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.

Voted no (correctly this time)

Mainly just because if I wanted to play with apocalypse units I would play apocalypse. I prefer 1500 and smaller 40k games as I just don't like how it plays any bigger than that. Trying to play armies like IG, Nids, or Orks just slows the game down way too much to me past that, especially as units keep getting cheaper pointswise. It also completely removes the point of bringing most regular troops units when there are units that can kill half an army on the table. Others love that, but it isn't for me.

I realize Apocalypse doesn't exist anymore, and now that's what normal 40k has become but I still would gladly have GMC's and Superheavies go back to being "banned" from normal games. Normal games meaning 1500 or less really. Anything lower than that and it's like bringing Leman Russes to a 500pts match. Yeah they may not be amazing but it's a jerk move. Even a single riptide or knight just feels like too much.

And before you bring up the "Yeah but the Malcador sucks" example, that doesn't really matter. We all know GW sucks at rules. Pick any unit type in the game and there is a horribly overpriced and terrible example you could pick to say "yeah but x means I should be able to take Y". It doesn't change the fact that there are other apocalypse type units that really don't belong in standard games. It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

Again, I know that's not a popular opinion (currently 41% to 59% at time of writing) but I guarantee you it would dramatically improve the health of the game overnight and make it easier on new folk joining in. We also have to remember there's a good portion of people that have left, some of which would undoubtedly cite apocalypse scale units becoming standard as part of the reason they left.

YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Traditio wrote:
There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Does a terminator really need to be in the same game as a grot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
YES!

As time goes on, the poll progressively moves in my favor.

41 percent to 59 percent.

41 is definitely a strong minority.

I see we're going to continue the theme of "a poll's value is directly proportional to how much it agrees with Traditio's opinion"?

The answer to both of the questions above is YES!

I think there's something to be said about the Riptide being indicative of a greater push towards an increase in scale in general however. In older editions, definitely 3rd or 4th, maybe the early part of 5th, had the Riptide been introduced as a non-vehicle model, it almost certainly would have been a GC (and as an MC has the stats to match some GC's), just as the Trygon was originally a GC retro-actively made into a "normal" MC for release as a general codex unit despite being twice the size of any existing MC.

While the Riptide may not strictly be a GC, it's not far off, and does have some relevancy on the current topic in the larger topic of "the game has too many big things, and the big things keep getting bigger".

And to think we thought the Dreadknight was a big deal when it released...

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

Does a terminator really need to be in the same game as a grot?

There's not as big of a difference between a terminator and a grot as there is between a terminator and a wraithknight.

Terminators and grots are both infantry with 1 wound per model, for starters.

Traditio wrote:
There's not as big of a difference between a terminator and a grot as there is between a terminator and a wraithknight.

Actually there is. The grot costs 3 points per model, the terminator costs 40 points, or 13 times more than the grot. A Wraithknight, even under your proposed (and significant) nerf, costs 400 points, or 10 times more than the terminator. So, assuming point costs are roughly accurate evaluations of a model's power, the scale difference between the grot and the terminator is significantly more than the difference between the terminator and the wraithknight.

Terminators and grots are both infantry with 1 wound per model, for starters.

And terminators and wraithknights are both models with an armor save. Why do you think these superficial similarities or differences are relevant?

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Wait.... that's NOT a GMC per the rules?!?! What the feth is going on? Doesn't it have stats that are higher than some actual GMC's?

Regardless, it's still an example of large units that really don't belong in a 28mm wargame if you want to have any semblance of infantry and skirmish rules, like 40k insists on doing. You need to pick one and do it well. Either embrace the big stompy bits, admit infantry are there to get blown up and not much else, and RUTHLESSLY cut down on special rules and options for them. I'm talking units would have 4-5 options max, say you can pick what special and heavy they get, if they get extra men, and maybe a toy for the sarge like a fist or bomb, that's it, and that would be on the high end. It's that, or Embrace all the skirmish elements but realize that game size needs to drop quite a bit to make it worthwhile. At that point you'd be playing what we now consider a 1,000pts, but would have more fleshed out and refined rules and wargear options.You would also have less vehicles (and "apocalypse" units) to eliminate parking lot syndrome.

As the system is now, "balancing" more extreme large models really doesn't fix the core issues of the game. I still have a system where I can outfit individual guardsmen uniquely with options that cost 1-2pts in the same match as a small Titan that will just step on him and half his squad. It makes one wonder why you even bring these units in the first place. Don't believe me? Tell me then, how good are tac squads? How about infantry platoons or just a regular old boyz mob? These are units designed to fight other infantry, and take objectives. Units that are expected to do this with fairly minimal firepower and not get wiped out by a hulking death machine the size of a bastion. They are units that are supposed to be the core of your army, using support as a minor addition to help them accomplish their goals. Instead, we see massive reliance and emphasis on units that squeeze out the maximum amount of firepower, because anything else is pretty much useless. Vets, lootas, devestator (with grab at least) etc. Units that are designed to be support usually end up becoming the core of your army. Because otherwise, you're stuck trying to kill a riptide with lasguns or shootas. This is a glaring example of bad and confused game design, as it discourages you from using the units that are supposed to be the core of your army.

I don't know how people don't see it, it's all over the tactics and discussion forum. Watch any newbie post on here with a "what should I get" question and he will be given that advice. Get the bare minimum of standard troops like tac Marines or infantry squads, and stock up on characters and elite units.

please realize I just want a 40k game that can function as a good game. Doesnt even need to be perfect, just a serious change and rebooting the system would give me some hope. Ive played a wide variety of systems and it really pains me to see 40k's setting and models get dragged down by an abysmal ruleset. I've tried to get players to try other rulesets designed for 40k and it doesn't happen, so I'm stuck here hoping 40k gets Sigmared just so something will change. And before you say "just play other games", I do, but that doesn't mean I cant look to 40k and point out what it could be, instead of accepting the garbage that it is right now. It's like watching an idiot friend keep making the same stupid mistakes, you really want to help the guy, but theres nothing you can do until he decides he wants to change himself for the better.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it. Trygons are MCs, just like the riptide, and are comparable in size to the riptide, and I've never seen anyone seriously advocate for banning them or any other large Tyranid monster, so clearly it's possible for us to have large models without them being game-breaking.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

Wait.... that's NOT a GMC per the rules?!?! What the feth is going on? Doesn't it have stats that are higher than some actual GMC's?

Because its GW, and they have no clue how to balance that mess?

Yes, 'Apocalypse' units absolutely should be allowed by the game.

But they really need to be priced appropriately.

This is part of the reason I like the Horus Heresy game - it is explicitly scaled up. Look at a troop choice from each army and their options:

Solar Auxilia: Veletarii Storm Sections get sergeant toys (Fist, etc), shroud bombs, a vox, and a choice of primary weapon between three options. Each applies to the whole squad except sergeant toys and the vox (which is one guy).

Mechanicum: Thallax Cohort: An Augment, meltabombs, Chainblades, and a special weapon. Each applies to the whole squad except chainblades and the special weapon (which is one guy).

Legion Tactical Squads: uhm, sergeant toys.

The rest of 30k is big tanks, superheavies, walkers, and MCs, and it works.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is part of the reason I like the Horus Heresy game - it is explicitly scaled up. Look at a troop choice from each army and their options:

Solar Auxilia: Veletarii Storm Sections get sergeant toys (Fist, etc), shroud bombs, a vox, and a choice of primary weapon between three options. Each applies to the whole squad except sergeant toys and the vox (which is one guy).

Mechanicum: Thallax Cohort: An Augment, meltabombs, Chainblades, and a special weapon. Each applies to the whole squad except chainblades and the special weapon (which is one guy).

Legion Tactical Squads: uhm, sergeant toys.

The rest of 30k is big tanks, superheavies, walkers, and MCs, and it works.

If I want to squash a nasty super-heavy, I just shoot it. Its the safest way.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Voted no (correctly this time)

Mainly just because if I wanted to play with apocalypse units I would play apocalypse. I prefer 1500 and smaller 40k games as I just don't like how it plays any bigger than that. Trying to play armies like IG, Nids, or Orks just slows the game down way too much to me past that, especially as units keep getting cheaper pointswise. It also completely removes the point of bringing most regular troops units when there are units that can kill half an army on the table. Others love that, but it isn't for me.

I realize Apocalypse doesn't exist anymore, and now that's what normal 40k has become but I still would gladly have GMC's and Superheavies go back to being "banned" from normal games. Normal games meaning 1500 or less really. Anything lower than that and it's like bringing Leman Russes to a 500pts match. Yeah they may not be amazing but it's a jerk move. Even a single riptide or knight just feels like too much.

And before you bring up the "Yeah but the Malcador sucks" example, that doesn't really matter. We all know GW sucks at rules. Pick any unit type in the game and there is a horribly overpriced and terrible example you could pick to say "yeah but x means I should be able to take Y". It doesn't change the fact that there are other apocalypse type units that really don't belong in standard games. It's easier to just flat out say "no superheavies/GMC/whatever other categories there are for apocalypse type units" than try to cherry pick "only Knights, riptides, and wraithknights are banned".

Again, I know that's not a popular opinion (currently 41% to 59% at time of writing) but I guarantee you it would dramatically improve the health of the game overnight and make it easier on new folk joining in. We also have to remember there's a good portion of people that have left, some of which would undoubtedly cite apocalypse scale units becoming standard as part of the reason they left.

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously if you think a Leman Russ at 500 is a "dick move". YOU have less coherent ideas about balance than GW.

Leman Russ?

A 500 pt list can have 3-4 meltas in transports or pods.

Yeah a Leman Russ at 500 pts is pretty fine. If anything it can actively hurt your army by putting a big percentage of your points into a single model.

A leman Russ, at 500. That's got only one av14 facing and weaker flanks, plus if ordnance can only snap shot other guns.

A macaldor, its a pretty weak super heavy.
It has 6hp.. Limited firepower vs some others.

Its hardly a untimate war machine. A super heavy land raider. That's tough but lower on firepower.

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with less killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a riptide? What makes a
riptide legal but a knight not? The label super heavy? Plus, what is your problem with scale? As someone said, does a grot belong in the same game as a land raider? There is a point system for a reason.

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

It's OP compared to a vehicle of identical cost. Can't be one-shotted, can't be supressed, can't fail dangerous terrain, can't be stunned, can't be shaken, can't lose weapons, doesn't lose durability in CC.

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

Wait so you are saying the Riptide isn't a "regular" MC?

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

Do tyranids really need more nerfs? And for the knight what makes it op? I know the answer for the 'tide but I don't see anything wrong with the knight. It's point cost is justified imo.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

Wait so you are saying the Riptide isn't a "regular" MC?

I think he's saying it doesn't count because it's an outlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:The riptide is neither a superheavy nor a GMC. I acknowledge the riptide is a problematic unit (one of many, actually), but I hate how people are lumping it in with other "Apocalypse-type" units and calling for it to be banned just because it's a larger than average model and they don't like it.

Seconded. I strongly dislike the riptide (as I do the Tau in general); however, a discussion of the riptide is simply out of place in the context of this thread. They're not superheavy vehicles or gargantuan monstrous creatures. They're just regular monstrous creatures. Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creatures.

Personally I would prefer it if superheavies and GMCs were just better-balanced so that taking them wasn't such a huge advantage in the first place, or otherwise considered a "dick move". That's what you're supposed to do when something is broken, you fix it.

There's still the problem of scale. Does an IK really need to be in the same game as a tactical marine?

You just defended the rip tide. A model roughly the same size with roughly the same amount of killing power. So, let me ask you this. Does a fire warrior belong in the same game as a stormsurge? What makes a stormsurge legal but a knight not? The label super heavy?

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Riptide and Dreadknight for sure. Arguably the six wound Tyranid MCs, because the heaviest weapons take away wounds one at a time.

Do tyranids really need more nerfs? And for the knight what makes it op? I know the answer for the 'tide but I don't see anything wrong with the knight. It's point cost is justified imo.

T6 2+ / 5++ with a chance for 4++ is stupid durable for the price. It sucks up like what, 14 BS 4 lascannons or meltaguns? And is practically immune to krak missiles and poison weapons? Yeah, totally fair.

Martel732 wrote:

 #1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

#1ShieldBrother3++ wrote:

And on a note of MCs, are they seriously that strong? Give me an example of an " Overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature." Actually, on second thought make a poll of it

Rarely do I agree with Traditio, but in this case I agree with him. The Riptide is an overpowered, overly durable, undercosted regular monstrous creature.

There it is again, the word "regular". A daemon prince is a monstrous creature, does that make it OP? A type of unit is not the problem, the balancing is. The question should not be "should they be allowed", but how can they be made fair.

It's OP compared to a vehicle of identical cost. Can't be one-shotted, can't be supressed, can't fail dangerous terrain, can't be stunned, can't be shaken, can't lose weapons, doesn't lose durability in CC.

Last time I checked a prince can be one-shotted, and doesn't have transport capacity or guns on it. 40k never works in a vacuum. A leman russ would definitely lose to a prince 1v1 but would it fail when it has another 1300 point of guard with it? The same question goes for the opponent, could 1300 points of more daemons win? We don't know. There is too many variables too guess and like I said vacuum games are just plain unfair.

No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

Martel732 wrote:
No, there aren't too many variables. Vehicles straight up suck in 7th. The have way too many liabilities.

Oh, are princes T5? They are the poverty MCs then. Proper MCs have T6, making it impossible to one shot them or remove their FNP. Totally fair. The fact that MCs fight at full strength until they are dead, combined with how much STUFF you have to throw at them to kill them is pretty crazy. And don't forget the grenade nerf.

A leman Russ can be immobile, stunned, lose weapons and such. A mc loses nothing.
Mc is imune to any reduction in combat effectiveness unlike the tank.

Super heavy however at least gives tanks a chance. Tnaks need a big boost