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:

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).

Well, for one thing....yes, that's kind of the only possible definition of spam. An army that's over say 2/3rds of whatever thing (or really, one type of thing) is a spam list, though I generally use the term "skew" because it's less pejorative.

If a large part of your strategy is centered around causing a significant quantity of your opponent's weapons be lacking in any kind of good targets, you're using the idea of Skew, which is common across almost all wargames. If you take 300 orks, any Lascannons, Grav Guns, Plasma Guns, etc your opponent has will largely be wasted. If you present only T7 Sv3+ vehicles, all your opponent's lasguns and bolters are wasted. Skew exists. You do gain a strategic advantage from it. Don't play dumb here, you do go to tournaments.

The weird thing is that because of the magic of Internet Hyperbole, everyone on Dakka kind of simultaneously thinks of the game at a highly optimized, top-tournament-tables way, where every opponent's list is perfect and every action they take is perfect, but also at a fairly un-optimized, basic way, where a unit that can't use its guns and punches to kill stuff efficiently is immediately useless because what else could you *possibly* use them for? I'm not saying I have concrete proof of this, because obviously everyone gets very indignant about any kind of suggestion that random internet folks are not all top tier tournament players, but *in my experience* this is because people tend to like to exaggerate the effectiveness of what their opponent has and how optimized their lists are from what actually occurred in real life. In general, people don't like losses to be their fault, and whatever the most convenient excuse for a loss is, they're gonna take it, because it feels better than "I lost because of X Y and Z mistakes I made". A superheavy is a big, giant, helpful (and often with a dose of 'I couldn't afford that' jealousy) excuse filled with rules people probably aren't used to dealing with.

The funny part of it all is, I've probably won more games with units that I had no reasonable way of killing things with than any other unit. I've used Scout Sentinels to secure an objective and completely remove a Baneblade's movement phase, I've used out of ammo Manticores to block off charge lanes and prevent the Relic from being taken, and I've used empty transports to stop entire conscript blobs from being able to Pile In around it and get to the five wyches holding them in combat. Movement and Sight win games almost as commonly as killing things, and on that playing field, every model is pretty much equal.

 Quickjager wrote:

 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.

Perhaps it's my crippling lack of critical thinking, but what's the point of your post?

Are you saying that there isn't a tension between "baneblades take up too much of your points" and "Baneblades should be more expensive so they take up more of your points?"

Because I'm arguing that there is a tension there, and I'm not able to glean from your post what it is you're on about now.




Yes, I recognize my list is skew, but it's that way by accident rather than design, really. I fixate on tanks and superheavy tanks. I'm not running a skew list because "ah, I'm not skewing hard enough, better bring more tanks!" I'm running a skew list because guard regiments are the definition of skew (all of one thing and none of anything else), and I like big tanks, so a regiment of big tanks is going to be one thing...

Also I do like your post, I think you understand the weirdness on this forum. I was hoping it wouldn't be so weird, as I did make the thread honestly asking for advice (and I think I received some good bits!) and instead got a bunch of people telling me just to run a different army.

Look I'm giving up trying to explain, people think I'm trying to beat you down and its ridiculous.

 Quickjager wrote:
You see, right there. There is the bad faith argument, trying to make an issue out of nothing.

I already explained how people see different things as fun. You can find it on your time. Because offering suggestions on how to help is pointless I suppose seeing how the other thread went 9 pages long.

Bad faith argument? Are we having an argument? All I see is you questioning me, then me explaining my motives, then you accusing me of having bad faith in my 'argument'.

And yes, I understand people see different things as fun. That's... kind of the point, really. I'm trying to figure out how to close the gap between myself and those people without forcing either of us to meaningfully change in ways we do not wish to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Look I'm giving up trying to explain, people think I'm trying to beat you down and its ridiculous.

Could you explain what you are trying to do? Perhaps that's the issue.

Quickjager wrote:

 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.

You might be remembering portions of the following quote, where he does point out 2 baneblades have a weakness:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.

Do you read my posts? There are dozens of reasons to bring 3, as well as some reasons not to, in the fluff. We could take it to PMs but I am happy to talk the fluff over with you surrounding Imperial superheavies.

Also, it's worth noting that bringing 2 baneblades is essentially bringing 0; they're not very durable for their points (someone did the math on this, I think it's like 24 pts per T8 3+ wound, which is less tough than LRBTs or Land Raiders point for point) and so people with "reasonable" lists can actually quite easily alpha-strike them if they've brought enough anti-tank to also deal with LRBTs and Land Raiders. (my Baneblades come out to almost exactly 21 pts per T8 3+ wound, and they're not very 'optimized'. Leman Russes are ~13 points per T8 3+ wound. Land Raiders are ~20 points per T8 2+ wound. And this is after the point discount on the superheavies).

However he's saying that because 2 is weaker, that's why he's bringing 3, not that his army has an inherent problem with alpha strikers. This is where things went off the rails because Waaaaghpower said that he could bring two or fewer baneblades if he brought conscripts (the idea being that Baneblades would be far less susceptible to alpha strikers if they're bubblewrapped). I guess this came about because Unit, like in the quote in your message, pointed out he doesn't have the points to spare to bring more stuff when the three baneblades gobble it up. However we then pointed out the inherent fallacy in that one because Waaaghpower is essentially encouraging Unit to defy his own fluff AND bring an OP unit to fix a problem that is already solved by simply having 3 baneblades. This then devolved into an argument about whether or not Baneblades were OP or how to optimally field them. Which is why some of the arguments here have been going in circles; they're all collectively trying to solve a "problem" with Unit's army that was never really there.

The ACTUAL problem with Unit's army isn't it's ability to win or lose, but the fact that it's boring to play against (which, I admit, is an actual problem) since regardless of his composition all of the battles basically boil down to "kill three damage sponges while trying to survive". Suggesting him using OP unit choices or optimizing his list for winning won't exactly help the problem since the basic gameplay elements will still remain the same. I think that other thread basically concluded with people agreeing that the very nature of superheavies (small number of REALLY big targets) just inherently don't give much room for variety in play. You can only squeeze so much out of a lemon. I think we ended up working out that a Leman Russ company could potentially provide the target saturation and bubblewrap to allow Unit to bring less than 3 baneblades, but fluff wise that doesn't sit well with him.

EDIT: formatting issue.

At the risk of going too far off topic:

With the new prices, 3 superheavies can be only 1200 points of a 2000 point list. I've got a bunch of new models that can fit in the other 800 points, if that helps anything.

They can't be Baneblades, but I've not run an authentic Baneblade company since they got way too expensive at the end of 6th, so no real major change.

Because you say you want to run a fluffy list for fun. But then you go to NOVA where it doesn't make the cut. But you can with some slight changes.

Then you take this fluffy list to the local scene and people call you a powergamer. Which they do because taking nothing but big toys has been the mark of one for a longtime.

So all you have to do is change a little bit of your list for each setting and the respective problems will be solved. Part of that is asking why are you playing. To win? NOVA. For fun? Local scene.

It's at the local scene level where if you start worrying about your rep., you ask yourself the question, "Are my opponents having fun?". Its big part of the hobby no one asks the other person, because in general it is pretty easy to pick up and why that is the case. Like in 6th there was an out-of-town Eldar player, I knew nothing bout him; except you know he was Eldar THE top codex. So I brought the best list I could; it was a slaughter. Except unexpectedly he was the lamb. Because he brought an insanely low-power list I didn't even think was possible. I thought he was going to try to stomp as an out of towner, no rep. to worry about afterall. So I asked for a rematch at the end of the second turn because it wasn't fun and toned down my list to something else. AND we had fun the 2nd time around.

So what the point I'm making is, yea YOU are having fun with your list. But is your opponent? You're expecting way too much from your list, from being able to compete to being able to have a mutually fun pickup game. Maybe the people who think you are a powergamer don't like the strong units in their 'dex, so by playing you just is resigning themselves to a loss.

 Quickjager wrote:
Because you say you want to run a fluffy list for fun. But then you go to NOVA where it doesn't make the cut. But you can with some slight changes.

Then you take this fluffy list to the local scene and people call you a powergamer. Which they do because taking nothing but big toys has been the mark of one for a longtime.

So all you have to do is change a little bit of your list for each setting and the respective problems will be solved. Part of that is asking why are you playing. To win? NOVA. For fun? Local scene.

It's at the local scene level where if you start worrying about your rep., you ask yourself the question, "Are my opponents having fun?". Its big part of the hobby no one asks the other person, because in general it is pretty easy to pick up and why that is the case. Like in 6th there was an out-of-town Eldar player, I knew nothing bout him; except you know he was Eldar THE top codex. So I brought the best list I could; it was a slaughter. Except unexpectedly he was the lamb. Because he brought an insanely low-power list I didn't even think was possible. I thought he was going to try to stomp as an out of towner, no rep. to worry about afterall. So I asked for a rematch at the end of the second turn because it wasn't fun and toned down my list to something else. AND we had fun the 2nd time around.

So what the point I'm making is, yea YOU are having fun with your list. But is your opponent? You're expecting way too much from your list, from being able to compete to being able to have a mutually fun pickup game. Maybe the people who think you are a powergamer don't like the strong units in their 'dex, so by playing you just is resigning themselves to a loss.

So you've arrowed in on the problem, save for one interpretation: I didn't go to NOVA expecting to win. In fact, I went to NOVA mostly to just have a lot of games in the weekend - the GT offered more games in those three days than any other event. I was surprised I went 4-4, rather than, say, 2-6 which is what I bet my friend I would end up with.

So I am asking how do I change my list to fit the more casual side? I don't mind going even 0-8 at NOVA, because at least the army got to see the table and I got to throw some dice. I'd like to know how to make it more casual while still maintaining the core of the army, which is 3 superheavy tanks.

Jesus it doesn't matter what other unit options you have.

Core problem: People don't have fun playing you.

Your solution: ???

Ultimately we can't play the games for you. Yeah it sucks that GW turned your army into an OP cheeseball. But it happened. Now you have to deal with the fallout... or not. Play 3 baneblades and crush people's faces off. Remind them at the end it's okay, because you wrote a backstory for your army. That will definitely increase their enjoyment.

 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.

Large tank formations, like Regiments and Divisions, do not consist entirely of tanks.

For example, according to page 138 in this document [https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf], a 1991 Soviet Tank Regiment would contain:
1 HQ
3 Tank Battalions
1 Motorized Rifle Battalion
1 Self Propelled Artillery Battalion
1 AAA Battery
1 Recon Company
1 Engineering Company
1 Medical Company
1 Maintenance Company
1 Supply Company
1 NBC Protection Company

No game is large enough for us to exceed the maximum amount of infantry and artillery available to deploy.

And that's before considering the fact that units can be attached to other formations to provide support for a campaign or battle, such as attaching a tank destroyer battalion to an infantry division to provide enhanced antitank support if enemy armor is expected in force.


So I definitely don't think it's un-fluffy to have armor, artillery, and infantry; in fact, because any given element is rarely deployed without the support of other elements, I'd say it's un-fluffy if there isn't any infantry and artillery backing up the tanks.

Fluff is totally subjective. You can create a backstory for literally anything.

This is a comic book universe. You can write fluff to support any tournament list.

And then Captain Stevens and his faithful cat Mittens said unto the infantry, "thou shalt stay behind, for i have tanks," with Mittens meowing derisively at the conscripts. Mittens slammed his paw into the "drop baneblades" button, and they fell to the battlefield. With nothing to do, the conscripts tried to get fenrisian wolves to play poker. Several were mauled to death, but thankfully a commissar was on hand to shoot one of them in the head, so they wouldn't flee from their task.

Marmatag wrote:Jesus it doesn't matter what other unit options you have.

Core problem: People don't have fun playing you.

Your solution: ???

Ultimately we can't play the games for you. Yeah it sucks that GW turned your army into an OP cheeseball. But it happened. Now you have to deal with the fallout... or not. Play 3 baneblades and crush people's faces off. Remind them at the end it's okay, because you wrote a backstory for your army. That will definitely increase their enjoyment.

So... thanks for the input? Your solution would be that I not play the army, I take it?

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 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.

Just an FYI, large tank formations, like Regiments and Divisions, do not consist entirely of tanks.

For example, according to page 138 in this document [https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf], a 1991 Soviet Tank Regiment would contain:
1 HQ
3 Tank Battalions
1 Motorized Rifle Battalion
1 Self Propelled Artillery Battalion
1 AAA Battery
1 Recon Company
1 Engineering Company
1 Medical Company
1 Maintenance Company
1 Supply Company
1 NBC Protection Company

No game is large enough for us to exceed the maximum amount of infantry and artillery available to deploy.

And that's before considering the fact that units can be attached to other formations to provide support for a campaign or battle, such as attaching a tank destroyer battalion to an infantry division to provide enhanced antitank support if enemy armor is expected in force.


So I definitely don't think it's un-fluffy to have armor, artillery, and infantry; in fact, because any given element is rarely deployed without the support of other elements, I'd say it's un-fluffy if there isn't any infantry and artillery backing up the tanks.

It is, sadly, for the IG in 40k. Regiments are more commonly monotype than not, because of problems stemming from the Horus Heresy. Here's a screenshot of the relevant bit from the current AM Codex.

Marmatag wrote:Fluff is totally subjective. You can create a backstory for literally anything.

This is a comic book universe. You can write fluff to support any tournament list.

This is essentially true, though I do try to have more justification for my fluff than most.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 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.

Hrm, that resiliency is *huge*. A Space Marine SH is going to require an average of 34 BS3+ lascannon shots to kill. A Baneblade will require only 20 (EDIT: as an interesting note, in 7E, when tanks were seen as too fragile and Baneblades were seen as garbage, it took an average of 40 Lascannons hitting on a 3+, in 5E that would have required 82). That is a huge gap in resiliency. Regiment bonuses are nice...but only apply to superheavies in certain situations (IIRC they dont apply to a single superheavy taken as an auxiliary detachment), and something like rerolling 1's to hit while stationary isnt close to matching natural BS3+ either, just as treating AP-1 weapons as AP0 isnt matching a natural 2+ really either.

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.

The Shadowsword I will grant has an overpowered weapon for its cost. That said, a Cerberus is also (ostensibly) a smaller vehicle not meant to mount weapons as fearsome, and has greater resiliency.

A Baneblade, compared to a Fellblade, lacks the crappy offhand AT fire, but gets 50% more shots, higher strength, and 50% more damage.

At lower accuracy with dramatically less resiliency, and the sponson AT weapons on the Fellblade are dramatically more capable than anything the Baneblade brings. Quad lascannons or Rapier Laser Destroyers are fearsome weapons.

IG tanks win hands down. They slightly lose in the durability department

*Dramatically*, not slightly. That 2+ save really does make a lot of difference. Both Baneblades and Russ tanks lost a *lot* of resiliency relative to counterparts and each other with this edition. A Baneblade used to be equivalent to 3 Russ tanks and about equivalent to a Fellblade. Russ tanks used to be an entirely different class of resiliency next to things like Rhinos (the +1T and extra 2 wounds done come anywhere close to matching the old AV14 vs AV11 gap, particularly against weapons like Lascannons) and broadly equivalent to a Land Raider for most purposes (and in fact, in 2E, were on par or even better armored than Land Raiders). Such is no longer the case.

but considering that they're cheaper and have approximately twice the firepower, it's No Contest.

They're cheaper. Theyre also less accurate and resilient. Firepower depends on variant and options, a Fellblade with quad Lascannon sponsons is, point for point, hardly at a loss to a Baneblade even with 4 LC/HB sponsons, and in fact with just the two sets of quad BS3+ lascannons is exceeding the firepower output on the baneblade relative to what that quad sponson baneblade is throwing back with all weapons at the Fellblade, and about doubling the total wound output on a Baneblade relative to what its taking back once factoring in all weapons (if im remembering the fellblade cannon right at 2d6 S8 -3ASM Damage3 BS3+)

Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.

Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.

bbekins wrote:
Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.

Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.

I would love to. In fact, the thundering blows of superheavies duking it out is awesome, and I do that quite often, as often as possible!

As for your second point: can I ask why you feel that way?

Problem is that Baneblades and co were seen as a worthless waste of money before, so the majority of people don't own any (or own very little, like me). However with the general perception that the codex is OP, this has the inverse effect of people afraid to buy them for fear of the stigma of being seen as "that guy". That only leaves a handful of people like him who collected them before the buff (since, as many have pointed out, three baneblades isn't actually powerful and most WAAC players would just buy conscripts instead).

For what it's worth I've promised him a game with what superheavies I have. But having about a state and the niagara falls between us, that game isn't going to come for some time.

bbekins wrote:
I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.

This ship sailed many years ago and was sunk permanently two editions ago when GW made Superheavy Knights their own army.

The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.

Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.

I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation, but I have three superheavies: A baneblade, a stormlord, and a PRAETOR ARMORED ASSAULT LAUNCHER.

I don't ever really run any of the three except the stormlord, and I normally feel kinda bad about even running that one. I might consider the baneblade now with the point reduction, but probably not both in the same list. I just like foot guard too much.

I don't think I'd ever turn down a game against three baneblades though. Far as I'm concerned, they're among the least egregious of any of the superheavies. I'd be far more bothered by someone showing up with three stormlords. Those things are seriously unfair. At this point though, I'd feel better about any three superheavies than, say, 14+ Russes.

I wouldn't turn down a game against 3 baneblades either honestly. But if i didn't go first i'd probably lose. Grey Knights don't have good anti-tank.

 Marmatag wrote:
The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.

Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.

So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.

Why can't the same be expected of them?

Yeah, I was trying to work through how I'd do that with my GK even as I typed my last comment. I guess try to deep strike as much of them as close as possible, and hope I could melee them down. It would certainly be an uphill battle though.

Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.

That's... never been true until now.

And now that it is true, yeah, I'll try letting my opponent go first. That's actually a pretty badass idea - giving my opponent the first turn. Thanks for the input! I'll try that this weekend.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.

Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.

So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.

Why can't the same be expected of them?

So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."

A compromise would be to play 4K, I suppose.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.

Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.

So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.

Why can't the same be expected of them?

So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."

Well, as I mentioned before, I like to play fluffy. Each battle is something I write about afterwards.

If I write "My regiment went to fight the Blood Angels, but brought one tank, and it was blown up when the first volley of lascannons fired before it even sensed the enemy were there." I don't really add anything meaningful to my fluff. Now, if I am alongside another Guard regiment, I can spend the rest of that fluff explaining how they worked together, perhaps some rivalry that happened between the regimental/company commanders in the battlegroup because of such a telling loss, or perhaps a scene where the commissar has words with the other regiment's commissar or something.

But if it's just my tank regiment by itself, then I spend most of the fluff contriving why the other 20-21 tanks in the regiment were off masturbating in a corner and these one or two vehicles were permitted to wander around alone.

I get most of my joy out of the fluff that arises naturally from playing the game - bringing only 1 or 2 vehicles hinders my ability to get meaningful progress.

Think of my regiment as a D&D character (or perhaps as a party of D&D characters with each company being a character). Trying to write a meaningful story about how a character pokes out both his eyes before battle to make it more fair gets kind of old fast, especially if it's a character that doesn't otherwise care about that sort of thing. For every single battle you have to contrive a reason for him to be missing an arm, or having broken gear, or somesuch. Every. Single. Fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
A compromise would be to play 4K, I suppose.

Always up for this if anyone else ever is!

Martel732 wrote:
A compromise would be to play 4K, I suppose.

^----that is actually a good suggestion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.

That's... never been true until now.

And now that it is true, yeah, I'll try letting my opponent go first. That's actually a pretty badass idea - giving my opponent the first turn. Thanks for the input! I'll try that this weekend.

Well think about it this way. In war when you are outmatched you run away - you don't just fight to the death when you don't have the weapons to fight the enemy. The only realistic scenerio that 3 super heavy tanks would be fighting a small scrimmish force would be if the scrimmish for ambushed it anyways.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A compromise would be to play 4K, I suppose.

^----that is actually a good suggestion.

I'm trying to imagine carrying 4k of Guard on the bus. It is a funny mental picture, although it does make my arms hurt...

Maybe you could do a 2v1 with 4k. The problem is that 4k games can take more time than is available on a games night.