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.

well considering he owns something like 12 superheavies (in counting) it's basically like....four shoeboxes?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
well considering he owns something like 12 superheavies (in counting) it's basically like....four shoeboxes?

I own 22 vehicles.

For most of the 4k though it'd be 1 company, and then something else. Not sure what, because I think more baneblades would break things, but I have started building that new regiment around those scotia grendel models.

EDIT:

Strictly speaking, I own 22 superheavies, divided into seven companies of three and a regimental command vehicle.

There are also 4 trojans, 1 atlas, 1 salamander, and 1 chimera in the support company.

I also have a few random russes just thrown in a cardboard box and in varying states of disrepair, a few Malcadors from when they were superheavy in the Heresy and I used them as outrider tanks for the larger vehicles, and some Hydras, which I might start to bring more (though I am worried they will make the problem worse instead of better, since it's just MORE TANKS).

Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.

I wouldn't worry about taking hydras; they make cool looking support units but at 5+ to hit most targets they are not doing too much. Even against proper fliers they are only hitting on 4+. The only targets that have cause for concern are flying units without hard to hit, which are hit on 3+. So jetbike and jump armies may hate them.

 Trickstick wrote:

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.

I'd have to pack for points, and not necessarily preference, but I could probably manage it between my two battlefoam cases.

I usually manage 2k fine in a GW case with rules/water and maybe a box in a backpack. Not too bad but I couldn't really double. It doesn't help that I have a decent amount of metal and resin models, which are heavier.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.

So you're saying to start a new army entirely?

I've looked at Primaris Marines today...

.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.

*hangs head in shame*

Me thinks at this point you should just get a Warlord Titan.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.

*hangs head in shame*

C'mon buddy, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.

So you're saying to start a new army entirely?

I've looked at Primaris Marines today...

.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.

*hangs head in shame*

Have you considered building a list with lighter super-heavies in support of a baneblade? For insance, a baneblade leading a squadron of malcador/macharius? They would still be part of the same regiment and I could well imagine a single baneblade being made lead tank of a formation of lighter super-heavies. The lighter classes are also far from OP, especially after the codex hit.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.

So you're saying to start a new army entirely?

I've looked at Primaris Marines today...

.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.

*hangs head in shame*

Have you considered building a list with lighter super-heavies in support of a baneblade? For insance, a baneblade leading a squadron of malcador/macharius? They would still be part of the same regiment and I could well imagine a single baneblade being made lead tank of a formation of lighter super-heavies. The lighter classes are also far from OP, especially after the codex hit.

I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.

Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.

I'd have to buy Machariuses, but they're certainly neat looking! I just don't have the dosh in my plans yet; probably will get there soon!

Lastly: I'm doing this where I can already My tank destruction company should rightly be Shadowswords, but I use Valdors because I think they're fluffier for a urban-fighting-style regiment. At least in the novels, Shadowswords have that crippling problem where they have to disconnect their motor from their drivetrain to charge the main armament's capacitors, and I think any sensible superheavy tank commander would keep them WELL away from urban environments, where being motionless after a shot that gives a position away as readily as a volcano cannon would is awful, and moving but being unable to use the main armament again until you stop only slightly less crippling.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?

Personal Preference. I prefer a game that focuses on the infantry squads with the characters/elites and the tanks and superheavy tanks in supporting roles.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

I know. I don't like imperial knights and I think for them to be their own army is just stupid.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.

Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.

That's a shame. Does the lack of the Titanic keyword really matter that much? They are super-heavies in almost all other respects. Compare them to Valdor and it is basically 2w difference. The Valdor is just a Malcador variant after all. I can see the loss of Steel Behemoth being annoying, although I would run them as Tallarn which mimics the effect pretty well really. Fluff wise, Malcadors would fit with a super-heavy regiment very well. Out of interest, what Malcadors do you actually have? I am always tempted to get an Infernus, such a cool looking tank.

bbekins wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?

Personal Preference. I prefer a game that focuses on the infantry squads with the characters/elites and the tanks and superheavy tanks in supporting roles.

Vaktathi wrote:

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.

I know. I don't like imperial knights and I think for them to be their own army is just stupid.

That's a fair opinion! I was drawn to 40k because it had tank company rules, etc. at 28mm which few other games had, but I can totally see the desire for infantry rather than tanks to be the focus. In fact, the gentleman who got me into the game when we were much younger played an assault infantry regiment for storming positions (think like DKOK mixed with Starship Troopers (the movie)). It's partly why I decided on armour (specifically an armoured assault / siege regiment) because I figured we'd be fighting side by side a lot and it would go well. But times change.

Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.

Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.

That's a shame. Does the lack of the Titanic keyword really matter that much? They are super-heavies in almost all other respects. Compare them to Valdor and it is basically 2w difference. The Valdor is just a Malcador variant after all. I can see the loss of Steel Behemoth being annoying, although I would run them as Tallarn which mimics the effect pretty well really. Fluff wise, Malcadors would fit with a super-heavy regiment very well. Out of interest, what Malcadors do you actually have? I am always tempted to get an Infernus, such a cool looking tank.

The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.

The other issue is that they're downright worse than LRBTs for their cost, which sort of makes me giggle, but yeah, they're not bad.

To answer your last question: I have 2 Infernuses, 3 Battletanks, 1 Annihilator, and 3 'valdors' if those count. Of my regiment, only the 3 Valdor's remain post-8th edition because of the TO&E problems mentioned above. So far, I've fluffed it that the older tanks finally broke down (since Malcadors are supposed to be especially rare in 40k because people forgot how to repair their reactors) and were abandoned, or eventually cannibalized to repair the Valdors. ATM the tanks are just sitting around being sad that they never see the table.

You know, I was about to suggest a Salamander command but turns out it is only an elite. Only other options I can think of involve a Chimera, such as a Primaris and some battle psykers or something. Still a bit lame to bring like 5 infantry models when you are running a tank army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.

You could always soup in a Tech-Priest as HQ. You'd lose your regiment bonus, but hey, you're trying to go fluffy, right? Probably makes sense that you'd have one of those floating around somewhere.

Hmm, could you use a Trojan and just fluff a company commander as the Quartermaster or something? Would make sense for him to ride in a Trojan to keep track of ammo. Consider it a 30pt tax.

Trojan with techpriest, 4 servitors and a company commander "Deputy quartermaster". Could work, a bit fluffy and looks cool to have.

Trickstick wrote:You know, I was about to suggest a Salamander command but turns out it is only an elite. Only other options I can think of involve a Chimera, such as a Primaris and some battle psykers or something. Still a bit lame to bring like 5 infantry models when you are running a tank army.

Yes, and it's a bit weird that the outrider screening squadrons (think like, cavalry or velites in a pre-Marian Reforms Roman sense) have psyker support or whatever.

daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.

You could always soup in a Tech-Priest as HQ. You'd lose your regiment bonus, but hey, you're trying to go fluffy, right? Probably makes sense that you'd have one of those floating around somewhere.

Actually, I think you wouldn't lose your soup as Techpriest Enginseers are on the list of units that don't cause you to use your soup - and it's the unit name, not the bolded keyword.

That said, still a no-go, as then they can't board transports, and the whole reason to bring the Malcador company is to have a fast-moving 'screen' type unit, like the superheavy tank's version of cavalry.

My tanks are divided into Line, Assault, Tank Destruction, Breakthrough, and Transport companies. The Malcadors were in the Outrider companies, and the Machariuses... I don't have any yet but they could perhaps be just like "Line (Reserve)" or something.

 Trickstick wrote:
Hmm, could you use a Trojan and just fluff a company commander as the Quartermaster or something? Would make sense for him to ride in a Trojan to keep track of ammo. Consider it a 30pt tax.

Trojan with techpriest, 4 servitors and a company commander "Deputy quartermaster". Could work, a bit fluffy and looks cool to have.

That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.

EDIT:

A salamander command vehicle would be perfect but it's elite. DERP. Good catch anyways Trickstick.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.

Well you don't have to match your fluff organisation exactly to the FOC. Even though the HQ would be in the same FOC as the Malcadors, there is no reason it couldn't be hanging around with your Baneblade and be part of that squadron. Say the officer is somehow the liason between the regiment and the mechanicus, deployed because correct supply and repair of a baneblade is so important. I'm thinking like an officer of the fleet but more focused on logistics. Logistical officer sounds about right.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.

So you're saying to start a new army entirely?

I've looked at Primaris Marines today...

.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.

*hangs head in shame*

Guard are really over the top it's not just your super heavies. honestly I think playing a whole list of conscripts and LR is even better than your baneblades. I have a big primaris army and it's my most fun list to play. People enjoy playing against it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.

How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.

How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.

I loved the "Belly of the Beast" section in the new codex (p43). It did a great job of what the inside of a Baneblade is really like. It is a barely understood religious relic, covered in purity seals, prayer scrolls and sacred oils. Guard models don't convey the religious nature of practically everything they do. They have prayers for reloading...

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.

How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.

The Baneblade in the novel Baneblade had sleeping quarters to rotate personel on longer mission.

The tension here, Unit, is that there's a difference between something being less expensive and costed appropriately, and something being less expensive without changing its capabilities.

If Baneblades costed less, you could fit more in your list. That does make your list less skewed, but not less powerful. People take issue with that because it's a lot like an Eldar player in 7th with an all-wraithknight list going "hey, so why don't we just play with 200 point wraithknights then? Then I could fit in some infantry!

So you have people who say playing against lists that consist of only one model type are generally less interactive. This is true to an extent IMO - I generally find skew lists an interesting challenge, but not something I'd want to play against more than 1-2 times, wheras I can play against someone's more varied TAC list a dozen times without getting bored.

Separately, people are stating that Baneblades are undercosted for what they do. Which is at least probable, for some baneblade builds.

To be completely honest, you've got your fluff reason for wanting to run 3 baneblades, but your gameplay reasoning...it's a bit shaky. You only give up a single CP for switching from 1 Super-Heavy detachment to 2 Supreme Command detachments. Guard HQs are useful and not expensive, between Commanders, Command Tanks, lord Commissars, and Primaris Psykers, you can bring a bunch. You still get regiments (you could even choose a different regiment for each tank, if you wanted to give the individual commanders personality) and it'd make it much easier to run a TAC rather than a skew list at 2k. But if you want to run 3, thats perfectly fine, I'd just keep games at 2500 or above if you don't want to run into the issue of people getting a bit bored playing against the list.

Why would GW put a Super Heavy Detachment in that's better than the just take one detachment if they didn't want to encourage people to fill it out? Its like saying you shouldn't take a air wing Detachment because you can put 2 in the others anyway.

Baneblades are pretty cool, especially as the models are the only IG tanks with actual suspension, but I cannot fathom the complaining about them - they NEEDED this buff, especially given that a Laspred with some lucky rolls can kill one in a single turn, and thats before we factor in the other AT weapons supporting it.

 master of ordinance wrote:
especially given that a Laspred with some lucky rolls can kill one in a single turn

Wait. Wait.

A laspred is a predator that has the twin lascannon and then two lascannon sponsons... right?

Even if you literally rolled nothing but 6s always, the most you could ever have is 24 damage from that. Baneblades have 26 wounds.

If you had the autocannon and two lascannons, and you rolled nothing but 6s always, then you would get 30 wounds. Total. Maybe.

Note that even this is about as likely a thing to have happen as a conscript squad lasgunning a Land Raider to death in one round. It's Not A Good Argument To Make.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I simulate max damage on the autocannon alone happening about 7 times out of 10000 tries.

This is not a thing to consider seriously.

WatcherZero wrote:
Why would GW put a Super Heavy Detachment in that's better than the just take one detachment if they didn't want to encourage people to fill it out? Its like saying you shouldn't take a air wing Detachment because you can put 2 in the others anyway.

Oh they want people to buy the bigger models alright costs them 5p per sprue costs you £95, that's not the point though its that they've once again chased profits over good game design.

hobojebus wrote:
...costs them 5p per sprue...

That's not quite right. You have to include all of the overheads too. Also, having production in the UK instead of China will dramatically increase costs.

Or what is more common, bring them to the US, which is also having a rather large growth in the mid east.