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.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...If I may suggest a way to make certain superheavies legal?

Add the lesser ones to their armies' Codices, as a 0-1 selection with a caveat restricting them from being taken in armies below a certain points value. Perhaps require the opponent's permission as well (Tournament Organizers can allow/disallow in place of an opponent in tournament settings, of course)...

Oh God no. This is how superheavies become incredibly OP. Forge World's superheavies are usually fine (with a few exceptions), it's when GW's design team gets their hands on them that we get units that actually shouldn't be in the game.

Huh? No, really, what?

Weren't you JUST suggesting keeping them in large games but out of smaller ones? How were you planning to do that?

And regarding Forge World, has the playerbase become more generally accepting of FW rules? I'm out of the loop but when I checked out there were still arguments about whether FW stuff is legal in standard games or not.

With composition rules describing the properties of the units ("superheavies with X hull points/GCs with X wounds..."). You can define formats more specifically than by banning/permitting whole books. Not to mention that if you were hoping to ban Imperial Armour in 'small games' you'd be banning about six complete army lists and 50+ non-superheavy units that don't really need or deserve to be banned on any level, not just all the non-broken superheavies.

Forge World rules/units are explicitly allowed in standard games these days, and more common acceptance of said units is probably a result of the most-broken-units podium being packed with non-FW rules since at least 5e.

 Pouncey wrote:
You wanna use massive vehicles or creatures, play the massive-scale version of the game.

The rules don't allow you to use your Phantom Titan now? All your buddies similarly lament the loss of use of their Lords of War? Great news, you have a large number of players who want to use massive models, go play Apocalypse.

This doesn't work, at all. Apocalypse is an exercise in masochism. It takes way too long to arrange and set up, the sheer number of models on the table causes the game to bog down into a tedious exercise in dice rolling, and there's no meaningful strategy beyond "roll dice to see how many models you remove". And that's if you throw out all of the 7th edition garbage with random disasters blowing up half the table, game-breaking assets, etc. It's maybe fun to play Apocalypse once every year or two, just to see the spectacle of that many models on the table, but it's terrible as a regular game. And it is not acceptable to take a bunch of expensive models and put them into the "if you're lucky you'll get to use this once before you give up and quit 40k" category.

Maybe you should simply go without, and you can occasionally invent a scenario that requires its use for a one-off game so you can use your model.

I shouldn't have to invent special scenarios and beg people to accept my house rules just to be allowed to use my army.

 Peregrine wrote:

Maybe you should simply go without, and you can occasionally invent a scenario that requires its use for a one-off game so you can use your model.

I shouldn't have to invent special scenarios and beg people to accept my house rules just to be allowed to use my army.

Pfeh. Tell that to whoever wrote my 7e GK Codex.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...If I may suggest a way to make certain superheavies legal?

Add the lesser ones to their armies' Codices, as a 0-1 selection with a caveat restricting them from being taken in armies below a certain points value. Perhaps require the opponent's permission as well (Tournament Organizers can allow/disallow in place of an opponent in tournament settings, of course)...

Oh God no. This is how superheavies become incredibly OP. Forge World's superheavies are usually fine (with a few exceptions), it's when GW's design team gets their hands on them that we get units that actually shouldn't be in the game.

Huh? No, really, what?

Weren't you JUST suggesting keeping them in large games but out of smaller ones? How were you planning to do that?

And regarding Forge World, has the playerbase become more generally accepting of FW rules? I'm out of the loop but when I checked out there were still arguments about whether FW stuff is legal in standard games or not.

With composition rules describing the properties of the units ("superheavies with X hull points/GCs with X wounds..."). You can define formats more specifically than by banning/permitting whole books. Not to mention that if you were hoping to ban Imperial Armour in 'small games' you'd be banning about six complete army lists and 50+ non-superheavy units that don't really need or deserve to be banned on any level, not just all the non-broken superheavies.

Forge World rules/units are explicitly allowed in standard games these days, and more common acceptance of said units is probably a result of the most-broken-units podium being packed with non-FW rules since at least 5e.

Who exactly suggested banning entire books? I'm pretty sure I didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
You wanna use massive vehicles or creatures, play the massive-scale version of the game.

The rules don't allow you to use your Phantom Titan now? All your buddies similarly lament the loss of use of their Lords of War? Great news, you have a large number of players who want to use massive models, go play Apocalypse.

This doesn't work, at all. Apocalypse is an exercise in masochism. It takes way too long to arrange and set up, the sheer number of models on the table causes the game to bog down into a tedious exercise in dice rolling, and there's no meaningful strategy beyond "roll dice to see how many models you remove". And that's if you throw out all of the 7th edition garbage with random disasters blowing up half the table, game-breaking assets, etc. It's maybe fun to play Apocalypse once every year or two, just to see the spectacle of that many models on the table, but it's terrible as a regular game. And it is not acceptable to take a bunch of expensive models and put them into the "if you're lucky you'll get to use this once before you give up and quit 40k" category.

Maybe you should simply go without, and you can occasionally invent a scenario that requires its use for a one-off game so you can use your model.

I shouldn't have to invent special scenarios and beg people to accept my house rules just to be allowed to use my army.

And I really don't care that you're sad that you can't use your Apocalypse unit in a standard game. New editions invalidate models all the time, deal with it.

Are you incapable of understanding that people don't all play the game the same way, and don't percieve the same units as "broken"? Here's a list of actual broken things you're banning with that absurd "no LoW ever and feth you if you want to take them" rule.
• Wraithknights
• Ta'unar Suit
• ...
...
...

Nothing else! Arguments can of course be made for Knights, but do you seriously believe that Dante is an issue for the game? Do you really believe that Peregrine's Malcador, or Ben The Ork Player's Ghazkhull Thraka is so broken that they should be banned from play, and given a giant "feth you" to the idea of using them without begging an opponent?

Addendum: Half the actual broken gak in this game are regular units, like Scatbikes and Riptides. Your proposed solution does nothing to fix the game other than needlessly banning an entire class of unit.

 Pouncey wrote:
And I really don't care that you're sad that you can't use your Apocalypse unit in a standard game. New editions invalidate models all the time, deal with it.

That says things about you, and they aren't good.

 Verviedi wrote:
Are you incapable of understanding that people don't all play the game the same way, and don't percieve the same units as "broken"? Here's a list of actual broken things you're banning with that absurd "no LoW ever and feth you if you want to take them" rule.
• Wraithknights
• Ta'unar Suit
• ...
...
...

Nothing else! Arguments can of course be made for Knights, but do you seriously believe that Dante is an issue for the game? Do you really believe that Peregrine's Malcador, or Ben The Ork Player's Ghazkhull Thraka is so broken that they should be banned from play, and given a giant "feth you" to the idea of using them without begging an opponent?

Addendum: Half the actual broken gak in this game are regular units, like Scatbikes and Riptides. Your proposed solution does nothing to fix the game other than needlessly banning an entire class of unit.

My concern isn't broken, overpowered rules.

My concern is ridiculously powerful lore units being playable outside of Apocalypse.

My issue with Dante is that he's just a Space Marine Chapter Master who doesn't deserve the same FOC slot as a titan. Also his lore is painful to read, but that's a GW thing in general. Make Dante an HQ and I stop caring about him. Same for all the named characters, just shift them back to the HQ section where they belong.

I honestly care more about the lore than I do game balance, and dropping a Baneblade into a 1,000 point game triggers my nerd rage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
And I really don't care that you're sad that you can't use your Apocalypse unit in a standard game. New editions invalidate models all the time, deal with it.

That says things about you, and they aren't good.

What exactly does it say about me?

 Pouncey wrote:
What exactly does it say about me?

That you're incredibly selfish and don't care about anyone else enjoying the game if they don't play the game the "right" way in your opinion. People have spent a lot of time and money on those LoW units that you wouldn't mind seeing invalidated, and all you can say is "deal with it".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I honestly care more about the lore than I do game balance, and dropping a Baneblade into a 1,000 point game triggers my nerd rage.

Why? There are probably billions of Baneblades in the galaxy for each SoB, does it "trigger your nerd rage" to see your SoB army on the table?

 Pouncey wrote:
My concern isn't broken, overpowered rules.

My concern is ridiculously powerful lore units being playable outside of Apocalypse.

My issue with Dante is that he's just a Space Marine Chapter Master who doesn't deserve the same FOC chart as a titan. Also his lore is painful to read, but that's a GW thing in general. Make Dante an HQ and I stop caring about him. Same for all the named characters, just shift them back to the HQ section where they belong.

Ridiculously powerful lore units? Sorry, all I can see when I hear that phrase are Malcadors and Necron Obelisks.

I honestly care more about the lore than I do game balance, and dropping a Baneblade into a 1,000 point game triggers my nerd rage.

I enjoy triggering nerd rage. I find it tasty and satisfying.
Baneblade in 1,000 points is totally fine. There was a mission in Battle Missions where it described a common scenario where things like that happen. A superheavy regiment attacks without support, some Baneblades get ambushed in a convoy, ect.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What exactly does it say about me?

That you're incredibly selfish and don't care about anyone else enjoying the game if they don't play the game the "right" way in your opinion. People have spent a lot of time and money on those LoW units that you wouldn't mind seeing invalidated, and all you can say is "deal with it".

I have a Baneblade myself, you know.

When I started my first Apocalypse game with it, I came to the conclusion Apoc wasn't fun for me.

Now my Baneblade is a display piece in a cabinet, instead of a game piece.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
I honestly care more about the lore than I do game balance, and dropping a Baneblade into a 1,000 point game triggers my nerd rage.

Why? There are probably billions of Baneblades in the galaxy for each SoB, does it "trigger your nerd rage" to see your SoB army on the table?

:: chokes on saliva :: Seriously? Billions of Baneblades for each Sister? Oh wow, that's just... Do you even think about the things you say?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:

I honestly care more about the lore than I do game balance, and dropping a Baneblade into a 1,000 point game triggers my nerd rage.

I enjoy triggering nerd rage. I find it tasty and satisfying.
Baneblade in 1,000 points is totally fine. There was a mission in Battle Missions where it described a common scenario where things like that happen. A superheavy regiment attacks without support, some Baneblades get ambushed in a convoy, ect.

I remember that Battle Mission. It was 1500 points, 3 Baneblades,with asymmetrical objectives. The Baneblades wanted to get to the far table edge with as much weaponry intact as possible. Their enemy army was simply supposed to damage or destroy the Baneblades by any means necessary. After the game, victory was determined by a small minigame to see if the Baneblades could destroy the target they were after. There was also a suggestion to replace the Baneblades with whatever Superheavies you like and adjusting points accordingly.

That's totally fine to me,and the EXACT thing I was referring to by inventing scenarios to make it work. No one's taking a TAC list to that. It's a very narrative-driven game.

I also want to point out right now that in the OP, when I suggested limiting Lords of War to Apoc, I was not hugely attached to that suggestion, and it's mostly you guys questioning my motives for suggesting it that is gettingg me to defend my viewpoint. If Lords of War stay in standard games for 8th edition, I will not lose any sleep or rail against the decision whatsoever.

 Pouncey wrote:
I have a Baneblade myself, you know.

When I started my first Apocalypse game with it, I came to the conclusion Apoc wasn't fun for me.

Now my Baneblade is a display piece in a cabinet, instead of a game piece.

That's nice. Some of us want to get to use the models we spent lots of time and money on, and you don't care if our game experience is ruined as long as you get to have fun. That's selfish and completely inappropriate.

:: chokes on saliva :: Seriously? Billions of Baneblades for each Sister? Oh wow, that's just... Do you even think about the things you say?

Of course I do, which is why I understand that anything the IG has will vastly outnumber the entire SoB. Because GW has no sense of scale the SoB are a tiny and irrelevant faction. Perhaps its millions of Baneblades instead of billions, or maybe trillions, who knows. But the basic point that Baneblades vastly ountnumber SoB still stands.

Of course I do, which is why I understand that anything the IG has will vastly outnumber the entire SoB. Because GW has no sense of scale the SoB are a tiny and irrelevant faction. Perhaps its millions of Baneblades instead of billions, or maybe trillions, who knows. But the basic point that Baneblades vastly ountnumber SoB still stands.

Okay, let's run through the math here.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is exactly 1 Sister of Battle in the Imperium. This would mean that there would be at least 2 billion Baneblades in the Imperium, in order to outnumber that 1 Sister of Battle by "billions to one". There are one million planets in the Imperium, thus there are an average of 2,000 Baneblades stationed on each Imperial planet.

However, there is not only 1 Sister of Battle in the Imperium. Their duties are expansive, they guard every church, every priest, every relic, every thing and person the Ecclesiarchy owns, with enough spare troops to launch entire wars against Space Marine Chapters on the short notice of a few weeks time. And they are such a familiar sight to Imperial citizens that all Imperial Guard troops recognize on sight the armor of a Sister Hospitaller, whose appearance in a field hospital is universally known as a sign that high-quality care is imminent. The Imperium does not have television. The Imperium does not have the Internet. Every one of the quadrillions of Imperial citizens spread across a million worlds is around Sisters of Battle in person so much they know them by sight.

There are thus, unquestionably, many, many billions of Sisters of Battle in the Imperium, in order to be THAT recognizable, because planets are very, VERY large and people are spread across their surface.

This would mean, effectively, that for Baneblades to outnumber Sisters of Battle by "billions to one" (billions times billions), Baneblades would nearly equal or perhaps surpass humans in number.

So no, you didn't think about what you said one damned bit.

 Pouncey wrote:
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is exactly 1 Sister of Battle in the Imperium.

Let's not. We have explicit statements from GW that the total number of SoB in the entire galaxy is ~50,0000 at most. Baneblades, on the other hand, are only "rare" on the level of "your regiment might not get as many Baneblades as they want". So the presence of a Baneblade in a 1000 point game makes far more sense fluff-wise than the presence of even a single SoB model. And yet somehow you consistently put an entire army of SoB on the table without "triggering your nerd rage".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is exactly 1 Sister of Battle in the Imperium.

Let's not. We have explicit statements from GW that the total number of SoB in the entire galaxy is ~50,0000 at most.

Games Workshop has no sense of scale. A number that low would be wholly insufficient to guard the Ecclesiarchy's property and personnel, and it would contradict Sisters of Battle being a familiar sight to Imperial citizens in the extreme.

Games Workshop fethed up. They are flat-out wrong. That number is so absurdly low that it contradicts the Sisters of Battle's own lore about what they even do.

 Pouncey wrote:
Games Workshop has no sense of scale. A number that low would be wholly insufficient to guard the Ecclesiarchy's property and personnel, and it would contradict Sisters of Battle being a familiar sight to Imperial citizens in the extreme.

Games Workshop fethed up. They are flat-out wrong. That number is so absurdly low that it contradicts the Sisters of Battle's own lore about what they even do.

You could say the same thing about space marines, whose numbers are far too small to matter in galactic-scale wars. And yet, no matter how much you dislike them, those are the official numbers GW has given you. If you can make up your own fanon to justify the presence of your SoB army without "triggering your nerd rage" then you can do the same for the presence of a Baneblade.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Games Workshop has no sense of scale. A number that low would be wholly insufficient to guard the Ecclesiarchy's property and personnel, and it would contradict Sisters of Battle being a familiar sight to Imperial citizens in the extreme.

Games Workshop fethed up. They are flat-out wrong. That number is so absurdly low that it contradicts the Sisters of Battle's own lore about what they even do.

You could say the same thing about space marines, whose numbers are far too small to matter in galactic-scale wars. And yet, no matter how much you dislike them, those are the official numbers GW has given you. If you can make up your own fanon to justify the presence of your SoB army without "triggering your nerd rage" then you can do the same for the presence of a Baneblade.

Space Marines are not tasked with guarding large expanses of territory across the entire Imperium. They target critical targets like enemy command centers and leaders. They cut supply lines. They do tiny surgical strikes.

You send in the Space Marines for stuff you'd send a Seal Team to do in real life. You don't task them with fighting an entire war.

 Pouncey wrote:
Space Marines are not tasked with guarding large expanses of territory across the entire Imperium. They target critical targets like enemy command centers and leaders. They cut supply lines. They do tiny surgical strikes.

You send in the Space Marines for stuff you'd send a Seal Team to do in real life. You don't task them with fighting an entire war.

And yet GW credits space marines with winning entire planet-scale wars, not just acting as a specialized support unit for the IG armies that do most of the real work. The truth here is that you have a selective blind spot where you'll make up whatever fanon it takes to justify your personal army, but anyone who doesn't comply with your version of the fluff "triggers your nerd rage" and you don't care if their army gets removed from the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Space Marines are not tasked with guarding large expanses of territory across the entire Imperium. They target critical targets like enemy command centers and leaders. They cut supply lines. They do tiny surgical strikes.

You send in the Space Marines for stuff you'd send a Seal Team to do in real life. You don't task them with fighting an entire war.

And yet GW credits space marines with winning entire planet-scale wars, not just acting as a specialized support unit for the IG armies that do most of the real work. The truth here is that you have a selective blind spot where you'll make up whatever fanon it takes to justify your personal army, but anyone who doesn't comply with your version of the fluff "triggers your nerd rage" and you don't care if their army gets removed from the game.

You have an army composed entirely of Lords of War?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Space Marines are not tasked with guarding large expanses of territory across the entire Imperium. They target critical targets like enemy command centers and leaders. They cut supply lines. They do tiny surgical strikes.

You send in the Space Marines for stuff you'd send a Seal Team to do in real life. You don't task them with fighting an entire war.

And yet GW credits space marines with winning entire planet-scale wars, not just acting as a specialized support unit for the IG armies that do most of the real work. The truth here is that you have a selective blind spot where you'll make up whatever fanon it takes to justify your personal army, but anyone who doesn't comply with your version of the fluff "triggers your nerd rage" and you don't care if their army gets removed from the game.

That all depends on who's codex you're reading at the time.

Read an Eldar codex and you get the impression an Avatar is the manifestation of the God of War. Read a Space Marine codex and you get the impression that an Avatar is something the Eldar use as a distraction to die an ignominious death so they can make a swift escape. Kind of like how a gecko sheds their tail.

 Pouncey wrote:
You have an army composed entirely of Lords of War?

No, but that's not what a Baneblade in a 1000 point game is. A Baneblade is ~600 points, that leaves plenty of room for a supporting force.

(Now, I could certainly make an army of nothing but LoW if I wanted to, but that wasn't your original "nerd rage" example.)

Nvs wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Space Marines are not tasked with guarding large expanses of territory across the entire Imperium. They target critical targets like enemy command centers and leaders. They cut supply lines. They do tiny surgical strikes.

You send in the Space Marines for stuff you'd send a Seal Team to do in real life. You don't task them with fighting an entire war.

And yet GW credits space marines with winning entire planet-scale wars, not just acting as a specialized support unit for the IG armies that do most of the real work. The truth here is that you have a selective blind spot where you'll make up whatever fanon it takes to justify your personal army, but anyone who doesn't comply with your version of the fluff "triggers your nerd rage" and you don't care if their army gets removed from the game.

That all depends on who's codex you're reading at the time.

Read an Eldar codex and you get the impression an Avatar is the manifestation of the God of War. Read a Space Marine codex and you get the impression that an Avatar is something the Eldar use as a distraction to die an ignominious death so they can make a swift escape. Kind of like how a gecko sheds their tail.

As I recall, Codexes are best treated as propaganda.

Though the rest of WH40k lore isn't much better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
You have an army composed entirely of Lords of War?

No, but that's not what a Baneblade in a 1000 point game is. A Baneblade is ~600 points, that leaves plenty of room for a supporting force.

(Now, I could certainly make an army of nothing but LoW if I wanted to, but that wasn't your original "nerd rage" example.)

So then skip the Baneblade and use other stuff.

Or, have a rule set where you can use a baneblade.

And if you wanted to use multiple baneblades, there would be another ruleset that could handle such a battle.

 Pouncey wrote:
So then skip the Baneblade and use other stuff.

Why should I have to leave the model I spent a lot of time and money on sitting on my display shelf, while you get to use your SoB army that is just as un-fluffy as my Baneblade?

 Blacksails wrote:
Or, have a rule set where you can use a baneblade.

And if you wanted to use multiple baneblades, there would be another ruleset that could handle such a battle.

Can I be clear about this again?

I'm arguing my personal preference here, in response to numerous people arguing with a minor detail in the OP I don't care very much about and which was outdated less than halfway down the first page as I realized how absurd what I was suggesting in the OP was.

I'm not making a case for why Lords of War should be banned from non-Apoc games. I'm arguing in favor of my viewpoint that such powerful things as Superheavies have no place in a standard game.

And the difference there is that I'm arguing about why I hold my opinion, but I'm not arguing that the next edition of the rules should adhere to my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So then skip the Baneblade and use other stuff.

Why should I have to leave the model I spent a lot of time and money on sitting on my display shelf, while you get to use your SoB army that is just as un-fluffy as my Baneblade?

My Sisters of Battle army is fluffy. They defend their home territory in my battles.

I don't think a Baneblade belongs in a standard game because a situation where a Baneblade shows up against a 1000 pts force strains at the imagination why it would ever happen. Baneblades are reserved for large battles where the Imperium needs a significant punch to break a stiff defence or weather an extremely potent attack. You don't bring them to the field for minor skirmishes.

 Pouncey wrote:
I'm not making a case for why Lords of War should be banned from non-Apoc games. I'm arguing in favor of my viewpoint that such powerful things as Superheavies have no place in a standard game.

These two are exactly equivalent.

And the difference there is that I'm arguing about why I hold my opinion, but I'm not arguing that the next edition of the rules should adhere to my opinion.

And your opinion is wrong, regardless of whether or not you think you can influence GW to listen. As is your blatant disregard for the people who would lose the ability to play your armies, and your "nerd rage" justification for your selfish attitude.

My Sisters of Battle army is fluffy. They defend their home territory in my battles.

They shouldn't be common though. You should have to play at least a hundred games with IG before you can play one with your SoB involved at all, and even then it should only be a single squad allied to your IG. Fluff-wise your SoB army is even rarer than a Baneblade, so if the presence of a Baneblade "triggers your nerd rage" then the presence of your SoB in every game you play should do the same. But we all know the real difference between the two: you have a selective blind spot in your "nerd rage" that allows your personal army to always be ok, and only apply your fluff rules to everyone else's army.

I don't think a Baneblade belongs in a standard game because a situation where a Baneblade shows up against a 1000 pts force strains at the imagination why it would ever happen. Baneblades are reserved for large battles where the Imperium needs a significant punch to break a stiff defence or weather an extremely potent attack. You don't bring them to the field for minor skirmishes.

And here's where you're wrong. First of all, the forces involved in a game of 40k often represent a small part of a larger battle. The old example is that if you play a game of Epic a game of 40k is what happens when units in that Epic game get into "close combat". So a Baneblade supported by ~400 points of other units in a 1000 point game is possibly representing a Baneblade and its immediate screening units participating in their part of a larger battle, not necessarily a Baneblade deployed all alone in the middle of nowhere. Second, there are canon examples from GW of Baneblades (and similar LoW-type units) fighting with limited support. For example, the last battle of Maximillian Weisemann* involved him making an unsupported counter-attack on the ork forces attempting to hold a key bridge, so a Baneblade against a ~600 point ork army would be an entirely accurate representation of that fight.

*Unique character Baneblade from IA1.

I think big models are here to stay, because that's part of what GW wants to produce. Look at Magnus, it's one of the biggest non-FW model ever produced, and it has rules to match the size.
The DW and GSC didn't have big models in their releases, but these armies still have a pretty limited range. IIRC, the Stormsurge and the Ghostkeel were released a bit over a year ago. So massive models are part of many major releases.
And in 2016 GW released countless massive models for AoS.

So at this point, I don't think we should ask ourselves if we want these models in our games in the future, because they will stay a very real part of 40K.
I think a better question is to wonder how to better integrate them in the current game, because a model immune to almost everything a weak codex can produce is no fun.
AoS does have a way to deal with that, but it's not transferable to 40K, and as much as I think AoS is currently a better game system than 40K, I don't want 40K to become a space clone of AoS.