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 wrote:
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.

I did that, and went to NOVA and went 4-4, and I had a blast even in the games where I was tabled bottom of 3. But Peregrine will tell you that I am not a competitive player, really. We had a very long discussion back when Leman Russes had to be the core of the army about how my army is way suboptimal and should be optimized.

I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.

EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.

My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

No, reserves are a mission-specific rule. In matched play units can only be placed into reserve if they have a special rule permitting it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.

EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.

My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.

Many of us feel that way. You pretty much just described my outlook on 40k over the last 10 years.

Have always played in a competitive local meta. There are the players who attend tournaments, and the ones who don't but are just as good. The tournament players are always playing brutal lists and have a WAAC mentality, everyone else tones down their lists and builds novel armies. Both sides leach off each other's ideas about what's good and there's a fair amount of trial and error that happens.

Forgeworld has only been appearing on our tables the last few years, mostly as a result of people wanting to use HH units in 40k games. So we've seen quite a few superheavies. I play CSMs and have a Spartan, a Sicaran, some Contemptors, a KAC, some Rapiers and a Fire Raptor. I bought them because they look cool, and I am fully aware of why they are inferior point-for-point to other options from Forgeworld.

But it's not like I am trying to optimize around whatever the newest, best rules are for the game. I like my CSMs and always will. If I know what someone is playing regularly, I can optimize around that with what I have and at least have a good game.

With regards to superheavies - the new IG rules will make them a tougher, but it's not like they are suddenly going to ruin the game for everyone else. So far, the worst I have seen is Baneblades, which die the same way Land Raiders do. All of my lists have plenty of Lascannnons for this purpose. A 2++ save would be hard to deal with, but someone will eventually figure out how to kill them reliably.

It's better than having shelves of models you just don't care about. Take the changes in stride and don't buy into the latest hotness.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

No, reserves are a mission-specific rule. In matched play units can only be placed into reserve if they have a special rule permitting it.

I wasn't aware they changed that. Sorry.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't want to upset (or lose games against) competitive players when the time rolls around that the superheavies are back to being garbage again.

EDIT: I guess for clarification purposes I should elaborate.

My heart's just not in competitive play. I like to see my army perform on the tabletop, but I don't like hopping to the Next Big Thing either when it happens, which means I don't usually fit in with competitive players that well either. Most competitive players I know will build 2000 point armies of whatever the new hotness is and that's that, running that until the next new hotness comes out and building exactly 2000 points of that. They're not worried about narrative cohesion, TO&Es, fluff, really anything other than the game. Sometimes they'll talk about fluff, but they talk about it like it's some other favorite thing of theirs (like one might offhandedly comment how much they like hot-dogs during a conversation about baseball) rather than something to be lived vicariously on the table top.

Many of us feel that way. You pretty much just described my outlook on 40k over the last 10 years.

Have always played in a competitive local meta. There are the players who attend tournaments, and the ones who don't but are just as good. The tournament players are always playing brutal lists and have a WAAC mentality, everyone else tones down their lists and builds novel armies. Both sides leach off each other's ideas about what's good and there's a fair amount of trial and error that happens.

Forgeworld has only been appearing on our tables the last few years, mostly as a result of people wanting to use HH units in 40k games. So we've seen quite a few superheavies. I play CSMs and have a Spartan, a Sicaran, some Contemptors, a KAC, some Rapiers and a Fire Raptor. I bought them because they look cool, and I am fully aware of why they are inferior point-for-point to other options from Forgeworld.

But it's not like I am trying to optimize around whatever the newest, best rules are for the game. I like my CSMs and always will. If I know what someone is playing regularly, I can optimize around that with what I have and at least have a good game.

With regards to superheavies - the new IG rules will make them a tougher, but it's not like they are suddenly going to ruin the game for everyone else. So far, the worst I have seen is Baneblades, which die the same way Land Raiders do. All of my lists have plenty of Lascannnons for this purpose. A 2++ save would be hard to deal with, but someone will eventually figure out how to kill them reliably.

It's better than having shelves of models you just don't care about. Take the changes in stride and don't buy into the latest hotness.

I appreciate your endorsement of my bigguns but I am earnestly worried about upsetting people. You can probably tell from one of my opponents who posted here that the superheavy tanks just aren't fun to play against.

I have another game Thursday, we'll see how it goes.

I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.

I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.

I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.

There are 2 issues with this type of list
1) its an all or nothing list and in most friendly games people will not have the most optimized list to take down these units fast enough.

2) I think currently it might be a bit OP but as more codexs come out more and more units will be beefed up to deal multiple wounds easier superheavy tanks just like all knight lists will take a freefall off a cliff.

I actually think Gw is encouraging us to take only 1 LOW superheavy by limiting doctrines to certain detachments as some of these doctrines help super heavies greatly.

Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.

I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.

I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

gungo wrote:There are 2 issues with this type of list
1) its an all or nothing list and in most friendly games people will not have the most optimized list to take down these units fast enough.

2) I think currently it might be a bit OP but as more codexs come out more and more units will be beefed up to deal multiple wounds easier superheavy tanks just like all knight lists will take a freefall off a cliff.

I actually think Gw is encouraging us to take only 1 LOW superheavy by limiting doctrines to certain detachments as some of these doctrines help super heavies greatly.

I've heard number 1 repeated time and time again and it's not really panned out. Even in 7th I was having tanks one-shotted by their equivalent units in firepower. It's happening in 8th, too - units are simply more effective against tanks than they were before (e.g. heavy bolter devastators are infinitely more effective against baneblades than they were). Even in my most recent game, which was the one that caused this, if my opponent had concentrated fire I'd've lost 1 tank before I had a turn, and I'm not sure his list was especially tailored. At Nova, I got tabled by an Adeptus Mechanicus Brigade detachment by turn 4 - I think a Brigade detachment list brought to a wide tourney in which a huge variety of armies could be expected to show up would be the very definition of Take All Comers.

2) I agree with this, that's why I'm sad. I hope that they become bad, so this problem reduces.

As for your last point, I've heard it like 4 or 5 different ways; this is the first time I've heard superheavies not getting doctrines if taken in the big unit. Are you saying they only get doctrines if taken in a regular Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for your last point, I've heard it like 4 or 5 different ways; this is the first time I've heard superheavies not getting doctrines if taken in the big unit. Are you saying they only get doctrines if taken in a regular Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment?

Remembered where I read it:

...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.

From this FLG post.

...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.

So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.

I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.

I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.

I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.

I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.

Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.

Valentine009 wrote:

...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.

So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.

I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.

I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.

You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).

No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.

I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.

As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.

I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.

[double-post, not sure what happened there]

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.

I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.

I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.

Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.

There's a ton I can do to make it different, are you kidding? One game I can bring 1100 points of Valdors and 900 points of support units/ other stuff. Another game I can bring 1260 points of Banehammers and 800 points of random other stuff riding in them. Some games I can bring Stormhammers and focus on long-range gun duels, other games, I can bring Stormswords and assault everything (necessitating different support choices as well). Other games I can bring Baneblades and do a bit of both (as I tried to do in my last game, though losing first turn crippled my plan).

There's so many different variants, it's more than just 3x SHV. I can even mix and match in a scratch company, like a Stormhammer covering two Stormsword assault tanks or a Banehammer full of goodies helping a Valdor tank destroyer and a Baneblade to hold the line.

There really are a bunch of tanks that fufill different roles. I think part of the perception that they're all the same is because people don't really understand them that well, which MechaEmperor7000 I think can attest to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, it's worth noting that every time I've been to the club save two I think I've had a different superheavy tank variant with me, and played a different game each time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Valentine009 wrote:

...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.

So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.

I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.

I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.

You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).

No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.

I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.

As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.

I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.

3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.

Valentine009 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Valentine009 wrote:

...it is important to note that the Baneblades do not gain Regimental Doctrines in the Super Heavy Aux detachment, you have to take them in a Super Heavy Detachment or a Supreme Command Detachment to gain those benefits.

So basically under standard 3 detachments max rules if you want to run 3 you either have to put them all in the super-heavy aux detachment and not get doctrines (but have 2 slots for command points and support), or run a supreme command + 2 super heavy aux, have a 3 HQ tax with only 1 elite slot and only 4 command points.

I think that goes a long way toward balancing them in standard (2k) games. Bringing 2 you still have a lot of options, but once you opt for 3 you are really nerfing yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

It's not the same because at the end of the day the game is about strategy and choosing targets, choosing movement, setting up charges etc. Against 3 SHTs your options are really limited. You cant assault, you cant use any sort of low STR, low AP attacks, and your strategy of parsing out damage to eliminate specific threats is moot because in order for there to be a real reduction in enemy offensive power you need to cripple or kill one of the tanks. It is just not interactive.

I would be happy to switch armies with you for a day if you want to see what I mean.

You have it the other way around. The 3 superheavies in 1 detachment is the Super Heavy Detachment, where you do get doctrines. The Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment is where you only get 1, and you lose the doctrines. So actually, I'm less inclined to run one or two now because then I don't even get doctrines (though that's maybe okay).

No, I've played against the 3 superheavy list (knights!) with my own. I don't really see how it's different than 3 monoliths, or 3 Land Raiders full of 'zerks, or 3 Knights, or 9 Leman Russ tanks.

I actually find tank battles more engaging than the super-static infantry battles where no one moves.

As for getting in melee - I usually have to move upfield, so if you have something durable enough to make it into melee through overwatch, or charge the Trojan/other units and then pile in on the Baneblade you can absolutely get there.

I don't really see where you're coming from. 500 points of my army is one Baneblade instead of 3 Russes, I'm not sure why 3 Russes would be more interactive or whatever.

3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.

3 Russes absolutely do, especially if they're Mordian and overwatching on a 5+ (4+ if you spend 1CP).

You're right that you can kill one, but you still have the firepower from the other two, which can be two lascannons, six heavy bolters, and two battlecannons - one autocannon short of a Baneblade, essentially. So the third actually gave the 3 of them more guns than a Baneblade has.

Leman Russes have 12, not 11 wounds, meaning you have to do 24 to reduce their firepower to below that of a Baneblade (Baneblades have 26, so that's about right) and 36 to remove them as a threat completely.

And yes, 3 Russes might have different guns, just like 3 different Superheavies might have different guns - IG have nine different Baneblade variants, 3 Macharius hulls (used to be 4) and one Malcador-hull superheavy.

The primary differences are:
Russes can't overwatch if enemy models are within 1". This is something I am willing to play differently if it helps me get more games!
Russes can't park on objectives. This is true, but they get Objective Secured in a Spearhead detachment with a Tank Commander anyways, so they're still pretty damn good at it.

This is why I am worried about guard in general being OP.

EDIT: Oh, one other thing Russes can't do is fall back and shoot, though running a screen for Russes should be doable, I suppose.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My heart's just not in competitive play.

Well if your heart isn't in competitive play but you run a competitive list, that's going to put you in a difficult spot. Compounded by the fact that you're playing Astra Militarum, which is the most powerful faction I've ever seen in my limited 40k time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Valentine009 wrote:

3 Russes dont the ability to kill 75% of the models in the game in overwatch, when you deal 11 damage the model is dead and can no longer fire, and 3 Russes can not park on objectives. 3 Russes also may have different guns so you have to decide which one to prioritize.

3 Russes absolutely do, especially if they're Mordian and overwatching on a 5+ (4+ if you spend 1CP).

3 Russes don't fire overwatch at a single charging unit. You're completely missing the point that one large unit is not the same as several smaller ones (this is one of the problems with conscripts).

I do still have enough I think to make a Leman Russ company, and it looks like the codex supports that as well, so perhaps that would be better for a while?

What does everyone think?

At least until I get my neat Roman models...

There is a Guard guy at the club who ran something like 8 Russes, 2 guard blobs, some scions and a Valkyrie. This was pre-buff but it was good game against my Raven Guard.

Even something like 1 SHT, 5 russes, and scions would be an interesting yet very strong list.

To be honest seeing you always post about super heavy detatchments makes be want to run one....But I don't have enough....I spent way too much on Warhammer since 8th dropped as it is.

I guess I could run 2 along with a Marauder destroyer....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My heart's just not in competitive play.

That's cool. Many who try competitive play tire of it at some point.

You have giant transports, so just take those. Everybody will be a lot happier.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
To be honest seeing you always post about super heavy detatchments makes be want to run one....But I don't have enough....I spent way too much on Warhammer since 8th dropped as it is.

I guess I could run 2 along with a Marauder destroyer....

Join the club bub lol.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:I think that the biggest challenge you'll have is variety. Because your options for on-table actions are restricted by having a very limited number of units your army will be very samey to play against.

I'd have no problem at all playing against your army but I certainly imagine that it'd get dull to play against fairly quickly.

I have an all-knight army but it's only seen the table in it's full-on form once. My super-heavy tank company is getting put together at the moment and I doubt they'll ever get fielded with all three together.

The game is only the same over and over again if the objectives never change. How is this any different than playing against the same 2000 point army over and over again? I imagine that would get samey as well, even if they have 15 or 16 units instead of my 10. Even so, how would you fix this? Vary up the types of support units I bring?

You only really have three units that matter, the rest just follow the tanks around. That does limit your options for what you do on the table.

Yes, playing a more normal 2000 point army repeatedly has the same problem but your small number of significant units exacerbates this. Also, much easier to meaningfully change how a regular army plays - with 3x SHVs in there every time there isn't much you can do to make the army materially different.

Great analysis and well said.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

 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?"

Spoiler:

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.

I would personally hesitate to accept a game against your superheavies, but that's simply because of the fact I don't have the tools to deal with it model-wise. My Chaos Marines are still geared up for the old 4th edition Rhino Rush with Melta strategy, which has fared terribly for the past 5 years or so. My Death Guard are lacking in anything resembling anti-tank until I get my hands on some Blighthaulers. If I had the guns on the other hand, I'd love to play against it!

As for "what should I do?" to me the answer seems fairly straightforwards. If you find that you're doing too well using the new Astra Militarum Codex, just go back to using the Index! Any casual gamer shouldn't have a problem, since you immediately lose all of those fancy regimental rules and stratagems, and you revert to the old points costs and weapons profiles. For more "competitive" games, bring out the codex again to give yourself an edge. Simples.

 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.

Well knights are superheavy walkers were they not
My big issue with supers last edition it basically made units in your army completely useless since you cant wound it, but now 8th changed that its much better. Now you just deal with getting leafblowered down haha

To me this is the kind of army that is completely at home in Epic Armageddon but 40k is just not the scale to be bringing multiple Super Heavy War Engines.

Hell, in an Epic game there wouldn't be any reason not to take all 20+ SHTs plus supporting elements and both players to have a good time

Well I just can suggest to bring your stuff and see other players' reactions. If you like a certain style and those specific models you shouldn't change that, 40k is just a game and any game's purpose is to have fun.

But also your opponents should have fun, so you can't blame others if they don't want to play against a list such yours. I personally hate LoWs and huge models, I sometimes accept to play against lists with ONE of them, but non very often, since I don't like those kind of units/characters. And I'm not willing to face an army with only LoWs, not because they may be too strong, but because I don't like to play against those kinds of lists. Despite having 3 different armies I've only accepted to play against imperial knights 3-4 times in 3 years, since games against them are absolutely boring IMHO and I won't probably play again against them in the future.

If you local players accept to play against your list and actually enjoy the games, you won't have the slightest problem, just know that not everyone likes to play with and/or against a small amount of huge models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do still have enough I think to make a Leman Russ company, and it looks like the codex supports that as well, so perhaps that would be better for a while?

What does everyone think?

At least until I get my neat Roman models...

With the new codex this could conceivably be *worse* as they'll have higher damage output - 2k of russ is, for the sake of argument, 20d3 demolisher cannon shots :|

15 russ, 3 SHCs and 10k of various titany things here and over the last 5 years i've come to understand that for the sake of fun, no more than one on the table at a time unless you're facing comparable opponents. The only exception to this is the Marauder Destroyer as it's powerful, sure, but it's priced and powered at a remarkably sensible level now.

Last week for the sake of experimentation I took a single shadowsword against 2k of non optimised primaris marines. The shadowsword wiped them in 3 turns. It's crucial to remember that they work on an entirely different tier to most armies, in a similar manner to the thunderwolves of yore. If your opponents are used to playing structurally even lists with multiple threats, one single black hole unit will break both their plans and their means of enjoying the game at the same level.