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.

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

It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.

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.

Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.

No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine 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?"

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.

I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?

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.

7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.

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.

Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?

Purifier wrote: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.

I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.

JohnnyHell wrote: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.

Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch.
2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1"
3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely.
4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.

THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.

Peregrine wrote:

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

It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.

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.

Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.

 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.


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".

I agree with this first point - well said.

As for the second point, I disagree. Some people don't create "lists" exactly. Some people look at their models and think "Man, I want to use this and that, and see this and that, and this dude I just got finished is gonna lead that unit over there." Something like that.
Then things get written down and points tallied and some adjustments are made to fit the agreed limit and there you have it, an ARMY. Not a "list" per se.
These same sorts of people are not out to "win" a game, they are out to enjoy their hobby with others similarly minded, and if this is done together, then both sides win. Every time.
Some people seem to enjoy the intellectual triumph of breaking a game with first, lots of money, and second, min-max "competitive" list-building.

Anyways, the point here is that when you mix one type of player with the other, the former IMO rightly gets pissy often enough because the other player hasn't spent the time in the same ways, and simply doesn't value what the first player thinks is valuable about the hobby, and rather cheapens it by making it into something to exploit rather than to respect.
As for myself, I have zero respect for the idea that breaking what is effectively a system broken by design to motivate sales is somehow an intellectual achievement.

Now, the current thread is not really about that.
It is about someone who loves his models and wants to use them, but is concerned that he might ruin other people's days because he is stuck on using what turn out to be really hard and sort of boring models.
My suggestion is meet the other members of his group in the middle, think hobby and get back to it, creating something that respects the game and the other people whose time he plans to utilize.
He doesn't have to spend hundreds of dollars and paint for a year - he might just find some stuff on ebay and use it grey, telling the other members of his group why they are new and grey (because he didn't want to pummel them with superheavies every game, and find himself having a good deal more fun with two of his tanks - at least - on the shelf. I dunno, maybe 3 or 4 sentinels, maybe a few more squads with mortars, something like that.) Why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.

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.

Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

1, no it isn't, and no, it doesn't.

2, OK, by your reasoning, neither is it reasonable for him to expect anyone to want to play a game with him and the models that he is so interested in to forego his local equivalent to me, then - right.

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.

No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.

The problem here is that Unit has not demanded anyone else to change to conform to his army; in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma. Every naysayer has basically went "no you brought this upon yourself because you like big tanks even though back then they were bad and not tied to a single ruleset. You didn't have the farseer-levels of clairvoyance to foresee this development so now go spend money on a new army or I will call you TFG and never play you".

Note that I said "Naysayer". The vast majority of people here seemed to express either an indifference or a willingness to play him, which is a good indicator that his fears are unfounded and that it's just one or two vocal minorities that have an issue with it.

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.

No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.

I would rather the latter game, frankly.
Sure, I might admire these tanks on a shelf, but I see no reason to want to roll dice against them.
Maybe one of them, sure.
I have spent my hours and hundreds of dollars collecting what I might be able to use to tackle one of them at a time, along with the rest of an army of course.

See, this is one thing that Peregrine leaves out, that it is up to the other player to come up with the time and money to make playing against three superheavy tanks a good time.
And yes, of course the OP is not really guilty of anything but resisting change, this is to be expected. We all are guilty of this.
But at the end of the day, someone has to come up with the time and money to make these things happen, and to make them enjoyable for all involved.
I guess the burden is on the local equivalent of me, then...
God forbid dude fields something else.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine 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?"

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.

I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?

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.

7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.

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.

Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?

Purifier wrote: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.

I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.

JohnnyHell wrote: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.

Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch.
2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1"
3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely.
4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.

THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.

Peregrine wrote:

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

It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.

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.

Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.

Dude, just use one of them.
But above, you wrote that you weren't interesting in changing army comp to suit the local group...
I am getting confused, here, but maybe this is just you changing your mind.
Anyways, to have a good time with the "local equivalent of me" then just make moves to meet the interests of the other people with whom you share your time,
and sadly this might mean using only one superheavy tank in a standard game at a time.
If you are up to it.
Otherwise, the local equivalent of me wouldn't be putting his eldar/harlequin, ork, or inquisition armies on the table with yours.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.

But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.

I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.

 jeff white wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

By no means. Just like it's not a reasonable demand to say that if you've painted your army green you have to use the Cadian regiment rules, and if you want to play Catachans, you had best buy and paint those specifically. Something that Unit has not been shy to say he would require to play someone.

No one is forcing anyone into doing anything here. But it's at least as valid to refuse to play Unit because his army is boring as it is for Unit to refuse to play someone that has Cadian uniforms and plays them as Mordians.

I would rather the latter game, frankly.
Sure, I might admire these tanks on a shelf, but I see no reason to want to roll dice against them.
Maybe one of them, sure.
I have spent my hours and hundreds of dollars collecting what I might be able to use to tackle one of them at a time, along with the rest of an army of course.

See, this is one thing that Peregrine leaves out, that it is up to the other player to come up with the time and money to make playing against three superheavy tanks a good time.
And yes, of course the OP is not really guilty of anything but resisting change, this is to be expected. We all are guilty of this.
But at the end of the day, someone has to come up with the time and money to make these things happen, and to make them enjoyable for all involved.
I guess the burden is on the local equivalent of me, then...
God forbid dude fields something else.

Look, I get that you think I'm an ogre (heh, there was an old game with awesome tanks called Ogre for those that don't get the pun) for playing big tanks, but you're making it into some drama about "oh no, someone has to change..."

That's... just defeatist. I'm looking for some way of making the army fun for everyone without anyone having to do something they don't want. So I'm trying to see if anyone more clever than me has any ideas. Here are a few examples of what I've thought of:

1) Design some scenario games (for example, base one around the superheavies being ambushed by a smaller force in an area with restricted mobility where they have to defend themselves) and ask people if they want to play those in an effort to make it more fun.
2) Build a fluff compendium for people who kill a tank - since each tank is tracked by it's home Forge World and it's final fate recorded, I could see incentive for people to destroy certain tanks - they get immortalized in fluff!
3) Give opponents free VPs or something for killing a tank like the Price of Failure rule from the Heresy.
4) Try to find another regiment to operate with in a battlegroup style the way the fluff supports.

The problem is that these options aren't really ones people seem interested in - the fluff thing isn't that exciting if they're not really interested in the fluff (and that's a fine way to play too!). Special scenarios people don't like or trust for pickup games, understandably so. Free VPs sounds good but I don't want my opponents to feel like I am giving them "pity points" which is an issue Katherine raised. And number 4 is essentially what I've tried to do by seeking out other models, but even so I think the stigma will remain, simply because "three tanks!"

So I suppose the purpose of this thread (other than to foster discussion, which it seems to be doing well) is also to seek out possible solutions while avoiding silly ones like "why don't you just play something you enjoy less?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.

But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.

I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.

I see you ignored my caveat on your post: The difference between me and others is that I do not intend to powergame, and in fact would go ahead and give my opponent the victory in every game and go "0 - however many games of 8th I play" even in tournaments if I believed it would help any thing.

I do see a problem with power gaming in 40k, and this thread exists because I don't want to be a power-gamer but my favorite units are accidentally suddenly some of the best units on the table.

 jeff white wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine 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?"

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.

I think they're middle-of-the-road, or were in the index. That's essentially what "loses to competitive, beats non-competitive" is, right? Somewhere in the middle?

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.

7-9 for me usually, could get more if I stretched, as mentioned.

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.

Why do you think this? What makes 3 Baneblades different than, say, 9 LRBTs or 3 Land Raiders? And what would you suggest doing to fix/help change this fact?

Purifier wrote: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.

I would love to! Epic superheavy fights are always fun.

JohnnyHell wrote: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.

Yes, the way superheavies were played at NOVA was they could overwatch while enemies were still within 1". The analysis (according to the judge) was:

1) Models have blanket permission to fire their weapons in the Shooting Phase and in Overwatch.
2) This permission is rescinded for the Shooting Phase except for pistols at the unit within 1"
3) This permission is rescinded for Overwatch completely.
4) The phrase "may fire it's weapons" is broad and does not specify which phase, so it may always fire its weapons when enemy models are within 1", returning it to having blanket permission to shoot it's weapons in the Shooting Phase and Overwatch.

THAT SAID, I'm happy to play it the other way if that would make the army more fun to play against. So perhaps in this case I can do a HIWPI and just not overwatch with the vehicles if there is an enemy within 1". That may help.

Peregrine wrote:

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

It's exactly what you said. "Building his collection" means spending hundreds of dollars and all those painting hours.

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.

Yes, he could dump that money and time into models he clearly doesn't have any interest in, just to appease you (or his local equivalent to you). That is not a reasonable demand to make.

Yes, thank you Peregrine. I actually am buying other models to build a different regiment - you can even look at my thread history to see some cool Roman-themed models I got recently and am looking at building a regiment around. The problem is they're not even in the United States yet, having been given to USPS on the 23rd of September and then just dicked around for two weeks somewhere over the Atlantic, I guess. And even when they do arrive, I'm not planning on just dropping my superheavies forever and never playing them again. So I would like to be able to find a solution to the problem outlined in this thread.

Dude, just use one of them.
But above, you wrote that you weren't interesting in changing army comp to suit the local group...
I am getting confused, here, but maybe this is just you changing your mind.
Anyways, to have a good time with the "local equivalent of me" then just make moves to meet the interests of the other people with whom you share your time,
and sadly this might mean using only one superheavy tank in a standard game at a time.
If you are up to it.
Otherwise, the local equivalent of me wouldn't be putting his eldar/harlequin, ork, or inquisition armies on the table with yours.

The regiment I am building is designed to mesh nicely with my 7th Transport company, allowing me to bring 60-odd IG infantry riding in Banehammers. So it's not exactly altering my comp so much as trying to find a sweet spot where I can have a fluffy army (one regiment riding in a superheavy regiment's transports) that also fields 3 superheavies (Banehammers) while giving the enemy another goal / something to do (fight the infantry that hop out when an objective is reached).

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
in both instances he's only defending his right to play the game without stigma.

But being very vocal in other threads that he will hold stigma over how others play the game. And I asked him in this very thread if what he wanted to avoid was to have others treat him the way he treats those that play with the wrong regiment, and he confirmed that this was indeed the case.

I don't begrudge Unit playing with his Super Heavies, but I think highlighting the hypocrisy is fair.

I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).

I also saw a lot of thinly veiled unkind words being thrown around (on both sides) so if there is an issue, remember we have the little yellow triangle.

Also this is starting to escalate so I would like to remind everyone that rule #1 is still a thing and that if you strongly disagree, simply walking away is not a concession to the other side.

I didn't ignore your caveat, it just doesn't change a single thing. You're the kind of person that you're afraid will judge you. You're only afraid of this because you know you would have.

I would never judge you for turning up with 3 super heavies, because I don't roll that way, and I don't worry that anyone will judge me for playing half my army as Stygies and half as Mars, even though it doesn't have the paint scheme of either, and I would still do that even if the whole damn army was painted Mars, without a single drop of guilt. I'd get some rubber bands and hang them off of the Stygies units or something.
Because that's how I want to play this game. I want to pick the rules I think will make the game more fun, and I don't worry that you're calling me a power gamer as a result, because honestly I think people that are as picky as you about these things are so rare I will probably never even meet one in real life.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).

You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.

 Purifier wrote:
I didn't ignore your caveat, it just doesn't change a single thing. You're the kind of person that you're afraid will judge you. You're only afraid of this because you know you would have.

I would never judge you for turning up with 3 super heavies, because I don't roll that way, and I don't worry that anyone will judge me for playing half my army as Stygies and half as Mars, even though it doesn't have the paint scheme of either, and I would still do that even if the whole damn army was painted Mars, without a single drop of guilt. I'd get some rubber bands and hang them off of the Stygies units or something.
Because that's how I want to play this game. I want to pick the rules I think will make the game more fun, and I don't worry that you're calling me a power gamer as a result, because honestly I think people that are as picky as you about these things are so rare I will probably never even meet one in real life.

I wouldn't call you a powergamer for having your army mixed regiments/Forge Worlds, not sure where you got that idea. I might chuckle about army loyalty or something, but it'd be a small jab, not like, a dark cloud that I would let hang over the game or anything.

But thanks for not judging me for liking big tanks!

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).

You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.

I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).

You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.

I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, I must have confused him with someone else, because the words he used weren't as harsh as I remembered, but he has most certainly said he wouldn't be totally ok with how others choose to play their armies.

And the "no assaults touching" was because he found it worrying that a melee unit could dig through a Conscript unit in 3 turns, which put his tanks in danger. I think it's fair to say that if you're arguing that a specifically tailored melee unit can dig through Conscripts in 3 turns, allowing them to charge you in turn 4, as a problem, then when are they supposed to be able to get to you? The next step up would be that they NEVER get to you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It depends.

If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.

If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.

If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN

That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I saw that discussion and I personally I have no idea what you're talking about. In that thread he was defending his right to use whatever regiment he wanted and was only refusing games with people who wanted to (once again) dictate what his army should have, not him dictating what others should (context is important here).

You obviously didn't. The discussion was whether people should be allowed to choose a different regiment than what their army looked like, and I said it wouldn't matter and Unit said it mattered a lot and he wouldn't play them, so honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Unit very much wanted to dictate what others should be playing, as anything but the true look of their army was off limits.

I remember him saying he wanted to use Pask in his army without having to be locked into Cadians, as well as the blurp where you extrapolated him "literally demanding that assault never be able to touch you" when he just expressed a displeasure of assaults (i.e: what he actually said was "I don't want assault to touch me.", not "Assaults shouldn't touch me"). You were arguing with someone else who was making demands of people (since a lot were in that thread) so maybe you just got him confused with someone else during the whole back and forth. In that thread you referenced yet another thread where you two had a heated discussion and maybe he said something there, but he didn't say anything about not wanting to play someone just because they didn't use the Regiment rules as written.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, I must have confused him with someone else, because the words he used weren't as harsh as I remembered, but he has most certainly said he wouldn't be totally ok with how others choose to play their armies.

And the "no assaults touching" was because he found it worrying that a melee unit could dig through a Conscript unit in 3 turns, which put his tanks in danger. I think it's fair to say that if you're arguing that a specifically tailored melee unit can dig through Conscripts in 3 turns, allowing them to charge you in turn 4, as a problem, then when are they supposed to be able to get to you? The next step up would be that they NEVER get to you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It depends.

If I see someone playing Vostroyan models as Catachan, I'll probably poke fun at them about it.

If I see someone running Catachan models as Vostroyan, same thing. I'll poke a bit of fun.

If I play someone more than once, though, and their <Regiment> changes from game to game I'll probably get a little harsher than poked fun - including accusing them of having no army loyalty! DUN DUN DUNN

That said, I'm not going to tell people to feth off, or curse at them, or anything like that over it.

Considering assault is a very "all or nothing" thing right now, his concerns aren't unfounded. Plus digging straight through a bubble wrap is the brute force way; i.e: the same problem we had with Eldar in a past edition where you simply turned off all tactical thinking and just marched them forward. I'm a world eaters player and I would be flabbergasted at any unit that could destroy an entire unit of Berserkers in 3 turns. From the sounds of it, he never went "the next step up", that's purely your extrapolation.

And in the quote of him you found, the first two he states he's poking fun at. The third one is in jest (I bet he'd have the exact same reaction if someone showed up with an entire new army every game) and the final sentence is him explicitly saying he won't refuse a game (which is the opposite of what you're accusing him of).

Again, I have no idea where you got this idea but Unit has been pretty consistent so far. If you got a bone to pick with him or something, I suggest talking it out like civilized people in PMs rather than coming in harping at him on every thread.

EDIT: Plus I think this discussion of Unit's character has dragged the thread off topic enough and is toeing very close to outright insulting him (rule#1 violation) especially since most of the faults are merely your extrapolations of what he said and not what he actually said. Again if you think there is a problem, that little yellow triangle is right there.

EDIT: Ignore most of this, look about 3 posts down for my apology.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Again, I have no idea where you got this idea but Unit has been pretty consistent so far. If you got a bone to pick with him or something, I suggest talking it out like civilized people in PMs rather than coming in harping at him on every thread.

Oh sod off. If you're such an upstanding citizen why aren't you taking this in PMs? No, because you need your audience as you tell me how I should bring it to PMs, so they can all see how superior you are.

I just admitted I had the wrong of it, thanks for reiterating that to make sure everyone can see how dignified you are. There is nothing that grinds my gears more than people that do this specific thing. If you want to yap on about the highroad, then TAKE IT instead of crawling down here in the muck with me while acting like you're not.

Woah okay everyone hold the phone.

I appreciate that discussions of power-gaming and fluff can get heated, etc.

I appreciate MechaEmperor7000 standing up for me, that's very nice of him.

And I appreciate you, Purifier, for having the intellectual fortitude to admit you misremembered something

That's a good place to put a stop to the tangent I think and move along with the discussion at hand:

Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?

I'm willing to concede that it may not be the case, and that would be regrettable and something that I would have to think long and hard about whether I'd like to continue the hobby or just wait until superheavies return to the middle-of-the-road (or worse, I'm not picky). But I would like to investigate options first.

I genuinely apologized for that, I read it as sarcasm. I got caught up in the moment.

Also I have taken the discussion with Unit to the PMs, but my beef isn't with you which is why, apart from the apology, you haven't heard anything from me.

EDIT: The apology is towards Purifier.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,

Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?

Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
Even last edition all superheavy armys were boring and annoying to play against,

Not as annoying as all-Knights or all-Necrons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?

Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.

I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.

As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.

Aren't Knights technically Superheavies as well?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Aren't Knights technically Superheavies as well?

Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.

The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?

Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.

I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.

As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.

Oh, OK, well try those and see how it goes.

I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is there a way to still play the army that I love without making it unfun for the opponents?

Dial it back to create challenge for yourself. Play 3 Superheavies, but put 2 of them in Reserves. Instead of taking all Hellhammers with the extra sponsons, take some of the mono-gun transports.

I actually don't run any hellhammers, and usually avoid taking all the sponsons. I like the 'classic' look (indeed, 2 of my vehicles are Forge World superheavies with unalterable sponsons) so I do usually have one set. One of my companies has no sponsons, so only the hull twin heavy bolter and Stormsword cannon, and my transport company is just going to be 3 unupgraded Banehammers, so that should work with the cool roman themed regiment I am doing if the models ever arrive before 2018.

As for putting 2 in reserves, that's an excellent idea! But I'm not sure you can just put stuff in reserves in Matched Play, I think it has to have a rule allowing it.

Oh, OK, well try those and see how it goes.

I believe you can always put units in Reserve, but you automatically lose if, at any point, you have zero models on the board. The special rule ties to being able to Deep Strike, etc. Otherwise, you have to walk on from your own board edge.

Neat! I will give it a shot! Thanks for the idea.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Aren't Knights technically Superheavies as well?

Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.

The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?

They also share the "Titanic" keyword for things that care about it (e.g. the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon). The Steel Behemoth and Super-heavy Walker rules are almost identical too.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Aren't Knights technically Superheavies as well?

Yes, they're "Lords of War" and used to be super-heavies.

The term super-heavy is kind of meaningless now though, as there is no distinction. Nothing is any more super-heavy about the Baneblade than about a Land Raider except Battlefield Role. Maybe we should be calling them Lords of War?

They also share the "Titanic" keyword for things that care about it (e.g. the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon). The Steel Behemoth and Super-heavy Walker rules are almost identical too.

True, though things that were formerly not superheavies have those abilities too, e.g. the Monolith which is Titanic, can fall back + shoot, and ignores moving and shooting penalties for its guns.

Only place I know that actually uses the name Super Heavy is the Super Heavy Detachment, which is 3-5 lords of war.

 Purifier wrote:
Only place I know that actually uses the name Super Heavy is the Super Heavy Detachment, which is 3-5 lords of war.

Well and the Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment, I think.

But that means Guilliman is a Super Heavy, lol. I don't think that's what people mean.

Just start playing competitively. You can use whatever you want, and you won't feel bad about smashing people even if they don't have fun.

And you'll run into some people who will wipe the floor with you. It's a good experience. There's a ton of hubris flying around on these forums, of people who stomp out their local meta. Try swimming in a bigger pond. Losing is healthy.