Superheavies and Gargantuan Creatures in non-Apocalypse games (new poll to correct confusion)

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.

**Jewelfox**

I would just like to add, Traditio, that you're probably no fun to play against in Super Smash Bros.

Sort of like playing Goldeneye multiplayer against my scrub little brother. He was extremely predictable, and whenever I figured him out and started winning consistently he banned whatever weapon or thing I was doing.

Rocket launchers are OP, yo.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mmzero252 wrote:
The problems come up when, for example, my local game store wants to run a Start Collecting Tournament. The store owner himself brought up the subject then almost instantly turned around and said "Actually guys, this is probably a terrible idea. Depending on what armies people pick, the point values are going to be way off. That or someone is just going to absolutely dominate over everyone else." That all coming from the store owner who doesn't even play the game personally. He just has a basic idea of the various units included in the boxes.

This is honestly why I like Warmahordes' and Malifaux's balance much better. Legion and Cryx may be "noob tubes," i.e. stuff that it's easier to beat other novices with, but in general you can run starter boxes against each other and expect a competitive game, with interesting abilities and tactics.

40k has a lot of game balance traps, that require negotiation and system mastery to avoid. A lot of players get heavily sold on Blood Angels (for instance) and then realize GW screwed them over. Likewise, I started collecting Tau when they were mid-tier, and by the time I had 1000 points of so people resented them for being top-tier.

Neither situation is fair to people who just started 40k in order to play with models they like. That's why we need to learn to get along with each other and make the best of a bad situation, instead of blaming one group of players after another for "causing" it. When it's Games Workshop's damn fault to begin with.

**Traditio**

So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

**Evil Lamp 6**

I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion. My reasons were pretty much already stated in the other thread so I'll just copy and paste them from there:

Haravikk wrote:I kind of agree; I find my regular games (1,500-2,000 points or so) are better without any super-heavies, gargantuan monsters or flyers, as none of them really fits the scale of these games.

Of course there are some super-heavies etc. that are well balanced or even under powered, but even so I'd still rather be fighting against something else as investing a ton of points into a super-heavy in a small to medium game means there are less units and less tactics. The same is true with Flyers; if you don't bring enough AA you can't bring them down, but if your opponent doesn't take one then any AA you bring is wasted, the same can be true of gargantuan creatures and super-heavies, and the firepower required to destroy them.

With these elements removed, or included only with player consent, we can make list-building less about guessing what your opponent might bring and more about just bring units and having fun. Sure there are still other elements of guess-work (Psykers, regular vehicles and the like) but that's already more than enough, we don't need more in our regular games.

That said, I can't vote that they be banned; rather I don't think they should ever have been added to the regular game in the firs place. Banning just annoys people, the better solution is to talk to your opponents, and allow the use of multiple lists so you can switch to one that's more appropriate.

MrMoustaffa wrote: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.

**Traditio**

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion.

I do think that the key words here really are "less popular." 38% is almost 40%. That's a strong enough minority for this even to be an issue, to force players who use superheavies to bring it up in a conversation pre-game.

**MIni MIehm**

So, I posted in the previous thread as well, and I got my vote in correctly on this one.

Banning SHVs doesn't solve anything, and it takes away interesting options and buffs from some lists that need it. I am building a Renegade Knight for my Renegades and Heretics list, and I genuinely don't know what I've been doing up until now, because it is plainly an improvement over what I had before. I might even build a second one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
I'm going to have to go with the less popular opinion.

I do think that the key word here really is "less popular." 38% is almost 40%. That's a strong enough minority for this even to be an issue, to force players who use superheavies to bring it up in a conversation pre-game.

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

**Traditio**

MIni MIehm wrote:
Banning SHVs doesn't solve anything, and it takes away interesting options and buffs from some lists that need it. I am building a Renegade Knight for my Renegades and Heretics list, and I genuinely don't know what I've been doing up until now, because it is plainly an improvement over what I had before. I might even build a second one.

Think about it from this perspective, though:

Did you have a lot of opponents willing to play against your renegades and heretics list?

Would at least some of those opponents have a difficult time taking down a Knight?

If you told me that you're playing, say, Chaos Space Marines, I'd gladly play against you. I'd even play without formations if you're not using any.

You tell me that you're running a knight?

I'd turn down that game. In a heartbeat.

Edit:

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

**Unit1126PLL**

Traditio wrote:

No it's not. You're delusional, and you should really quit while you're ahead. Which, unfortunately seems to be never, being as your opinion is a distinct minority.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

No, I hate frosting.

If you got 38% of the vote in the Hillary vs. Trump election, it might as well be 5%.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Would at least some of those opponents have a difficult time taking down a Knight?

What's your point? Having a difficult time is part of the game. Warhammer 40k is the grim darkness of the future where every moment is a desperate struggle to survive, not a happy peaceful universe where your C:SM army mows down everything effortlessly. Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army. If you can't take down a single knight then the problem is that your list sucks, not that the knight is inappropriate for normal games.

You tell me that you're running a knight?

I'd turn down that game. In a heartbeat.

Of course you would, because not turning down the game would require admitting that your strict "no superheavies" rule is absurd. Fortunately most people have a more open-minded view of the game and aren't going to refuse a game just because there's a single knight.

If you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was without frosting, would you complain?

Ah yes, now we're at the "ridiculous analogies" stage of trying to come up with excuses for how your poll really supports your side.

**Traditio**

Unit1126PLL wrote:No, I hate frosting.

If you got 38% of the vote in the Hillary vs. Trump election, it might as well be 5%.

Completely different can of beans. [Though I'll note here that 38% support of the general electorate probably means the difference between being a viable candidate in the first place or not.]

When it comes to popular opinion, 38% constitutes a significant, relatively widespread opinion, albeit not the majority one.

If I expressed the opinion that all space marines should actually be anthropomorphic dogs (think the dog knights in Undertale), and I conducted a poll, I imagine that I'd probably get less than 10% of the vote, and most of those would either be 1. trolls or 2. people who've never thought of that before, but, simply because I brought it up, realized that it's either a funny or cool idea after my saying so. Very few people actually hold that opinion.

38% is a significant minority. That's more than 1 in 3 people who are STRONGLY opposed to playing either with or against super heavies. That means that if you go to your FLGS, assuming the same stats hold true there, and there are 6 people playing there on any given day, you have, at most, 4 people willing to play with you if you play a Baneblade.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army.

Ok. You play with orks. Don't use forgeworld or superheavies yourself. And tell me how you fare against that Knight.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
That means that if you go to your FLGS, assuming the same stats hold true there, and there are 6 people playing there on any given day, you have, at most, 4 people would be willing to play with you if you play a Baneblade.

No it doesn't. It means that 2/6 would prefer that superheavies be Apocalypse-only. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would refuse to play against a Baneblade. It is entirely consistent to say "I think the game would be better if {thing}", but not consider {opposite of thing} to be sufficient reason to refuse a game. For example, a person who opposes superheavies in normal games because they're tired of facing D-spam Warhound titans is probably going to be willing to face my Malcador once they realize that its rules are nowhere near Warhound level.

Ok. You play with orks. Don't use forgeworld or superheavies yourself. And tell me how you fare against that Knight.

So the only way you can win this argument is to insist on using the weakest codex for your example, and then ban me from taking some of the options I might use? We might as well ban your C:SM army because my IG are going to struggle to deal with your Rhinos when I'm not allowed to bring anything but lasguns.

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. It means that 2/6 would prefer that superheavies be Apocalypse-only. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would refuse to play against a Baneblade. It is entirely consistent to say "I think the game would be better if {thing}", but not consider {opposite of thing} to be sufficient reason to refuse a game. For example, a person who opposes superheavies in normal games because they're tired of facing D-spam Warhound titans is probably going to be willing to face my Malcador once they realize that its rules are nowhere near Warhound level.

Suffice to say: more people would be willing to play against your malcador(s) than against his renegade knight(s).

So the only way you can win this argument is to insist on using the weakest codex for your example, and then ban me from taking some of the options I might use? We might as well ban your C:SM army because my IG are going to struggle to deal with your Rhinos when I'm not allowed to bring anything but lasguns.

You said, and I quote, "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex using only the options present in that codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from that codex without using big, giant stompy robots?

**Unit1126PLL**

Here Traditio. The answer to your Ork challenge straight from your own mouth, with a helpful link to the post.

Traditio wrote:
Suck it up and run allies anyway

**Traditio**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here Traditio. The answer to your Ork challenge straight from your own mouth in this post: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/691903.page#8675555

Traditio 691903 8675555 wrote:Suck it up and take allies

Completely different context.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
Suffice to say: more people would be willing to play against your malcador(s) than against his renegade knight(s).

Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent. And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from the orks codex using only the options present in that codex? Are you telling me that it's impossible to construct an army reasonably well from that codex without using big, giant stompy robots?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent.

The bolded is technically true. Nonetheless, it does show that, of those 6 opponents, only 4 of them would be willing to play against his renegade knight without batting an eye.

At least 2 may have reservations.

And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

**Unit1126PLL**

So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

That post I quoted shows that you clearly believe being forced to take allies is no big deal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine wrote:Which rather well demonstrates my point that "1/3 of people voted against superheavies" and "1/3 of people will refuse to play against superheavies" are not equivalent.

The bolded is technically true. Nonetheless, it does show that, of those 6 opponents, only 4 of them would be willing to play against his renegade knight without batting an eye.

At least 2 may have reservations.

And it also rather well demonstrates my point that a blanket ban on superheavies is a terrible idea.

How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

What I'm telling you is that this is yet another of your attempts to "win" an argument by setting up a challenge that is blatantly rigged in your favor and then claiming victory when anyone fails to complete it.

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

**Traditio**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves and deepstrikes on turn 2.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

Can =/= must

**Unit1126PLL**

Traditio wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

Yes you can. You auto-lose unless you overlook the relevant rules, but we are all about overlooking rules ITT. I mean hell, you want to overlook then entire superheavy section of rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
So some armies should be forced to take allies, but others shouldn't?

Yes.

The case in point that I brought up was Legions of the Damned. The entire army starts in reserves.

You literally cannot play it without taking allies.

A well constructed army can include superheavies and allies.

Can =/= must

Yes, that is true. But forbidding them from doing so is removing the can.

**Traditio**

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yes you can. You auto-lose...

And with that, I'll be ignoring your further postings.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to engage in such petty trifles (the pettiness and trifling nature of which should be self-evident to any unbiased observer).

**aka_mythos**

I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

**Unit1126PLL**

Traditio wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yes you can. You auto-lose...

And with that, I'll be ignoring your further postings.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to engage in such petty trifles.

You really got me with that one. Well constructed counter argument.

**Traditio**

aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

**Unit1126PLL**

Traditio wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:
I think the problem of discussing superheavies and the like is that they aren't all created equally. Superheavy is a class of vehicles and as a class there is nothing immediately in the "superheavy" rules that should prohibit them in the average game. It's only when you get into specific superheavies and their particular weapons that a semblance of normalcy is challenged. I actually think certain units like the Land Raider and Monolith would benefit from being reclassified as superheavies... Where the Land Raider and its variants have rules that make it act like a pseudo-superheavy while there are superheavies and gargantuans that are smaller.

On a practical level, how do you distinguish between the two classes when arranging a game with your opponent?

Talk about it with words.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
How do you answer my previous point, i.e., about the practicality of it?

The way I already answered it: "stop proposing bad rules because you're too lazy to come up with good rules".

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

Sounds like you already answered that question:

What do you propose? That players write a list of things that they don't want to play against, hand it to their opponents, and then have their opponents check said list against their own army lists?

It's not like you're doing anything different with your proposed ban on superheavies. You're just handing your opponent a list that says "superheavies" instead of "Wraithknights, Stompas, and Warhounds".

Again, you wrote, and I quote "Taking down a knight may be challenging, but it's certainly possible for any reasonably well constructed army."

Or did you not actually mean what you wrote?

I meant what I wrote. But I'm not going to play your game of "remove all of the options and then claim victory". You don't get to redefine "reasonably well constructed" to exclude FW/superheavies/etc. Those things are part of the game whether you want to admit it or not.

**Traditio**

Peregrine wrote:I meant what I wrote. But I'm not going to play your game of "remove all of the options and then claim victory". You don't get to redefine "reasonably well constructed" to exclude FW/superheavies/etc. Those things are part of the game whether you want to admit it or not.

So you admit it. According to you, an orks list is reasonably well-constructed if and only if you use FW or superheavies.

In other words, despite your constant inveighing against the notion that there is "one true way" of playing this game, what you actually mean is what you've implied before:

"An army list is reasonably well constructed if and only if you spam the most powerful options in the codex (or available through forgeworld)."

Spoken a different way:

"If your army isn't cheese, it's poorly constructed."

You don't actually mean "Take whatever you want," which is the face that you're always presenting on anti-cheese threads. You mean: "I'LL take whatever I want, and its up to you to keep up with this arms race. You don't actually get to take whatever you want, whether within reason or otherwise, and expect a good time."

With that, I rest my case and leave any who may be watching this discussion to form their own opinions on the matter.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
So you admit it. According to you, an orks list is reasonably well-constructed if and only if you use FW or superheavies.

I admit no such thing. I'm simply refusing to participate in your challenge if you're going to preemptively exclude a bunch of options that you don't like. A reasonably well constructed ork list might not include those things, but they're certainly options to consider in making a list.

Spoken a different way:

"If your army isn't cheese, it's poorly constructed."

IOW, "now that I'm done building my straw man I win!!!!!!!"

**Wolfblade**

Traditio wrote:
So, the vote is 100 votes in, and it basically looks like the last one did. This leads me to believe that there wasn't really much of a skew because of the confusion because of title vs. poll question.

Most people are fine with superheavies in principle (though not necessarily without restriction), whereas a strong minority (over 1 in 3) want to see them banned outright.

Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

**Traditio**

Wolfblade wrote:Again, that's not a "strong minority", you're nowhere near a "strong minority"

How would you define a strong minority?

Again, if you ordered a cake, and 38% of it was not iced, would you complain? Would you consider that a substantial amount of your cake that the bakers had neglected to ice?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

**Traditio**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Missing that much frosting is perfectly fine when the rest is done in a nice, pretty pattern.

My point:

You people are only saying that 38% isn't a strong minority because you're not thinking about how much 38% actually is. That's over a third.

Start thinking about what more than a third of things actually looks like. If more than a third of your car is missing, that's a lot of your car. You probably shouldn't be driving it.

If your internet doesn't work over a third of the time, that's unreliable cable.

8 hours of sleep a night means sleeping a third (less than 38%) of your life away.

I could go on.