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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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.

Have you played against them using 3 superheavies? Try to face an imperial knight list using 0-1 LoW. Not that impossible to win (I defeated knights with orks last time I faced them) but it's way to boring to play against lists in which everyting is pretty much immortal unless you tailor your list or you're already fielding a super competitive lists or an hard counter for that LoWs spam.

flyingthruwater wrote: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

Sadly, epic is dead. Also I do like building and painting 28mm rather than 6mm models.

Blackie wrote: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.

Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?

malamis wrote:

 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.

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.

So first of all I am usually pretty open about what I am bringing. Second of all, my experience elsewhere has been different than yours, and third of all: do you have any suggestions on how to play it other than "ditch the idea and run something else" that might make it more fun?

Also they are really not on their own level of power anymore. They were, but they aren't. The distinction between something like a Monolith and a Knight or a Land Raider and a Baneblade is like, one keyword and one special rule. There is more difference between a Leman Russ and a Predator than between a Monolith and a Baneblade, just as an example.

I think it is the perception that they are on a "whole other level of power" that causes this in the first place. They aren't - tournament winning lists haven't run any.

That said, maybe in the new codex. We will see.

I liked the idea of going back to the index versions for casual games. May try that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


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.

Have you played against them using 3 superheavies? Try to face an imperial knight list using 0-1 LoW. Not that impossible to win (I defeated knights with orks last time I faced them) but it's way to boring to play against lists in which everyting is pretty much immortal unless you tailor your list or you're already fielding a super competitive lists or an hard counter for that LoWs spam.

I watched space wolf dreadnought spam table a knight army in 7th. Haven't seen a knight army in 8th but have heard stories of knights blasted off the board Turn 1.

That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.

I like big tanks and I like to actually use them.

Running three Lord of War at 2000 points, to me, would just make for boring game.

But then this thread is six pages in and you seem to want to keep it going. People have given you the options and opinions on it.

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

Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.

Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.

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

Maybe refers to certain guns like baneblades but those being most common SHV's less common ones don't get mentioned. Rumour but still true. Just not full truth.

Thousandeyes wrote:Running three Lord of War at 2000 points, to me, would just make for boring game.

But then this thread is six pages in and you seem to want to keep it going. People have given you the options and opinions on it.

The purpose of this thread is to look for solutions to the problem, and I've already found a few, including unique scenarios (where people want to play them), using different tank variants in a game (so it's not just 3 of the same tank), team games, not allowing them to fire Overwatch with Steel Behemoth, and going back to the Index versions of the tanks if people want.

Do you have any solutions other than "I find it boring"? I do like my army, and in my experience people have had fun playing against it (until recently, hence this thread) so your experience is an outlier. Care to tell me more? What's the last 3 LOW game you tried? How it went? Why it was boring?

tneva82 wrote:

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

Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.

Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.

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

Maybe refers to certain guns like baneblades but those being most common SHV's less common ones don't get mentioned. Rumour but still true. Just not full truth.

Look up Winters SEO on youtube. He has a review of a preview copy of the codex, and you can pause it while he's holding it open to explain stuff and see. Baneblades fire 3d6 shots, Stormswords 2d6, Banehammers 3d6, Baneswords 3d6, etc. etc. Essentially all of them except the Stormlord got more shots, though the Shadowsword's wasn't "tack on an extra d6" but rather "change to 3d3".

As far as moving... I usually move. Back before the codex stuff, I usually kept 2 tanks in overwatch (the warfare term, not the maneuver term) and one assault tank to move forwards. Now that they can fire and maneuver unhindered, I've been trying to press all of them forwards. The ideal end of the game for me is the Baneblades linebreaking (because that's what they do) into the enemy DZ, unless I have to stop to snag objectives. There are, of course, hindrances to this tactic, including being hemmed in by enemy melee units, or the situation radically changing (i.e. a tank getting knocked out changes the plan, obviously).

I find sitting still and shooting boring and usually not effective, though effectiveness depends heavily on terrain. One change I am grateful for in 8th is that Baneblades and their ilk aren't shabby in combat either, which makes driving forwards and assaulting people to try to capture an objective a viable option.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?

I never played against something similar to your specific list but I don't like games against 4-15 models. It's not a matter of competitiveness or type of units/characters, I don't have fun in facing armies that don't look like armies but just a small groups of super heroes or super vehicles. To each his own I guess.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.

I like big tanks and I like to actually use them.

Yeah, I see that we do have a completely different view of the game. IMHO everything in the game should be killed in one turn, if the opponent focuses on that specific thing, and if he actually manages to wreck it, it should be normal. That's why I don't have problems with my most valuable units obliterated in turn 1, because they're not centerpiece models. Maybe very effective ones, but the game wouldn't be screwed if an alpha strike deletes one of my best units.

Only a few armies can actually delete a superheavy by turn 1 though. And even if it goes down you'll probably have other smaller tanks or flyers anyway, plus the rest of the army, it doesn't seem an issue to me, unless you really like playing with only that specific units, and other ones that complete the lists are there only to make the list legal or because they provide a small but needed support for the big stuff.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Is there nothing that could be done to change your mind? Is "ditch the army and play something else" truly the only solution?

I never played against something similar to your specific list but I don't like games against 4-15 models. It's not a matter of competitiveness or type of units/characters, I don't have fun in facing armies that don't look like armies but just a small groups of super heroes or super vehicles. To each his own I guess.

But you're not playing against an army, you're playing against a company. Even in the real world, Companies vary widely in size and have throughout history. If you help explain to me why you don't have fun, I may be able to get more input on how to fix it.

 Blackie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That is my biggest issue for going down to one tank: it gets alpha'd off the board before it moves fairly commonly. That happened in the game that started this thread.

I like big tanks and I like to actually use them.

Yeah, I see that we do have a completely different view of the game. IMHO everything in the game should be killed in one turn, if the opponent focuses on that specific thing, and if he actually manages to wreck it, it should be normal. That's why I don't have problems with my most valuable units obliterated in turn 1, because they're not centerpiece models. Maybe very effective ones, but the game wouldn't be screwed if an alpha strike deletes one of my best units.

Only a few armies can actually delete a superheavy by turn 1 though. And even if it goes down you'll probably have other smaller tanks or flyers anyway, plus the rest of the army, it doesn't seem an issue to me, unless you really like playing with only that specific units, and other ones that complete the lists are there only to make the list legal or because they provide a small but needed support for the big stuff.

I don't have a problem with units being alpha'd. I have a problem with the units I enjoy getting alpha'd (so that they never actually do anything). As I've consistently said throughout this thread: I like my Baneblades. If I ran 1 Baneblade and a bunch of other awesome stuff but the Baneblade died before doing much every game, it wouldn't be any fun for me, because I know deep down that I'd be better served losing the Baneblade for more little stuff anyways (because little stuff is harder to alpha).

I would like to avoid retiring my superheavies altogether, while also avoiding feeling bad for enjoying them and wanting to play them.. 1 fairly routinely gets crippled if not outright destroyed in a single turn of every enemy anti-tank weapon shooting it. 2 may be a sweet spot; I've not tried it. 3 is what I've been doing and it's been working well - my only concern is that with the new 'dex it will become unfun.

In the meta where a lot of people use Stormravens, and seeing Repulsors, Magnus, Mortarion isn't uncommon, the Shadowsword is really a beat stick.

It's a meta choice really which superheavy you take, but currently I'd say Shadowsword will always have a target it can nearly earn its points back from in just one turn. Especially if other Imperial players start using more Baneblade chassis tanks, then the Shadowsword is countering the mirror matchups too.

As far as your superheavy getting alphaed is concerned, as long as it's not in rapid fire range to plasmas (bubble wrap), and you give it +1 save with stratagem, they can't get rid of your superheavy in any points efficient manner, so let them shoot it. That's 28 T8 2+ save wounds, so let them go for it. If your superheavy costs 500 points and dies, its a bigger deal than if it only costs 395 points. The Shadowsword is insanely points efficient now in every way imaginable. With an order/stratagem or two it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility that it blows Mortarion off the field in one volley. Vengeance for Cadia. Stratagems aren't really a problem to use nonstop considering we'll have about 20 CPs total if we use the 5+ refund from our own CP and 5+ for a bonus CP every time enemy uses a stratagem.

Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).

We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.

You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.

You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.

My 2c

Therion wrote:In the meta where a lot of people use Stormravens, and seeing Repulsors, Magnus, Mortarion isn't uncommon, the Shadowsword is really a beat stick.

It's a meta choice really which superheavy you take, but currently I'd say Shadowsword will always have a target it can nearly earn its points back from in just one turn. Especially if other Imperial players start using more Baneblade chassis tanks, then the Shadowsword is countering the mirror matchups too.

As far as your superheavy getting alphaed is concerned, as long as it's not in rapid fire range to plasmas (bubble wrap), and you give it +1 save with stratagem, they can't get rid of your superheavy in any points efficient manner, so let them shoot it. That's 28 T8 2+ save wounds, so let them go for it. If your superheavy costs 500 points and dies, its a bigger deal than if it only costs 395 points. The Shadowsword is insanely points efficient now in every way imaginable. With an order/stratagem or two it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility that it blows Mortarion off the field in one volley. Vengeance for Cadia. Stratagems aren't really a problem to use nonstop considering we'll have about 20 CPs total if we use the 5+ refund from our own CP and 5+ for a bonus CP every time enemy uses a stratagem.

Actually, it's not a meta choice for me which superheavy to take. It's a fluff choice. Shadowswords (in the fluff, not in the crunch) have to disconnect their engines and charge the capacitor to fire. They can travel with the capacitor charged, but after every shot they have to go find somewhere safe to sit for a good 30 seconds with the engine disconnected from the drivetrain while the capacitor recharges. My regiment decided this was a weakness in urban combat, and decided not to field any Shadowswords. If the existing tanks prove unable to meet threats, they'll reconsider, but as it stands I think the Shadowsword's not really a fluffy choice for a siege regiment (save, perhaps, sitting outside the city and nailing stuff with the Volcano Cannon, then recharging well within the Imperial siegeworks).

And I'm pretty sure the problem isn't the points getting alpha'd - even if they only cost 200 points, I'd still be sad if one got alpha'd because I like to play the game with the superheavies, not put the superheavy on the table, take the superheavy off the table, and then play the game.

I am not sure the +1 Save stratagem works on tanks/superheavies; I've never seen a picture/real leak of it. I do have psychic power support to give it +1 save, but that's only if I manage to snag the top of the turn.

Also, they're only 26 wounds. I've seen Knights get alpha'd with a 5++ and 24 wounds, so the extra two wounds (at least it's alive I guess?) is slightly more durable but still won't stop it from getting wounded to the point that it might as well not exist at all. +1 save makes the tank a 5+ against lascannons - exactly the same as what a Knight gets. So I don't agree with you at all that the enemy can't alpha it.

I also don't plan on having a Warlord trait (my tank company commanders are usually the warlords, as they'd actually be in charge in the fluff, but without the Character keyword they get no trait) and I also don't plan on taking any relics (I doubt Baneblades will be able to take relics, and it's probably unfluffy for a random company XO to have something like Kurov's Aquila).

Valentine009 wrote:Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).

We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.

You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.

You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.

My 2c

That seems reasonable for our club, I think we can do that - though I still won't pick heavy flamers, partly because ripping all the tanks apart to put flamer sponsons in them would require me to buy a bunch of new bits and is a huge amount of work, and partly because I like the 'classic' look of the vehicles, to match my Forge World superheavies which cannot be customized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a question, Valentine 009...

Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?

Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.

Would that help?

Actually, having a shadowsword and it getting taken off the board in 1 turn can be quite valuable, because it takes a concerted effort from hostile AT units to actually do that, hence sparing the harder-hitting part of your army.

This was particularly true in previous editions, Sometimes I'd leave my Shadowsword out on its own with a token escort on the other side of the board from my Manticores and Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tanks [the latter of which were far more vital to me than the Shadowsword and far more vulnerable], while I heavily defended my tanks and guns with a big squad with Coteaz in it. The Shadowsword rarely lived to the end of the game, but it almost always drew off antitank deep strikers and ate fire early game saving my anti-monster and anti-infantry tanks from Destroyer Missiles, Markerlights, Railcannons, and the likes, even if it did nothing with its main gun.

And really, saving me my Command Vanquishers was the most valuable contribution it could have made, since my Command Tanks could remove Riptides half the time while the Shadowsword could only do so one-sixth of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Valentine009 wrote:Cap the superheavies at 2, so it is less overwhelming but you still don't have to worry about getting alpha'ed off (though it is my personal belief that if an opponent wants to spend the firepower he should be allowed to alpha a SHT threat).

We can houserule you still get your doctrines so it is more fun for you, however we would also houserule the unlimited overwatch from Steel Behemoth so that it only applies to sponsons (making it still good but less OP, and more fluffy). Also makes choosing sponsors more strategic bc suddenly heavy flamers become a lot more attractive.

You will have roughly half your points left, which should make it easy to take a Batallion with guard, giving you little to no drop off in CPs.

You still get your SHTs, but it's less suffocating.

My 2c

That seems reasonable for our club, I think we can do that - though I still won't pick heavy flamers, partly because ripping all the tanks apart to put flamer sponsons in them would require me to buy a bunch of new bits and is a huge amount of work, and partly because I like the 'classic' look of the vehicles, to match my Forge World superheavies which cannot be customized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a question, Valentine 009...

Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?

Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.

Would that help?

I think Macharius should be Heavy Support. I'd actually buy and field one if it was appropriately priced and in an HS slot, but as is there's no way they can compete with a Shadowsword.

Poor Macharius, I really do like their appearance.

Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?

I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.

ohmagoo wrote:
Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?

I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.

This is Dauntless, the 3rd Tank of 1st Company, operating in the Regiment's typical fighting environment!

I'll let you decide for yourself about how it looks. I have more, too, but this is one of my favorites, as I think it shows off the battle-damage, crew customizations, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the army I brought to NOVA, the 5th company! With some support from the personal guard of Regimental Commander Katerina Malinenko as well as the Salamander Abbot's Trace and the Trojan Buccaneer.

The company itself is Tank 0 Mechanicus Deus, Tank 1 Virgin, and Tank 2 Ardnacrush.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is 2/01 Iron Duke



Okay now I'll stop...

Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?

Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.

Would that help?

The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.

Honestly even 2 is probably still going to be a bit like bashing your head against the wall, but I think it is a workable compromise.

Valentine009 wrote:

Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?

Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.

Would that help?

The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.

Because I like 3 and everything's already organized and painted to be fielded in 3's. It's not a huge deal.

What do you mean about target selection and non-interactive matches exactly? People do keep telling me this, but when I ask them what they mean, they don't really tell me anything useful other than "it's just not okay?".

Or, if they do, it's not been anything I've absorbed, which I admit could be my problem.

In a nutshell the target selection issue is that it heavily ties your hands as an opponent. Instead of having say 20 different avenues of attack or options you have 3 targets. If you have models that are equipped with anything but anti-armor (or melee anti-armor), then they effectively have to stand there or hide. It is super uninteractive.

If you look at two lists, each with 10 units, and all the permutations of strategic options you end up with something like 100 different "moves." Against 3 models that make up 90% of the firepower you have only 30 permutations, 20 of which you know will be flat out ineffective against something T8 3+.. This is highly simplified, but is the gist.

Valentine009 wrote:
In a nutshell the target selection issue is that it heavily ties your hands as an opponent. Instead of having say 20 different avenues of attack or options you have 3 targets. If you have models that are equipped with anything but anti-armor (or melee anti-armor), then they effectively have to stand there or hide. It is super uninteractive.

If you look at two lists, each with 10 units, and all the permutations of strategic options you end up with something like 100 different "moves." Against 3 models that make up 90% of the firepower you have only 30 permutations, 20 of which you know will be flat out ineffective against something T8 3+.. This is highly simplified, but is the gist.

I can see that now, if you look at the game as "how effective my army is" versus "how effective your army is."

I usually try to play the mission, rather than the army, though. Our game was bad partly because we rolled No Mercy, which is just kill points. In objective missions (such as the NOVA missions or the Open War / Maelstrom missions) units have a lot more to do than shoot badguys, or hide from bad guys.

But I understand the problem now.

I think I could probably fix it by bringing more infantry squads, and trying to get a Battalion detachment of infantry in the list - 500 points or so nets me a good 6 squads and 2 HQs plus a ton of upgrades; I think IG can make a Brigade for like, 550 points, though that's without upgrades. So there's plenty of wiggle room.

Would that help to make it more interactive? Rather than focusing on supporting the big tanks, instead bring other units that perform other tasks? I am happy to make a second regiment to fight alongside my first (in fact, I plan on it... but the last tracking information on my order is from the 23rd of September...).

I think bringing Leman Russes would exacerbate the problem rather than help - that's just 'more of the same' as far as heavy armour.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

ohmagoo wrote:
Thread was TLDR but in the first couple pages I didn't see anyone ask: Are they painted well? Have you put sweat into them? Do they look fearsome and amazing on the tabletop?

I may be in the minority but I care a lot less about whatever it is that is kicking my teeth in if it looks good out there. The only time I get salty with a tough list is if it looks like gak or little effort has gone into it.

Spoiler:

This is Dauntless, the 3rd Tank of 1st Company, operating in the Regiment's typical fighting environment!

I'll let you decide for yourself about how it looks. I have more, too, but this is one of my favorites, as I think it shows off the battle-damage, crew customizations, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the army I brought to NOVA, the 5th company! With some support from the personal guard of Regimental Commander Katerina Malinenko as well as the Salamander Abbot's Trace and the Trojan Buccaneer.

The company itself is Tank 0 Mechanicus Deus, Tank 1 Virgin, and Tank 2 Ardnacrush.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here is 2/01 Iron Duke



Okay now I'll stop...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Valentine009 wrote:

Would it work if I brought multiple tanks of different variants? Would, say, a Valdor, a Baneblade, and a Praetor be more fun to fight against than 3 Stormswords / 3 Baneblades?

Even from within my companies I can mix and match variants into a scratch company, and if I reach outside to my other models I can bring a Macharius and a Praetor or a few Malcadors (technically no longer Lords of War sadly, despite me having bought a bunch to be my 'small' superheavies) or the like.

Would that help?

The problem is bringing 3, not the load-out. Mixing up weapons does not fix the issues with target selection and non-interactive matches. They need to be <50% of the points on the field. This has been articulated far better by others than myself. Not sure why you are so deadset on bringing 3 when almost all the feedback is cautioning against it and you wanted feedback.

Because I like 3 and everything's already organized and painted to be fielded in 3's. It's not a huge deal.

What do you mean about target selection and non-interactive matches exactly? People do keep telling me this, but when I ask them what they mean, they don't really tell me anything useful other than "it's just not okay?".

Or, if they do, it's not been anything I've absorbed, which I admit could be my problem.

There's nothing engaging to do.

It doesn't feel like our army composition or play matters at all. It's basically "shoot that one with everything until it dies, then repeat," and if we have a critical mass of antitank capacity then we win, otherwise we don't.

Does that make sense? There's nothing wrong with a shootout and I like playing with and against gunlines, but an all super-heavy list is the worst kind. If I'm facing off against a Conscripts-Scions-and-Manticores gunline, I can think and plan about how I'm going to process the Conscripts, incapacitate the Manticores until I can finish them, and defend myself against the incoming drop troops. What I brought and how I use it matters.


Super heavy tanks ignore everything except death, and with the exception of the Stormlord and Shadowsword, are effective against all targets. Even those two are highly versatile.


In a list that's mostly other things, Super Heavy Tanks can present new tactical options and challenges. It can draw fire, anchor a line end, protect lesser units, etc. and there are strategies for defeating the army. Not so much when there's three of them.




As a side note, Valhallan Shadowswords and Stormlords will be totally broken. The thing will practically never degrade.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 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...

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

My sense is that OP is using "superheavy" as shorthand for "superheavy tanks", as he was composed, but I suppose he could have been referring to superheavy vehicles in general. If so, then that would indeed include Knights, Titans and/or mixes thereof.

I'd note that AV14/14/14 Land Raiders had a similar effect against units that lacked S8+ of any sort, and that wasn't considered a problem. (Or was it?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is the army I brought to NOVA, the 5th company!

That's a good looking army, and a good-looking "pattern". I'm stealing the picture as inspiration for the one I've been working on!

Unit,

To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.

A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.

As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.

 Elbows wrote:
Unit,

To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.

A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.

As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.

I think I said that only in the context of the Index, where you had to be immobile to have good firepower. Now that the big tanks have good firepower on the move, you can absolutely move them. I even picked Tallarn for my regiment (the one that makes them faster and nothing else.) in the most recent test game I played.

And I absolutely do care about story - have you read some of my posts? This is exactly the stigma I'm talking about; it's as if I don't care about fluff for the units simply because of the units I run. I do, I care dearly about telling a story. I paint kill-rings on the barrels of tanks when they kill another LoW. In fact, you can even tell that with the command tank of my NOVA army: the later kill-rings have fewer coats of varnish and are brighter than the earlier kill rings (because I use matte varnish).

But I suppose I see everyone's point.

Is the only way to remedy this not play a 3-tank army? That's the impression I'm getting, and it's making me very sad indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know this is a double post, but I kind of feel bad that my army's not actually fun on the table top.

I've never really had my eyes open to this before.

Not sure what to do, because building a new army doesn't really interest me too much (otherwise this would obviously not be a problem).

I'll just have to settle for not getting games, I suppose.

tneva82 wrote:

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

Hopefully that plan is bit more creative than "get barren wasteland" as table In our tables anything beyond 24" is situational boost. Helpful at times but you can't be quaranteed you have VISIBILITY to everything you want with specific unit. So if you have one nasty big gun and opponent has unit he really wants to protect from that simply gun having 72" range isn't much of a use.

Well albeit warlord titan might put dent in that. We don't have any terrain quite THAT tall But good enough to cover from baneblade chassis yes.

I play 40k with lots of terrain. There hasn't been a game where buildings (etc.) didn't block multiple and/or major sections of the battlefield. And there's never been a way to deploy the Shadowsword in a place where there is LoS to every point on the battlefield.

Luckily, there's (usually) no need to. You see, 40k is played with scenarios that have objectives. I only need to control the most important section with the Shadowsword(+enough support). Meanwhile, I move the rest of my guys to secure other areas of the battlefield. To contest the 'Sword-territory, the opponent must bring their list's A-game there... which is usually costly and something that a Shadowsword is suited to destroy. This makes it easier for the part of the army that is elsewhere.

In my experience the machine doesn't really need to move, it's powerful enough and it's good for its points. So, the upgrades to these aspects (which apparently will be a thing) sound a bit too good, if you ask me. But hey, maybe they were implemented more with the other baneblade-chassis tanks in mind?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Unit,

To address what a lot of people don't find fun about something like a superheavy list; it's just boring. You said yourself if everything goes according to plan one of your tanks shouldn't even be moving.

A lot of folks (outside of the super-comp group) want some actual story to go along with the game, even if you're just creating it as you go. Unless you solely enjoy mathhammer and rolling lots of dice, there's nothing fun about a static game...at all. Imagine if you played a normal army and I just bought and deployed three bastions and just sat there and shot at you all game with heavy weapon infantry. There's nothing interesting or intriguing about that....at all. Even if you play some kind of game with objectives and you just roll up and sit on one and then see if you outlast the enemy shooting, etc...it doesn't create anything for the players involved.

As I said before - you can remedy this by creating custom scenarios, but even that is REALLY hard to justify with just three big tanks. I can think of a few, but even they would get old eventually. There's no joy in rolling the most dice as fast as possible hoping for the best results. So if you want to intrigue players into facing you - you'll have to work on some really cool scenario ideas.

I think I said that only in the context of the Index, where you had to be immobile to have good firepower. Now that the big tanks have good firepower on the move, you can absolutely move them. I even picked Tallarn for my regiment (the one that makes them faster and nothing else.) in the most recent test game I played.

And I absolutely do care about story - have you read some of my posts? This is exactly the stigma I'm talking about; it's as if I don't care about fluff for the units simply because of the units I run. I do, I care dearly about telling a story. I paint kill-rings on the barrels of tanks when they kill another LoW. In fact, you can even tell that with the command tank of my NOVA army: the later kill-rings have fewer coats of varnish and are brighter than the earlier kill rings (because I use matte varnish).

But I suppose I see everyone's point.

Is the only way to remedy this not play a 3-tank army? That's the impression I'm getting, and it's making me very sad indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know this is a double post, but I kind of feel bad that my army's not actually fun on the table top.

I've never really had my eyes open to this before.

Not sure what to do, because building a new army doesn't really interest me too much (otherwise this would obviously not be a problem).

I'll just have to settle for not getting games, I suppose.

Play Vahallan. It will absolutely make your list a living hell to dislodge.

I used to mark kill markers on my vehicles when they killed equivalent targets, but it eventually became rather silly looking if they started to have more than a few, and I was always at a loss for what to actually paint as a kill marker.


I think you'll get games. It's poor form to reject games because you don't like the enemy list.

It's funny how a lot of the feedback is applicable to any static gunline army, yet you say you'll move. Your stats degrade and accuracy drops, whereas trooper-fired weapons don't. Superheavies have counters to some of their advantages built in already. I wouldn't change what you're doing, personally. I don't see any Knight Household players changing their lists or how they play. Crack on! You've options now against those who might sniffle about facing Superheavies, and your self-awareness is commendable. Honestly, they should just try it. I'm surprised how flimsy they are if you focus fire on them. Try and damage all three and you're on a hiding to nothing. Focus fire until one is down/useless then move on.

And a Shadowsword *should* be able to delete anything short of a big Titan in a turn. It's its purpose. It has a starship weapon on it! They were silly in Epic, they *should* be ludicrous in 40K!

I reckon if you've put the work in and its not just a thrown together army to capatilise on the new brokeness, most people should respect that.

Every army (mostly) gets it's time in the sun and it's come around to you finally.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


But you're not playing against an army, you're playing against a company. Even in the real world, Companies vary widely in size and have throughout history. If you help explain to me why you don't have fun, I may be able to get more input on how to fix it.

I'll try to explain my view. I like a game in which models and units actually die and there's variety of units on the battlefield. I have fun if in my shooting phase I actually kill something rather than stripping a few wounds, and I should be able to kill something in assault as well. I like disposing my squads in order to avoid the enemy assault as well, if it would cripple my units. Even against shooting-only armies, there should be several units with different mechanics on the field otherwise the game is dull. Gunlines in general are boring but at least you can play against them in different ways since they're not (or at least they shouldn't be) a spam of the same unit. An ork green tide is boring as well, that's why I refuse to play orks like that, even if it's their most competitive built at the moment. But at least tons of bodies go down every turn and this is something that many players (including me) like.

Against 3 big tanks and 2 smaller ones any TAC list will have several units that become completely useless and that's something that upset me, like you fear to lose your beloved units in turn 1. I don't care if I win or lose, the tactics against an army like that will be always the same and I've played enough games against imperial knights to have fun facing a bunch of superheavies. My ideal games are built using and facing lists with mixed styles, some shooty units, some close combat beasts and models with different range of movement, expendable dudes, psykers and flyers are optional. Nothing that simply refuse to die if I dedicate more than half my list to delete it. A knight down in turn 1 is not a usual scenario, only a few lists can achieve that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't have a problem with units being alpha'd. I have a problem with the units I enjoy getting alpha'd (so that they never actually do anything). As I've consistently said throughout this thread: I like my Baneblades. If I ran 1 Baneblade and a bunch of other awesome stuff but the Baneblade died before doing much every game, it wouldn't be any fun for me, because I know deep down that I'd be better served losing the Baneblade for more little stuff anyways (because little stuff is harder to alpha).

I would like to avoid retiring my superheavies altogether, while also avoiding feeling bad for enjoying them and wanting to play them.. 1 fairly routinely gets crippled if not outright destroyed in a single turn of every enemy anti-tank weapon shooting it. 2 may be a sweet spot; I've not tried it. 3 is what I've been doing and it's been working well - my only concern is that with the new 'dex it will become unfun.

As I said before, you basically like playing baneblades and nothing else, the reamaining part of the army/company is there only to make the list legal or somehow flexible. That makes games against your lists something very specific, that not everyone may enjoy. Especially if they have played against this kind of lists several times. I don't want to convince you to bench your favorite stuff, you love those tanks and you should continue bringing them into battle, just be aware that some people may not enjoy playing regularly against such lists.

 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?

This has pretty much already been answered but just to illustrate:

Let's assume I have a fairly "normal" SM army - some tanks, a flyer, some infantry of various types, some transports. Let's assume I play against 2 other opponents frequently: you with your SHVs and a Necron player with a variety of vehicles/infantry/bikes etc. None of us ever change our armies.

The big difference is that when I play against the Necron player, even though the armies don't change, the decisions I have to make do. I can vary my target priority depending on the mission type or depending on experience from previous games. Maybe I ignored his Scarabs last game and got punished for it so now I'll prioritise them, or maybe this mission favours mobility so I'll go after his Tomb Blades first. Meanwhile, he's doing the same sort of thing while also trying to protect his Tomb Blades because he recognises their importance in this mission. Additionally, terrain plays a bigger part in these games because it's actually possible to hide entire units of troops more easily than you can hide a SHV.

Against your army the game basically devolves into "which tank do I shoot first?" There's not really more to it than that. The mission doesn't matter because if I can't kill your tanks they'll pummel me to death eventually. Terrain is less relevant because it only really matters for one of the players. Your army gives me no real meaningful choices to make. It's comprised almost entirely of 3 bricks that I have to kill. Sure, they may move a bit, and you may have some support units, but those units are pretty irrelevant. There's also a perception issue you have to deal with. SHVs get a bunch of special rules and pack a lot of punch into one unit. Psychologically that can cause problems for some people because they start to see that unit as unbalanced. Note, it's not about whether it actually is unbalanced, it's just the perception you have to deal with. That's usually fine with one SHV but when you stack up 3 of them it can magnify the problem a lot.

The remedy has nothing to do with your support units. When >50% of your army is represented by 3 models the rest of your army really doesn't matter. For me, the effectiveness of your army isn't the core issue, it's just the fact that it'd be boring to play against more than once or twice.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

And a Shadowsword *should* be able to delete anything short of a big Titan in a turn. It's its purpose. It has a starship weapon on it! They were silly in Epic, they *should* be ludicrous in 40K!

Hear, hear. Humanity f*** yeah!

I guess the best upgrade to Shadowsword is the point drop. Point drop is always the king.
That is followed by the ability to move and not suffer -1 to hit. I've been sometimes tempted to move the thing around a corner but then changed my mind and sent something else there while Shadowsword fires at a secondary target. Good thing too, because around the corner was probably a trap for the 'Sword. Moving is not essential for this machine but it can be handy.
Strangely enough, more shots for the Volcano Cannon is the least significant upgrade. I mean, the thing can already kill pretty much any one thing with a single blast, barring extremely poor luck. Don't get me wrong, it's an utterly lethal upgrade but in reality, it just upgrades your overkill potential... though it makes the cannon more versatile: it now kill elite infantry units better.

If I had to pick two, I'd pick the top two of these. If only one, it'd be the point drop.

Enjoy the moment while it lasts Unit, With all the tanks you have your in a unique position to test out alot of different ways to run AM Titanics. With others adding in.. there can finally be a decent tactica on how to run them in a competitive environment