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.

Hello everyone!

So as some of you may know, I play an Imperial Guard Superheavy Tank Regiment, with seven companies of superheavy vehicles and one command tank (for a total of 22 vehicles) and then one support company. I have played this army since Baneblade Companies became possible in 4th Edition Apocalypse and have played some version of a superheavy tank since they were released in 3rd Edition from Forge World. I never played with the 2nd Edition armour cast rules, though I do have a copy of Citadel Journal 11 when the Baneblade was first iterated in 28mm 40k.

However, the new Guard codex has me very very worried. I don't want to be labeled a powergamer or denied games based on the power of my army, but this is the first real time I am at risk of that for several editions. When we saw the rumors of the new Guard codex, I was speaking to my friends. They said "wow, baneblades lost the -1 to hit with heavy guns when moving" and I said "that's fine, we'll see how much they go up in price." When they said "wow, IG superheavy weapons got an extra d6 shots!" I said "phbbbt, spurious. That's ridiculous." When they said "IG superheavies got a 40 point discount" I said "haha, you're funny, thanks buddy for the laughs."

And then they were all true, and I am upset.

My superheavy tank companies have always consisted of three vehicles, plus support elements. It is true that the support elements have varied from edition to edition but on the whole the army has stayed relatively static. But now, because of unforseen and unsettling buffs, I am worried about having various labels thrown about. Here's why I am concerned:

1) Recent move to a new area. New players are probably not familiar with my history like my old group was - if I tell them I've been playing superheavy tanks since they dropped, they'll roll their eyes and say "sure you have." I know this shouldn't be a concern, but I think it's important to make a good impression on a new group.

2) No one wants to hear my army's fluff. I've it written down in a Google Drive document that I share with most people who ask, but no one wants to hear army fluff (and I don't blame them for that. I've also been treated to an entire essay right before a game). This means that regardless of the effort and time I have put into the fluff of the army, it's probably just background noise.

3) Effort into optimization: Once I pick a theme, I like to make it work. I don't just pick a theme, and then bring a random smattering of units to fill in points. I leverage whatever extra points I have to make the theme function as best it can on the table top. In earlier editions, the Baneblade and its variants weren't actually very good, and this was necessary. Nowadays, I'm actually worried the Baneblade is a bit too good and I may have to tone it down... but after years of building to the fluff of a superheavy tank regiment, I don't have many models that are not tied directly into supporting and aiding the big guys.

Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?

I already give people some fluff incentives, including making the company command tank my warlord (and therefore not getting a warlord trait, because it is not a character) and telling people why they may want to kill a specific tank. This sometimes works (one of my old Knight army playing buddies had a grudge against Virgin, the 2nd tank of 5th company, and constantly went after the poor girl with his Knights in damn near every game I played. Needless to say, she's not a virgin anymore...). Sometimes I repaint vehicles if they suffer an Explodes result and become unsalvageable, starting their kill-rings over and changing the name of the vehicle to represent a replacement tank, though this is rare.

I'm just despairing a bit, because I want to see the vehicles on the table, and I want to roll dice and see how they perform, but I also don't want to upset anyone or earn a reputation as a WAAC powergamer.

Not sure what to do.

At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.

The easiest way to deal with something like this is to

1.) Make sure it's an actual issue. Try it out on tabletop at least once, it might be super heavies aren't as good as you thought and were merely powerful in your old meta, making the point breaks rather justified.

2.) See the attitudes of people in your new area. For all you know it's got a decent amount of power gamers or at least people who enjoy facing optimized lists

3.) If you'd prefer not to weaken the list by picking suboptimal units, just nerf your units directly. Mention you think their price is too low, and you are using the old pre codex point values for those units.

You should also be aware that, all things considered, an army with a lot of super heavies can often be seen negatively regardless of effectiveness. Maybe play smaller games at first, 1500 or so, with just the one super heavy, if you can't make a list you find enjoyable in the 2000 point range with 1-2.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.

We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:

1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.

The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?

Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.

Not sure what to do.

Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.

Life's too short and all that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.

We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:

1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.

The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.

Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.

Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.

Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.


If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.

You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.

Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?

Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.

Not sure what to do.

Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.

Life's too short and all that.

That's a bit comforting. I do try to be a sporting opponent and a good player.

Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.

We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:

1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.

The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.

Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.

Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.

Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.


If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.

You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.

I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.

Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?

And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.

The mere fact you are so worried about this makes me think it'll be a non issue honestly.

Personally, I don't think it's an issue of being labeled WAAC, but being labeled as cheesy or (after a few games) having a dull army to play against. It's not that I wouldn't ever want to play against an army like that, but it would seriously restrict what I thought was viable to bring and lead to repetitive games.

I find that if you're a cool dude, your army doesn't matter. I faced a pair in a doubles game who brought a really optimised Necron list vs my bro's and I's quite terrible list of Space marines. We got demolished but we had a blast simply because the team were cool guys.

Everyone has an army or set of models that they like and want to field and sometimes the combo is powerful, but that shouldn't stop you from fielding it. That said, not everyone will be that way and some might get annoyed when they see a "powerful" list against them. But that'll happen regardless, depending on people's idea of powerful.

I think it mostly comes down to the person you're facing and how chill they are and also how you treat the game. If you're truely in it for the fun times, you'll give that impression to them and they'll usually have fun too. If you want to win, that impression will rub off, and your powerful list will seem intentional. So just come in with a fun attitude. One thing I find that helps is doing things that aren't particularly intelligent but are fluffy to your models. Like one of the baneblade drivers getting angry at a unit and driving in to run them over, rather than hanging back with all its guns. Might not be a super smart move but can end up with a fun story. I tend to have fun with descriptions too, of my dudes winning and getting killed in horrid ways haha. But I'm also a roleplayer so that part in me comes out a lot even in tabletop.

Anyhow, a very long post short, don't worry about it and just come in with the outlook of wanting to have fun and most of the time your opponent will have fun too

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.

Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?

And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.

People that refuse to play you because of your list are going to think whatever they think. Not much you can do about that.

Those that do play you will actually be able to get an idea of what sort of player you are and, somewhat, what sort of person you are.

As long as your area isn't full of judgemental asshats and CAAC mafia types then you'll be fine. If it is then that's a problem regardless (since they'll find a reason to have a problem with you no matter how you beat them).


Also, I'm not sure it is a given. Other than the stormlord and to a lesser extent the shadowsword the IG SHVs aren't that powerful. In a meta where people take pretty tough lists it's not all that. (or are you saying that you know your new area is very casual?)

Interesting that you are so worried about being labeled a power gamer that you create this entire thread, but when someone suggests you reduce the number of tanks you field by one you object to the idea of losing some command points. lol

As others have said. Play some games and don't act like a gakker and you'll be fine. I think it's far too early to make any judgements regarding how the new militarum codex will fall into the evolving meta.

Ensure to play every opponent in a 'best of 3' format.
Only take one tank per game, simple.

Im currently building my first 40k army, Imperial Guard, that I started collecting just prior to 8th released and had talked about for a few years.

So far ive only bought whatever I happened to feel like assembling so I have mostely some infantry and sentinels.


As im expanding now from 1000p up towards 1500, and later 2000, Im starting to feel a bit worried on what to buy to not have people feel im trying to cheese my way into the game.

I hardly even care about winning, just having fun games with a narrative to them, but its starting to feel like anything IG is getting a bad attitude from some people :/

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

However, the new Guard codex has me very very worried. I don't want to be labeled a powergamer or denied games based on the power of my army, but this is the first real time I am at risk of that for several editions. When we saw the rumors of the new Guard codex, I was speaking to my friends. They said "wow, baneblades lost the -1 to hit with heavy guns when moving" and I said "that's fine, we'll see how much they go up in price." When they said "wow, IG superheavy weapons got an extra d6 shots!" I said "phbbbt, spurious. That's ridiculous." When they said "IG superheavies got a 40 point discount" I said "haha, you're funny, thanks buddy for the laughs."

And then they were all true, and I am upset.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Are these things true? I have a Shadowsword and that thing is absolutely brutal even with the Index-rules. As it should be.

If I had all those three things you mentioned, just... wow. Let me elaborate:

1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.

2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.

3) ... And a 40 point discount? Really? Is it needed? After these upgrades? Doesn't sound fair but I guess I just have to take it, if it's true.

Seriously, are 2) and 3) true? Sounds... a bit too much. Not that I'm complaining but I thought IG superheavy tanks were already very, very good.

The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)

 Tyr13 wrote:
The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)

Understatement.

Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.

 RedCommander wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:
The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)

Understatement.

Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.

Anything with an invuln save and hot dice says hi.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 RedCommander wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:
The volcano cannon is actually an exception to the D6 extra shots thing - it gets 3d3 shots instead. Which is still pretty awesome. ( I mean... a minimum of 3 and an everage of 6 shots is nothing to sneeze at.)

Understatement.

Even 1D6 can very well be a freakin' overkill. If you get hit with a Volcano Cannon, you'll die.

Anything with an invuln save and hot dice says hi.

That hasn't escaped my notice.

However, Volcano Cannon has the priority when I use my Command Points. So, you can count that I'll re-roll the number of shots if I don't roll 4 or higher. If I don't need to, I'll maybe use the Command Point when I have to hit or wound. Most optimal targets for a Volcano Cannon have an invulnerable save of 5+. This equation still means death for those who hath invoked the Volcano Cannon's ire. Unless, they make most of their saves, which is then just blind, dumb luck.

"You may fire when ready."

To the OP: Follow your joy. Play your list and have fun. If you find that your local opponents have no answers to your list after a few games then think about dialing it down. Until then:

"Driver Advance."

I brought 3 Guard Superheavies to my first game at a new club. Checked in advance and opponent was super keen to play them. He rinsed them with Space Wolf Dreads rocking 3++ saves and 6+ ignore Wounds rolls.

Your companies won't be unbeatable ;-)

I would be absolutely fine playing against 3 superheavies as well. I'd have plenty in any list to take care of them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hello everyone!

So as some of you may know, I play an Imperial Guard Superheavy Tank Regiment, with seven companies of superheavy vehicles and one command tank (for a total of 22 vehicles) and then one support company. I have played this army since Baneblade Companies became possible in 4th Edition Apocalypse and have played some version of a superheavy tank since they were released in 3rd Edition from Forge World. I never played with the 2nd Edition armour cast rules, though I do have a copy of Citadel Journal 11 when the Baneblade was first iterated in 28mm 40k.

Same here, got 3 FW Baneblades and a Shadowsword. Been using them ever since the Baneblade rules appeared in an issue of White Dwarf (the one with the 3rd ed vehicle design rules), even though at 650 points it was actually kinda underpowered back then.
Unlike a Leman Russ, the Baneblade could move and fire all its weapons, even ordnance. I think it's fitting that it now has a rule that lets it do this again without any penalties to hit. "Lumbering" was pretty much the original Grinding Advance.

I'm totally on board with what you're saying about fielding a full unit. I always tried to get full four tank platoons of the same type of Russ with my armored company back in the day too (two squadrons of two tanks each = 1 platoon split into two sections). It just made more sense to be, realism wise, even if the Vanquishers I used got nerfed by having their HE shells removed.

Haven't had the chance to use my Super Heavies in 8th edition yet. The Index rules seemed kind of... bland? Hoping the Codex will give them some more character

I wouldn't mind playing you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I brought 3 Guard Superheavies to my first game at a new club. Checked in advance and opponent was super keen to play them. He rinsed them with Space Wolf Dreads rocking 3++ saves and 6+ ignore Wounds rolls.

Your companies won't be unbeatable ;-)

I've highlighted the key part. I always, ALWAYS ask beforehand if it's OK if I bring a superheavy. Either they agree, then it's a fun game with a superheavy or two on the board, or they don't and I play a different list.

Yes, you can deal with one superheavy even if it's unexpected, but running three really needs some kind of warning if you're not in a tournament setting.

Hi Unit! Maybe you're thinking the worst? I wouldn't have any issue with your list or the worries you've raised. I've never faced such a tanky force - sounds a fun challenge.

I'm going to be honest: If you bring a list where over 2/3 or more of the list is the same element, you're going to have trouble finding opponents, and it is going to worsen if that element is very powerful at the time.

It doesn't matter what it is - 6 flyers, 250 ork boyz, 4 knights or 8 leman russes - there is a significant chunk of people who are going to play you a few times and then pass you up for other options, and when the meta rotates to you there will be people who just don't like to play the current competitive meta.

People who make these kinds of lists are almost never power gamers. They're players who commit to a theme, and for whom a theme is highly compelling, but the fact of the matter is regardless of why you construct an army that way, a game against a list with variety is always going to be more interesting, after the first few games against the wild theme as a change of pace. Games against Just One Thing lists almost invariably turn into situations where either your Just One Thing is utterly screwed and useless, or where there's really nothing for your opponent to do because they're out of anti-tank, or your ork horde has closed the gap, or they don't have any weapons that can touch flyers and youv'e got one character hiding behind all the planes, etc. The games tend to be less tactics and more list-checks.


My advice is to go for one of two routes.

1) I am married to the setup of my theme army, I love it to bits and I do not want to change its structure, but I want to make sure I never struggle to get a game.

In this case, mix it up by starting to collect another army in addition to your themed force. Make it a solid, diverse TAC list and when you get the vibe that people are sick of the big tanks, bring it out. If you go this route though, be prepared for people to often prefer this list over your original themed list.

2) I want to play my theme 100% of the time and be someone people want to play more than a few games with.

My advice in this instance is generally to go halfsies. Dedicate half your list to your theme, and (this part is important) another half your list that is as close to the opposite of your theme as you can get. If you 100% must run three superheavy tanks because that's the theme? Play 2500 point games, and run three, and then run a few infantry squads, some light tanks, some air support, some deep strikers, fill one of the superheavies with Ogryns, whatever. Voila, you have your superheavy tank company and, lo and behold it is a solid amount of armor but still a TAC list. Don't play 2000 points and devote 800 points to just buffers, repairers, psychic support etc for the tanks. No, the fact that you've got 3 astropaths, 3 techpriests and 3 command vehicles for +1BS does not mean you're not running a "just one thing" list.

I'm not trying to attack or go after you specifically. I'm just being honest. I've been involved in my local game scene for 12+ years now, and I've seen a lot of people get very frustrated because (for instance) they're a hardcore Pacific Rim fan and this sweet badass new Eldar giant robot PILOTED BY TWINS came out and so they bought four of them and painted them to museum quality and gave them all callsigns and backstory and runs them as all different weapon loadouts but still a few months after the seventh codex drops only 3-4 people will still play with them out of two dozen regulars in the group. This isn't a thing you can solve long term by being really invested in your fluff, or by being a really nice guy.

Thanks for the advice guys. Lots of good stuff here.

I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.

I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.

I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.

I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).

It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.

As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.

Usual lurker, but just found this thread.

As someone who has played against you here are my thoughts:

1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points? It's not super interactive as a player because you just sit there while your entire army dies. This is a problem across 8th, but with so few drops and the ability to move / fire without penalty there is very little that can be done defensively. I would not even run heavy deep-strike because there would be a very good chance I would end up tabled.
2. Its not just that it's three super-heavies, its that you run them with full re-rolls on all guns (with the FW support tanks), repairs (FW support tanks), and pysker support. Also your warlord is a model with 26 wounds and your tanks can park on objectives due to thier 6' width and you can't dislodge them without killing them.
3. Until it is FAQ'ed the Steel Behemoth rule is incredibly OP as you play it -- there are very few things in the game that can survive over-watch against 4 - 6 heavy bolters, lascannons, primary bane-blade weapon, and demolisher cannons... especially hitting on 5s with the stratagem. It basically means that the tools you can use to fight the tanks are incredibly limited... without list tailoring you basically need to have an entire list of anti-tank shooting that can go first and kill a tank or two before they get alpha'ed. I dont think races with melee focued anti-armor (like orks) could even have a prayer even if they list tailored. Typically charging in a tanky unit or character to allow your squishier heavy hitters in would be the strategy (or Shrike ) but because you have unlimited overwatch this cant be done. I except this rule to be FAQ'ed

There are a few things that make lists very strong -- you run almost every one of them:
a) Screens that prevent deepstrike and assault -- you dont run screens, so that is good, but as discussed above they are pretty immune to assault anyway.
b) Support units - rerolls are incredibly strong this edition, and your entire army has them. You also have repairing capability and the ability to further buff your tank's defense with physker support.
c) Models that take specific attack channels to defeat, high invulns, heavy FNP rerolls, characters. The tanks are not too too strong defensively... but with T8 a 3+, -1 to hit / +1 armor through powers and so many wounds most lists are going to only have limited tools to deal with them.

Are there lists that can beat your 3 super heavy deathstar? Absolutetly -- I got very close with my Cawl robot / crawler spam or scions plasma spam. However only a few lists can compete, and it ends up as this giant not - interactive not- strategic shootout that is honestly just a dull game.

Hi! Thanks for the input, bud.

I do remember that game, and that's what made me worry enough to make this thread.

The support tanks thing was originally a reaction to the moving/shooting penalty that they no longer have (a way to make the army less static and still hit well) which I could probably do away with. The repairs just seemed like a natural support element a company would have, but I could certainly leverage it even more if I spammed techpriests rather than brought one Atlas.

The Steel Behemoth rule which lets them overwatch is, I think, intended. I'm not really sure what to do to make the tanks more 'chargeable'. The Defensive Gunners stratagem is ridiculous, and that game damn near made me want to play Mordians because then the overwatch would hit on a 4+, but again, I'm worried about this trouble.

The psyker support I didn't honestly feel was very troublesome, but there's not much I can replace them with until we hop over 2000 points. I just need the cheap elites to fill out another detachment, and at 15ppm they're about the best I can do.

As for the Alpha, I'm pretty sure I could build an IG list with way better alpha - in fact, Alpha in 8th seems to be a problem in general, though that's best talked about in another thread. I think for 1250-1750 points of army, the alpha isn't so bad. I think what's surprising about it is the lack of small arms, so the entire alpha is fairly good instead of being like 50% lasguns, as it would be with 1500 points of infantry guard.

But yes, that game is what made me worry and rethink my everything.

EDIT: Also, I think your game plan could have been better. I don't want to sound like I am making excuses, because it is pretty crazy, but the fact that I think you did ~43 wounds to my army on the top of Turn 1 but killed 0 tanks was probably a bad thing. In my experience, I have far more trouble if tanks are killed, rather than the damage being spread across all 3.

But that's also a discussion for another thread, I think.

Valentine009 wrote:
1. The thing that makes the list unfun is the insane alpha. I played against you with heavy hitting admech and I think by turn 2 we were both down to like 30% points?

Honestly that sounds like a problem with lack of LOS blocking terrain. This is a problem I have been seeing with Guard discussion recently, that people use nowhere near enough. Facing Guard on what is effectively an open field is never going to go well. If your SH company is mowing down all opposition, try to use them in a cityfight. A light infantry company that relies on things like meltas will have a much greater chance if you have dense streets to worry about.