within each codex): Swiftclaws, scout bikes(?), Shining Spears, Blood Angels bikers(?)

This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

Traditio wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:Then the core needs to change. It is a creaking mess that adding extra rules onto makes worse. SHVs are a drop in the ocean

Would you agree that 40k was more balanced/playable in 4th and 5th editions than in 6th and 7th respectively?

Maybe slightly, only because many of the units and rules we now associate with 40k proper were not around. I really prefer having the selection we have now even the rules we get given.
We have onlyjust moved on from FW units being a pariah at the gaming table.

The core is still based upon Rogue Trader which was designed as and RPG lite skirmish with a DM involved The rules really haven't moved past that ethos. which is why we get some seemingly crazy imbalances in rules and unit stats because the players have to work things out and agree.

Yes, but it would be nice to have a rule that keeps them and all the power formations / detachments out of low point cost games. 7th has integrated apocalypse rules and I am totally fine with that. Who cares for free transports and titans in a 5000pts army they just need to stay away out of the lower and mid sized games.

I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

Yeah sure. Give them the 25% rule from FW too. It's not going to be enough, but together with the other fixes (double Wraithknight cost, nerf the stuff that is so OP you need <300p Wraithknights to fight it, etc) it is a start.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

In starcraft; zerg have ravagers now to break up and punish static units. Ironic.

Martel732 wrote:
In starcraft; zerg have ravagers now to break up and punish static units. Ironic.

In Elder Scrolls Online, the Templar class now has an execute instead of some CC. Ironic.

((???))

Limiting LoW in low point games but leaving the powerful / apocalypse like detachments and formations to roam freely seems like a mistake to me.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

How about we give it a day? Like you wanted with the other one

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In starcraft; zerg have ravagers now to break up and punish static units. Ironic.

In Elder Scrolls Online, the Templar class now has an execute instead of some CC. Ironic.

((???))

Zerg are similar to Tyranids, but Tyranids completely lack their abilities to counter gunlines.

Not sure how TESO is relevant in the comparison, assuming you were not just being snide.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In starcraft; zerg have ravagers now to break up and punish static units. Ironic.

In Elder Scrolls Online, the Templar class now has an execute instead of some CC. Ironic.

((???))

Zerg are similar to Tyranids, but Tyranids completely lack their abilities to counter gunlines.

Not sure how TESO is relevant in the comparison, assuming you were not just being snide.

I didn't see the connection, and I kind of still don't, because I have no idea about starcraft and whatnot. I suppose the lesson is that the Zerg were having a problem in Starcraft and so they fixed it, which they have not yet done in Warhammer for the similar race, the Tyranids. Is that what you meant?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

Weird. I play superheavies routinely (both of my remaining armies are 30k Leviathan detachments), more than twice weekly, and I've not had a game yet where my opponent and I didn't have fun - at least that they've told me. So either they're masochists who play me over and over again, or what you said is anecdotal and varies based on opponent and army lists.

Traditio wrote:
This poll is started off a lot closer than the other one.

IOW, "if I look at enough polls eventually I'll find one that gives the result I want".

PS: still waiting for you to stop dodging the question and provide an answer to why the Malcador needs to be banned.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think they do, at least not any larger than the knight-class. Less for balance purposes, but more for gameplay.

They lead to edge cases where you bring them to a game, and your opponent can either handle it, in which case he'll win easily after alpha-striking it and knocking out half your army in one shooting phase, or he can't, and he is forced to run around losing units while waiting for the game to end. I don't find either side of that tactically engaging or interactive.

In either situation, that makes the gameplay as dull as a game with a tau gunline. Either you make it to them or you don't. There's no real give-and-take or interesting tactical moves, it just leads to a straight forward zerg rush that either fails or succeeds.

I would be happy with the 25% point cost rule to ensure that both armies have enough units to make the game an actual game rather than a shooting gallery for one side and a dodgeball game for the other.

You realize there's a vast gulf between being able to alpha-strike a unit and being unable to deal with it at all?

I know the current 40k belief is "If I can't kill it in one turn, I can't kill it ever" but that's just not the case with certain units, like the Malcador. 3 Lascannons are unlikely to kill it in one turn, but over the course of the game, 3 lascannons will almost certainly kill it. The opponent neither could alpha-strike it off the board nor had to "run around losing units while waiting for the game to end."

I'm aware there are more situations than "kill in 1 turn" and "unkillable." I was just using the alpha strike as an example and didn't want to write a multi-page essay detailing every possible situation. Yes, sometimes games with super heavies turn out alright, I just find that more often than not, (and much more often than a standard game,) one side is put at a horrible disadvantage as early as turn 2. For example, the super heavy gets lascannon'd a bit but then priority targets the heavy weapon squads and manages to fry them all, and walks around with impunity for the remainder of the game.

I will admit the games where the super heavy survives to t4 or 5, and then dies after doing its job well, leaving both sides still relatively even and victory still up for grabs are sweet games to see and play in, but in my experience they are an extreme rarity. Most of them just end like I said earlier. One side gets a tremendous leg up because they either killed the super heavy, or killed most the things that would threaten their super heavy, pretty much right out of the gate.

Weird. I play superheavies routinely (both of my remaining armies are 30k Leviathan detachments), more than twice weekly, and I've not had a game yet where my opponent and I didn't have fun - at least that they've told me. So either they're masochists who play me over and over again, or what you said is anecdotal and varies based on opponent and army lists.

Of course it's anecdotal. So is every experience in the entirety of 40k. I even said "in my experience," so please don't take what I'm saying as being in the usual Internet "this is fact because I said so" tone.

But yes your experience is an extreme rarity in our group. No one likes super heavies, and it seems like virtually every time someone brings one, the game is effectively over t2, either by a giant crater or several dead heavy weapon/melta guys, and they're just going through the motions after that. And in the case of dueling super heavies, that first "6" on the D chart typically wins the game, and we usually discover that setting the game up was just a waste of time.

As I said in the other thread I don't think they should have been introduced into the main game at all, and nor should Flyers, as they just invalidate so many other units and make creating balanced lists for pick-up games even more annoying (as you have to try to plan for Super Heavies or Flyers in addition to Psykers, lots of vehicles, monstrous creatures etc.).

Many of them aren't bad rules-wise, but many also require more specialist ways of bring them down, or more firepower than I necessarily want to field in a regular list for 1,500-2,000 points, but because someone might take four Imperial Knights I have to be prepared. Though that's an example, since my opponents don't really do this, but it's a flaw in the game all the same.

I voted no, but I wouldn't say that they should be blanket disallowed; I'd prefer we went back to the old days where special characters were by player consent in pick-up games, and do the same with Flyers, super heavies and so-on. 40k to me is a skirmish/small-scale warfare game first; I love my Dark Talon, Imperial Knight and Shadowsword models, but I don't expect nor demand that I be able to use them in tiny games.

This poll is much closer than the previous one.

Do you think I lost votes in my favor because of the thread title/poll question disparity?

Traditio wrote:
This poll is much closer than the previous one.

Do you think I lost votes in my favor because of the thread title/poll question disparity?

I think you're going with the classic approach of "look at lots of polls, discard the ones that don't agree with you, and proudly claim the one you finally find that agrees with you". Obviously if you have enough polls on a subject there will be some random variation in responses and some will look better than others. And you have an impressive talent for coming up with excuses for why the votes that go against you are "trolls", and the ones that are in your favor are something to pay attention to.

PS: still waiting for your explanation of why the Malcador needs to be banned. Could you stop avoiding the question?

The Malcador needs to be banned because admitting otherwise causes Traditio's argument to fall apart.

Obviously.