I am unsettled - Superheavy Tanks Too Good?

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.

**Marmatag**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag wrote:I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.

And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.

My personal opinion, regarding casual games:

Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.

Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.

I do recognize that IG are ridiculous. In fact, that's half the motivation behind this thread. You can view this thread, if you wish, as "IG Are Ridiculous, How Do I Keep Playing IG Without Being Ridiculous Myself". Though that's long and clumsy. Do you have any suggestions of what can be done?

I'm not being critical of you. I'm not saying you should stop playing your tanks.

Just be mindful of how strong they are in casual games.

If you're looking for a balanced game where you have a realistic chance of losing, you might want to consider some narrative scenarios that will give your opponents some tools. At the end of the day people should be able to play what they want to play in a casual setting as long as it creates a fun gaming experience.

If people stop having fun, address it then. Until that happens, just roll on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChargerIIC wrote:
Marmatag wrote:

Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
.

Please tell me you are a SM player.

Grey Knights.

**valdier**

My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play

**JohnHwangDD**

valdier wrote:
My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play

Not even close for your Necrons - the SM player above says IG are unfair OP.

**valdier**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
valdier wrote:
My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play

Not even close for your Necrons - the SM player above says IG are unfair OP.

I'm just saying, pylons are deployed in groups of 3... for fluff

**Unit1126PLL**

Valentine009 wrote:I dont think it's either or for fluffy / competetive, just how enjoyable the game is going to be comes down to how interactive the game is.

Always let people know the capabilities of your list, and let them tailor at least a smidgen so they can have anti-armor.

Dont go too gung-ho on the rerolls, you dont really need it to wreck things.

Try to have some variety so there are options for your opponent to engage. It's not fun having anti infantry or mid range units that just can't do much against a Baneblade list. I played a full Russ list and it wasn't that bad bc I had options for my melee units... those options disappear against pure Baneblade.

Try to reconsider always running 3. If you are worried about CPs infantry guard is going to have an easier time anyway and while 1 or 2 superheavies is a challenge and fun, 3 just feels spammy.

Okay, I'll see what I can do about running 2. The problem with running 1 is it gets alpha-struck off the board (as you did in our game). Having one tank that hits on a 6+ the first time it fires is no fun. Sometimes you need 2 or 3 to get the ball rolling. In our game, I think you could've killed 2 turn 1 (since you did damn near two tanks worth of wounds).

KingCorpus wrote:You sound like a cool dude to me. I think its very interesting you have fluff for your own army and find it cool as well.

This is coming from a player who isn't a fan of playing against more than 1 super heavy but to be fair if the person I'm playing against isn't a jerk I have a swell time regardless.

I'm sure you'll be fine, you seem to be very open and talking about your army before you throw em down on the table and completely thrash someone.

I wish you well buddy, but I think you'll be good just by judging your character.

I'm glad you think so. I hope I can find something.

valdier wrote:My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play

If you'd like! I played a list like that at NOVA and was tabled at the bottom of 2, but I didn't mind it so much. At least my army got to see the table.

valdier wrote:I'm just saying, pylons are deployed in groups of 3... for fluff

I didn't know GW had any published fluff on Necron Pylon TO&E! That sounds awesome. Are they deployed in some kind of air defense network or something on the World Engine? That'd be a neat read!

**MechaEmperor7000**

ross-128 wrote:
You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".

Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?

Probably because people tend to accentuate the negative rather than see the positive. 3.5 edition Iron Warriors was perfectly Fluffy and Strong (OP levels) and few people bring up the former when talking about them. Also the lack of competent rule writers in the design team for so long has also caused the rules to drift a lot farther from fluff. Like in 7th edition the most optimal use of Dark Eldar Raiders is party boats for Eldar shooters. Or that entire deal with Barkstar.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Valentine009 wrote: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.

Right now, there are a lot of lists that can. It's not that good of a list, but, as you said, it's a pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic shootout.

With a 40-point reduction in points and 3d3 as opposed to d6 shots [for the Shadowsword, and other improvements for other Baneblades] and the slew of buffs they're getting, I fully expect the list to become considerably more competitive, but continue to be pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic. I'm having a much harder time working out how to reliably crack a 3-baneblades list with 120 extra points, because 120 extra points pays for a defensive Conscript screen or vanguarding Sentinels to block my own Vanguard moves and Meltaguns.

Also, a non-character can't be the Warlord unless he literally has no other options for the Warlord, IIRC. Since he at least has 1 other detachment for the Trojans, that has an HQ option, that HQ will have to be the Warlord.

The real answer to the original question is to keep playing the superheavy company if you like playing it. If it becomes actually good [which I fully expect, because I except Baneblades to be rather OP after the buffs], then we will eventually put thought into solving it, and it's still not very flexible. And while it's boring to play against, we'd be the poor sports for refusing to play than you'd be the poor sport for bringing it.

**Unit1126PLL**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Valentine009 wrote: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.

Right now, there are a lot of lists that can. It's not that good of a list, but, as you said, it's a pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic shootout.

With a 40-point reduction in points and 3d3 as opposed to d6 shots [for the Shadowsword, and other improvements for other Baneblades] and the slew of buffs they're getting, I fully expect the list to become considerably more competitive, but continue to be pretty much non-interactive and non-strategic. I'm having a much harder time working out how to reliably crack a 3-baneblades list with 120 extra points, because 120 extra points pays for a defensive Conscript screen or vanguarding Sentinels to block my own Vanguard moves and Meltaguns.

Also, a non-character can't be the Warlord unless he literally has no other options for the Warlord, IIRC. Since he at least has 1 other detachment for the Trojans, that has an HQ option, that HQ will have to be the Warlord.

The real answer to the original question is to keep playing the superheavy company if you like playing it.

You can choose any model to be your warlord but he doesn't get a trait if he's not got the Character keyword.

As for the non-interactive, non-stratiegic part, that was maybe true in earlier editions. I think it's less so now, because Baneblades and their ilk are assault elements. It's just that my plan this saturday ended up being very static because I essentially lost a tank turn 1 (23/26 wounds) and had another crippled (14/26 wounds) and the other damaged (8/26 wounds) before they could move, so I ended up defending myself rather than advancing.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

valdier wrote:My Necron list with 3 pylons seems like it would be a reasonably fun fight for your tank list... lets play

I think both my Guard and Sisters list would beat it. The Sisters list would be in trouble if he brought 120 points of Conscripts or Scout Sentinels though, because that pushes back my Vanguard action. My Guard list will wreck it, especially if I tailor it for improved efficiency.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Okay, I'll see what I can do about running 2. The problem with running 1 is it gets alpha-struck off the board (as you did in our game). Having one tank that hits on a 6+ the first time it fires is no fun. Sometimes you need 2 or 3 to get the ball rolling. In our game, I think you could've killed 2 turn 1 (since you did damn near two tanks worth of wounds).

I'm glad you think so. I hope I can find something.

If you'd like! I played a list like that at NOVA and was tabled at the bottom of 2, but I didn't mind it so much. At least my army got to see the table.

I didn't know GW had any published fluff on Necron Pylon TO&E! That sounds awesome. Are they deployed in some kind of air defense network or something on the World Engine? That'd be a neat read!

I don't think there's fluff on Pylon TO&E. You'd have to look in Fall of Orpheus, but IIRC they're air defense sentries that teleport to pre-designated sites on the surface. I don't believe they operate in squadrons.

2 Baneblades is least optimal. 1 Baneblade is probably most optimal. It serves as a line anchor and bullet magnet, and can protect your artillery and other tanks very well against turn-1 attacks. 2 takes up too much of your list with the things. 3 is back to being decent, because now your entire army is tanks, and if the enemy doesn't have enough AT, they're screwed.

Also, IIRC, the fluff for Baneblade companies is that they are temporary task-specific formations, and the vehicles are ordinarily parceled out throughout the regiment's structure.

"Though a single Baneblade is the equal...At such times, the army commander with gather together the Baneblades under his command, fielding them in one or more 'steel fury' companies. Though often drawn from the same super-heavy regiment, it is not uncommon for vehicles from other formations to be drawn into the steel fury company. Such a formidable force is only maintained for the duration of a single engagement, each individual vehicle returning to its place in the line once the battle is won." [from the steel fury datasheet]

Hence, I wouldn't precisely call fielding 3 banebades together "fluffy", except in very large games. I wouldn't refuse the game, of course. Bring what you will; I don't have to adore your list, I just have to beat it. Don't be unsettled.

Personally, I'd rather you keep bringing your 3 baneblades than change your list. I really, really detest it when people bring intentionally inferior lists; it's kind of insulting to me and my time.

For posterity, I don't hate steel-fury lists. I just think they're kind of boring, because there's no real unit-to-unit synergy and there's no real flexibility.

**SideshowLucifer**

I can honestly say that at 2k points, I would not play against an army with more than 2 superheavy choices. I doubt I could deal with 2 as it is. With more than that, I would not provide a decent game. My army lacks the tools to fight that battle.

**Unit1126PLL**

Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.

I'm always always always always always down for teaming up with another IG player, so their regiment gets one or two of my superheavies in support - that is by far the fluffiest way to play.

Sadly, however, team games seem unpopular, and so I am stuck either building an entirely new regiment\company and running them together (the thing I was hoping to avoid doing; I don't want to build another army) or playing my Regiment in the fluffiest way possible, which is the Emperor's Fury Baneblade company.

Also, this is comparatively irrelevant, but Baneblade companies are more common than one might expect. The Paragonian regiments (From the Baneblade -> Iron Harvest -> Stormlord -> Shadowsword series of novels) always fight in companies, and allow their tanks to be split up as little as possible. So there is precedent for that, though I actually (as mentioned) would prefer to find another regiment / imperial force to fight alongside for MAXIMUM FLUFF.

**HuskyWarhammer**

If the one big concern is "MAXIMUM FLUFF," maybe what is needed is more imagination, rather than tanks? In no universe will 2-3 guardsmen be able to equal a space marine in combat. No fluffy Eldar faction would deign to meet you on a fair playing field.

Maybe it'd be easier to train your brain to picture 1 or 2 as representing a company. 1 guardsman model equaling a hundred. That sort of thing.

I'm all for fluff, but it's a tabletop representation of something vastly more complex - sometimes perfect fluff is the enemy of the good (game). I think that's what a lot of the posters here have been trying to get across, with minimal effect.

**cosmicsoybean**

Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against, so the best option would probably cut out at least a tank and add in regular units (not just ones to buff the tanks)

**Unit1126PLL**

cosmicsoybean wrote:
Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against, so the best option would probably cut out at least a tank and add in regular units (not just ones to buff the tanks)

I am not sure you can categorically say that about every superheavy army. I like to throw little tidbits in and do my best to make it fun for my opponents.

Usually I can succeed. What made me make this thread was that I did not succeed at making it fun for my opponent, and I didn't do much differently than I have in 7th.

But rest assured my army in earlier editions was something the clubs like to play, not like... an unfun monstrosity as it seems you assume it to be.

**AaronWilson**

I'm worried about people won't enjoy playing against my 3 incredibly good super heavies? What a snooze fest.

Hey pal, Ive brought some tactical marines, some assault marines and a few tanks. Oh here's my fluffy 3 super heavies, thanks for turning up chump.

Of course people won't want to play you. You're list is gross and most casual "lets roll some dice and kick back" will get rolled over.

**the_scotsman**

ross-128 wrote:
You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".

Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?

It definitely can, but its rarely perfect.

Take last edition Eldar. You could take a whole bunch of scatbikes, bike HQs, Vypers, Shining Spears, and some flyers, and have a very fluffy, fairly strong Saim-Hann force.

If you stripped out the vypers, spears, most of the flyers, and added two wraithknights, you'd have a list that didn't exactly work as a saim-hann force because why would they use these big lumbering superheavies in one of their fast attack formations?

A fluffy list is rarely as strong as a list made with an eye to pure competitiveness, because the mix of units that would make sense in a fluffy list are rarely all strong, while that's the point of a purely competitive list. There is a wide variance and it's also common for people to claim every decision they make is based on fluff alone and they just happened to come upon a strong combination, and you just have to wait for a codex or edition change to see all those changes shift overnight when new rules makes something else....er...fluffier.

**Peregrine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.

Then why are you having problems? You say that your reason for playing with three Baneblades at all times is because that's what the fluff says a superheavy company is, but you acknowledge that it isn't fluffy for all three tanks in the company to operate together regularly. The easy solution is to stop playing an unfluffy army and add some non-superheavy units to your army so you can take a single Baneblade with support as a 2500 point army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ross-128 wrote:
You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".

Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?

Because people don't want to admit that their lists just plain suck at everything. Their list has to be good at something, and if it clearly isn't good at winning then it must, by process of elimination, be good at fluff. And eventually the term gets redefined entirely to mean "a list that is bad at winning".

**SilverAlien**

It's also fairly rare for a fluffy list to actually work well. I don't know of any decent SM list (by which I mean for every variation, chaos and imperial) that wants to run a lot of actual space marine infantry. Admech lists are currently 2-3 units take enmasse, not utilizing 90% of the army list. Etc.

Guard is actually an exception post codex. To a point at least. Lots of big guns and expendable bodies is both fluffy and effective.

**Unit1126PLL**

AaronWilson wrote:I'm worried about people won't enjoy playing against my 3 incredibly good super heavies? What a snooze fest.

Hey pal, Ive brought some tactical marines, some assault marines and a few tanks. Oh here's my fluffy 3 super heavies, thanks for turning up chump.

Of course people won't want to play you. You're list is gross and most casual "lets roll some dice and kick back" will get rolled over.

I didn't make the superheavies incredibly good. I didn't ask for this. So I'm asking what actions I can take to make it better. "Don't run that army" is a solution, but one I'm uncomfortable with, and I hope you can understand why I might feel that way, having put a lot of time and effort into making the army in the first place. It's not like they're unpainted plastic I bought last week and have no real connection to.

Peregrine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.

Then why are you having problems? You say that your reason for playing with three Baneblades at all times is because that's what the fluff says a superheavy company is, but you acknowledge that it isn't fluffy for all three tanks in the company to operate together regularly. The easy solution is to stop playing an unfluffy army and add some non-superheavy units to your army so you can take a single Baneblade with support as a 2500 point army.

Because I would like to play a superheavy tank regiment. I've got it all drawn up, homeworld, fluff, organization, deviations from Imperial standards, etc. and don't want to also feel compelled to build a second regiment who will fight alongside the superheavies for one game and then get ... thrown away? Because that battle is concluded and the battlegroup breaks up.

It's hard to have a coherent set of fluff for an IG battlegroup that extends beyond one planetary campaign, because the battlegroup breaks apart into its constituent regiments at the conclusion, which are then subsequently redeployed across the galaxy. It's much easier to play a single regiment, follow it's storied history, and then try to get team games with other famous (or new!) regiments to represent the formation of a temporary battlegroup. But in the absence of team games, the superheavy company is about the only way a regiment would be deployed.

Also, I'll note that certain superheavy tank regiments try to keep the tanks together (such as the Paragonians I mentioned earlier). But I also admit those are the exception rather than the rule.

SilverAlien wrote:It's also fairly rare for a fluffy list to actually work well. I don't know of any decent SM list (by which I mean for every variation, chaos and imperial) that wants to run a lot of actual space marine infantry. Admech lists are currently 2-3 units take enmasse, not utilizing 90% of the army list. Etc.

Guard is actually an exception post codex. To a point at least. Lots of big guns and expendable bodies is both fluffy and effective.

Yes, in my experience the superheavy list was pretty handicapped, and in the past I've had to super-optimize it to make it work (e.g. bring the 3 tanks, sure, but leave off all the upgrades and focus on spending points on 'real' units). 8th Edition made supporting the superheavies (rather than having them as a 1500-point drag that were comparatively easily killed) a viable option, but now the guard codex has dropped and they're just ... too good, I think.

**techsoldaten**

Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.

I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"

**MechaEmperor7000**

techsoldaten wrote:
Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.

I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"

Not really. Only Unit1126PLL has made them work to any degree. Before the IG codex leak, everyone was trying to tell him how he's wasting his time with them. Which is why i find the sudden hysteria around them to be hilarious.

**Unit1126PLL**

techsoldaten wrote:Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.

I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
techsoldaten wrote:
Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.

I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"

Not really. Only Unit1126PLL has made them work to any degree. Before the IG codex leak, everyone was trying to tell him how he's wasting his time with them. Which is why i find the sudden hysteria around them to be hilarious.

Yeah I've had to work pretty hard to make them do well, but as you can tell from my opponent's posts in this thread as well as my own concern - they're actually that good now that the codex has dropped. At least, to someone who has been using them for a while.

One problem with them is that they are very easily killed - "just bring one" may seem like a viable option, but in my experience, if the enemy wants it dead, killing one is comparatively trivial. I've seen Knights, Fellblades, and yes, Baneblades alpha-struck off the table turn 1. At NOVA, even with 3 Stormhammers, I was tabled in 3 games out of eight.

That said, the codex buffs them rather... a lot. That's what has me worried.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

techsoldaten wrote:
Question: are superheavies actually that good in 8th edition? My impression so far is no, they are mostly like Land Raiders with more guns.

I've yet to play against one, but have watched enough games featuring giant tanks to know they lose wounds the same way as most other things. I read the OP's post and thought "what's the issue?"

Sort of.

I use a Shadowsword in my lists, and it's pretty averagely decent.

However, it's about to receive a 100% increase in average fire output, re-rolling 1's to hit, and a 40 point reduction in price, which might be a problem

All super-heavy lists are pretty less-than-awesome, in my opinion. They're lists that will wreck "casual" lists, but won't really hold up to "competitive" lists, at least as I see it.

**Trickstick**

Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.

**Purifier**

Trickstick wrote:
Well the 1pt stratagem that lets them hit on a 2+ in combat could be fun. How many CP can a superheavy army get anyway? They are probably pretty limited.

12, if you're playing tournament rules of max 3 detachments.
3 Base
+3 for Super Heavy Detachment
+3 for Batallion
+3 for Batallion

Making 6 units of Conscripts for Batallions is ridiculously easy. Guard can always max out on CP, and you can get a few more by using their newfound ability to gain a CP on a 5+ everytime the enemy uses a CP. So... Not pretty limited.

**Elbows**

I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.

A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.

I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.

**jeff white**

Peregrine wrote:
jeff white wrote:
You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.

IOW, "keep spending hundreds of dollars and countless hours of painting time or I don't want to play against you". No thanks.

That's not what I wrote.
It is also not what I intended.

That said, painting and modeling is part of the hobby.
I like to talk with friends about painting and modeling, better if we have our models on the game table at the same time.
Besides all that, it is not like the guy has no budget for models - he just ordered another superheavy, from what I read.
And, I suppose that he will be spending his time painting and modeling it up...
Or paying someone else to do that, no matter - point is, he has options.
If he wants to fit in with his group, then he might change how he invests going forward.
But, as the bold and underlined sentences in the quoted response above indicate,
he seems to have no interest in doing that.

This is clear?

**Purifier**

Find the guy that plays a "fluffy" Knight house list, and shoot at eachother. That way, you're both playing the same type of army.

**JohnnyHell**

Is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.

**jeff white**

Elbows wrote:
I think the main problem you'll run into...is that while Superheavy tanks are good (perhaps, about to be great), they present a somewhat black and white list option for your opponent.

A) Bring a take-all-comers list and likely get your teeth kicked in.
B) Take an army dedicated to killing superheavy tanks, and likely ruin the game for you.

I love the idea of superheavies, but they're still not particularly well adapted to casual gaming. On top of that it limits the fun of scenarios tremendously (not a ton you can base around three massive tanks). I
think it's great to have them in the toolbox and a lot of fun can probably be had --- even if you need to create special scenarios, but for a casual pick-up game? Unlikely.

Lovely analysis.