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.

 MarsNZ wrote:
If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.

That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.

It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?

That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".

Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army. This is exacerbated by how the only major weakness that Super Heavies have is powerful alpha strikes, but Guard have a very good built-in counter to Alpha Strikes, eliminating the only major weakness.

Unit is saying that Baneblade spam is not overpowered, because he refuses to fix his own weaknesses.

He's standing five feet from an open tent, complaining about the rain.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.

Right?

How long is this going to go on for anyways? All Knight lists were a thing. Fluffy lists are a thing. The army has weaknesses. It probably looks awesome. Play on, man. Play on.

If people are flat out refusing the game, thats on them. If people politely ask you to modify the list because they legitimately can't handle the superheavies, just be a little generous and flex for them if you can.

Again the logic here confounds me to no end. They want him to take the Overpowered option (which he is specifically avoiding) just so they can complain that his list is overpowered?

This is basically complaining about someone because you can't complain about them.

Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.

If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.

EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.

Trickstick wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.

That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.

It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.

Yes, and this is specifically noted to be the exception, not the norm. Yes, it exists, but it's MORE fluffy (aka more common) in the lore to have mono-theme regiments.

Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

Quickjager wrote:Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.

If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.

EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.

Not really. Your advice is to take infantry. Infantry, which A: Does not fit the fluff of Unit's army (seriously, try telling a Sisters player that they really should be taking Conscripts over their own SOB - it's the same thing), and B: which would make Unit's army MORE powerful by adding bubble wrap.

At the moment, you can't complain that bubblewrapped units are OP, then when someone doesn't bubblewrap, you say they're also OP? Which is it? Is it OP with, or without the bubblewrap?

Without scrapping the SHVs completely, you'll just keep calling it OP because it's got SHV and many people still have a stigma against them. By taking an army purely of a minimal amount of SHV, it has a massive weakness to Alpha Strikes, being outmaneuvered, and suffers from the "eggs in one basket syndrome".

Like I said three pages ago, they don't want his list to be balanced or fun, they want it to stop existing or at least to be made so bad that he has no motivation to put it on the table.

In that context, their arguments make perfect sense. Those arguments also hold no utility though, as the goals are fundamentally different. You have to agree on where you're going before a discussion of how to get there has any value.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Trickstick wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.

That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.

It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.

Yes, and this is specifically noted to be the exception, not the norm. Yes, it exists, but it's MORE fluffy (aka more common) in the lore to have mono-theme regiments.

Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

Quickjager wrote:Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.

If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.

EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.

Not really. Your advice is to take infantry. Infantry, which A: Does not fit the fluff of Unit's army (seriously, try telling a Sisters player that they really should be taking Conscripts over their own SOB - it's the same thing), and B: which would make Unit's army MORE powerful by adding bubble wrap.

At the moment, you can't complain that bubblewrapped units are OP, then when someone doesn't bubblewrap, you say they're also OP? Which is it? Is it OP with, or without the bubblewrap?

Without scrapping the SHVs completely, you'll just keep calling it OP because it's got SHV and many people still have a stigma against them. By taking an army purely of a minimal amount of SHV, it has a massive weakness to Alpha Strikes, being outmaneuvered, and suffers from the "eggs in one basket syndrome".

Both points basically sums up the issues very well. I can understand people with other armies that lack viable fluffy options being salty about it, but to turn someone with an army that can do this into a pariah is just mean spirited (that or they're salty about not getting an easy win on what was one of the three punching bags of 7th edition).

You sir get an exalt. As for the rest of yas, there's not much more I can say that hasn't been said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Like I said three pages ago, they don't want his list to be balanced or fun, they want it to stop existing or at least to be made so bad that he has no motivation to put it on the table.

In that context, their arguments make perfect sense. Those arguments also hold no utility though, as the goals are fundamentally different. You have to agree on where you're going before a discussion of how to get there has any value.

EDIT: You also get an exalt.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.

This. While IG regiments as a whole are usually a single purpose built type, they are almost always split up into combined task groups to support one another. It has been like this in the codex for years, and the newest one goes into this process quite a bit.

Normally you have an infantry regiment, and then armored fist squads, artillery, tanks, and various support troops will be requisitioned or assigned based on the conditions tht battle is takin place in. These support regiments can be the same (I.E. Mordian all the way) or a mix (Cadian infantry, valhallan tanks, steel legion artillery) but this is 100% how the IG has worked since the Horus Heresy. The book explains away "combined units" of tanks and infantry as task groups that have fought for a long time will adopt similar uniforms and camo schemes to cut down on confusion and friendly fire as well as promote comradery. Yes its basically giving you freedom to do whatever but its been that way in the lore for a long time.

Its like this because its the space marine chapter idea cranked to 11. If an infantry regiment turns traitor, they lack armor support. If an artillery regiment turns, they have no defensive infantry screens, etc.

Trickstick wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.

That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.

It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.

Yes, but such formations are either rare or temporary. I could play a melded regiment, but I don't, sorry. The battlegroup, on the other hand, I agree is fluffy and awesome and I am always always always willing to play team games where I throw my support behind another regiment - in that case, sending only 1 or 2 tanks is fluffy.

Unfortunately, such team games are rare.

As for why I don't just play 2 regiments in a battlegroup: such battlegroups are temporary. It's hard to have the epic, long history of a battlegroup that might only last one battle, or at best, one campaign.

Trickstick wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.

Yes, that's true, and I'm always always always willing to play team games where I throw my support behind another regiment - in that case, sending only 1 or 2 tanks is fluffy. In fact, I find team games engaging and fun.

Unfortunately, such team games are rare.

As for why I don't just play 2 regiments in a battlegroup: such battlegroups are temporary. It's hard to have the epic, long history of a battlegroup that might only last one battle, or at best, one campaign.

(I feel like I've said all of this before in at least two different threads, maybe I should just start quoting myself)

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.

I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.

This. While IG regiments as a whole are usually a single purpose built type, they are almost always split up into combined task groups to support one another. It has been like this in the codex for years, and the newest one goes into this process quite a bit.

Normally you have an infantry regiment, and then armored fist squads, artillery, tanks, and various support troops will be requisitioned or assigned based on the conditions tht battle is takin place in. These support regiments can be the same (I.E. Mordian all the way) or a mix (Cadian infantry, valhallan tanks, steel legion artillery) but this is 100% how the IG has worked since the Horus Heresy. The book explains away "combined units" of tanks and infantry as task groups that have fought for a long time will adopt similar uniforms and camo schemes to cut down on confusion and friendly fire as well as promote comradery. Yes its basically giving you freedom to do whatever but its been that way in the lore for a long time.

Its like this because its the space marine chapter idea cranked to 11. If an infantry regiment turns traitor, they lack armor support. If an artillery regiment turns, they have no defensive infantry screens, etc.

Okay, prepare for a monumental post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) It is! I am always always always up for team games with another guard regiment! But such formed battlegroups are temporary, and it's hard to write long-lasting fluff about something that exists for one campaign, and then all the infantry feth off somewhere else. I am tracking the history of the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment, not the history of some temporary mish-mash of regiments that lasts for what could be as little as one battle. More's the pity that people don't like team games, where 1 or 2 tanks from my regiment is perfectly fluffy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) It's unfluffy. If a Baneblade company is being fielded, it is 3-5 tanks strong, unless the entire regiment (22 vehicles in my case) has been wiped out down to 2 (or 1), which is not something I want to have in my fluff for obvious reasons. You can read the Baneblade series of novels for details, but the commanders will always form scratch companies of 3-5 tanks until they literally have less than 3-5 tanks left in the whole regiment. The only time 1 or 2 tanks will be fielded separately is if they're not in a company at all and have instead been split off and deployed to support another regiment (and I am always happy to play team games with other guard commanders to form such a battlegroup, only bringing 1 or two tanks!)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mentioned in my OP that I'd be happy to play a team game with another regiment in which I brought only one tank, or two if necessary. But people don't seem to like team games so much, and I understand why: they take a bit to organize.
...
EDIT: Sorry, not in the OP - I mention team games further down. Even so, the real fluff for the IG is that their regiments are split up across a whole battle zone, and that's especially true of superheavy tanks. Concentrated tank companies are only brought to the most vital of battles - just like Guilliman or Cawl would.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have...lists built around playing team games with allied IG regiments...

There. I think that's from two different threads in the last few days, including this one. You can even click on my name to zip to the relevant post to read the bits I redacted for brevity.

I was talking about "normal" regiments, aka non superheavies. Also, I thought superheavies usually only get fielded en masse in titanic battles, a typica 40k game is like a skirmish for them.

However, on page 15 of the new codex you can see a Leman Russ regiment that has a baneblade "company" consisting of a single baneblade, so it looks like theyve tweaked the lore a bit to allow a single baneblade in tank formations. Never heard of that until now.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I was talking about "normal" regiments, aka non superheavies. Also, I thought superheavies usually only get fielded en masse in titanic battles, a typica 40k game is like a skirmish for them.

However, on page 15 of the new codex you can see a Leman Russ regiment that has a baneblade "company" consisting of a single baneblade, so it looks like theyve tweaked the lore a bit to allow a single baneblade in tank formations. Never heard of that until now.

Yes, that is new! And particularly exciting. Forge World's 6th Edition Imperial Armour Volume 1 has a Krieg armoured regiment, and there's a Cadian shadowsword company attached - but it is three shadowswords IIRC in the TO&E.

But right... did you read my posts? I am super willing to split the superheavies up. More than willing, the most willing. I'll do it tonight if I can find a teammate.

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.


Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.

(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)


As a hypothetical, ignoring fluff for a moment: What if Unit was arguing that his conscript spam army with 500 Conscripts in one army was ok, and conscript spam in general was OK, because he didn't take Comissars.
Would you agree that his conscript spam list was fun, and that conscripts weren't broken, just because one player doesn't take the thing that buffs Conscripts beyond their basic level of overpoweredness?


(Also: Not really relevant, but we did the math wrong on that Plasma earlier, because the Lord wouldn't get to fire twice with Endless Cacophany, only the Termies - It's 22 Plasma shots, not 24.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.


Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.

(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)


As a hypothetical, ignoring fluff for a moment: What if Unit was arguing that his conscript spam army with 500 Conscripts in one army was ok, and conscript spam in general was OK, because he didn't take Comissars.
Would you agree that his conscript spam list was fun, and that conscripts weren't broken, just because one player doesn't take the thing that buffs Conscripts beyond their basic level of overpoweredness?


(Also: Not really relevant, but we did the math wrong on that Plasma earlier, because the Lord wouldn't get to fire twice with Endless Cacophany, only the Termies - It's 22 Plasma shots, not 24.)

To be honest, I would rather fight 3 Baneblades than an army with conscript spam. My CSMs usually bring 20 Lascannons, I am pretty sure I could take out 3 of them over the course of a normal game.

This is not to say the Baneblades are properly priced. That is to say conscript spam is still OP, and I don't know a good counter for it using CSMs.

It's just that I could see how to deal with Baneblades with the slightly spammy armor denial list I run now. Most people would not have the same results.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.

Did you miss the part where I said this happens in my club as well?

Waaaghpower wrote:

Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.

This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?

Waaaghpower wrote:

(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)

I think the math proved earlier that it's not "ridiculously well" - there's a ~50% chance that the baneblade goes down to 4" movement and hitting on a 6+, and a ~10% chance that it dies (which is actually in the medium range of the distribution, everything seems to be between 2% and 16%).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?

Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors.
If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against.
3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%.
3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?

Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors.
If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against.
3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%.
3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.

So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?

Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?

Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).

Oh come on.

First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?

Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).

Oh come on.

First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.

Context is important since Unit is just pointing out the original argument's goal post has been moved so many times and so far from it's original place that the opposition is basically spouting nonsense at this point.

The entire argument basically boils down to them realizing Unit is one of those few people who legitimately likes Guard superheavy tanks outside of their power, but still fears them and are trying to find any weird or obscure reason to discourage him from playing them.
It's almost hilarious at this point since not one, but TWO people that have faced Unit's army have shown up to defend him as well.

His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.

So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.

He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.

So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?

That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".

Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army

Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.

I play 80% team games. It's much more fun that 1v1.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.

I'd like to! Where do you play?

We're in the St Louis area. We mostly just play in basements, but we used to hit a few of the local stores here before we took the second half of 7th ed off. If it's a question of rules, Adepticon's team tournament rules are a pretty good starting point for team games with minimum weirdness.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?

Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).

Oh come on.

First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.

I'm actually alright with making Baneblades worse. I don't think I said otherwise anywhere. I played them in 3rd-7th where they weren't very good vehicles. I just think it's funny to say "I hate that you bring 75% of your list as superheavies" in the same breath as saying "superheavies should take up 90% of your list instead". Of course, if you're just trying to get me to not play the army at all, I can understand your point, but telling someone "you don't get to play your army" isn't really a nice thing to do, and I'm kind of appalled that people still think they should control other people's choices within the framework of the provided rules.

Quickjager wrote:His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.

So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.

He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.

So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.

I didn't anywhere say I actually minded losing. What I did say is that I want to actually play the game with superheavy tanks, so bringing 1 isn't an option, because it gets deleted and then I'm not actually playing the game with a superheavy tank. I had a blast at nova, it was awesome and fun. I have a blast when 2 of my tanks get deleted turn 1, because I get to use the third and see if my company commander (or whomever the mantle devolves to if they are knocked out!) can endure the enemy's attentions long enough to salvage what is left. I don't actually mind if the list "works" or not, perhaps obviously.

Vaktathi wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?

That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".

Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army

Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).

Good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.

I play 80% team games. It's much more fun that 1v1.

Where do you play?!? I completely agree, and back in the depths of time I started this army alongside my buddy's regiment, but of course, life moves beyond middle school and his regiment is now deployed elsewhere in the galaxy and mine finds itself alone and unsupported (sadly) most of the time.

daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.

That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.

I'd like to! Where do you play?

We're in the St Louis area. We mostly just play in basements, but we used to hit a few of the local stores here before we took the second half of 7th ed off. If it's a question of rules, Adepticon's team tournament rules are a pretty good starting point for team games with minimum weirdness.

Aw dammit.

 Quickjager wrote:
His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.

So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.

He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.

So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.

He never actually said either of those things. Neither verbatim nor paraphrased. You may want to go back to page 9 and see how the argument actually got started instead of just assuming the worst of people.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).

No, SM super heavies are definitely not.

Comparing: SM tanks are higher Toughness and have a better save, which scales equivalently with their cost. They're also slightly more accurate, but lack regiment bonuses which easily compensate for that difference, making all things equal.
So let's compare damage.
A Shadowsword, compared to a Cerberus, gets twice as many shots, higher Strength (which helps against T8,) re-rolls against Titanic enemies, better AP, and better damage.
A Baneblade, compared to a Fellblade, lacks the crappy offhand AT fire, but gets 50% more shots, higher strength, and 50% more damage.

IG tanks win hands down. They slightly lose in the durability department, but considering that they're cheaper and have approximately twice the firepower, it's No Contest.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.

Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.

Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."

I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.

Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.

You mean THIS? It shows a slight lack of critical thinking. I even addressed the fact by doing what I suggested he would have less issues at his new scene. Which in the other thread he implied he did. I never suggested they were OP, I only discussed his two points which are.

-I only take 3 because one or two die really fast.
-People are seeing me as a bandwagoning powergamer.