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.

 Dayknight wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah, from a CSM perspective rhinos are solid, though I think they'll be replaced by the dreadclaw for most things now that that's priced reasonably.

You think so? They still cost fifty points more than the loyalist drop pods (at 83) because reasons. Hard to justify when dread-claws are supposed to be older technology. Maybe theres something im missing that dread-claws do better than drop pods?

On a separate note i say we petition ITC to do some point changes for their tournaments so we can start using those instead of this chapter approved garbage.

The dreadclaw can act like a rhino after its been deployed (in both the sense that you can hop back into it if you want and that you can use it for cheeky charges to tie stuff up) and the thermal jets are really good, especially against MSU hordes like brimstones. If the dreadclaw was the same price as a drop pod it'd be insane.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't think that's true at all, because I'm not focusing on a singular aspect of the game. I want to run 3 superheavy tanks, sure, but that's one of a whole list of things:

1) I'd like to run 3 superheavy tanks
2) Putting my SOB in with them would be pretty neat too, as I like the imagery of 3 cathedral tanks with sisters around them.
3) Putting in some IG infantry would be good to prevent boardwipes and the like, maybe to screen (though screens are less necessary with Baneblades)
4) Bringing some attached support units of other types would be fun: recon, ordnance and maintenance, logistics - and there's even models to represent them on the tabletop.
5) Perhaps add other mono-focused support units, like a squadron of Hydras or some artillery

etc. etc.

The point is that I don't only want to run tanks - if I played 3k, I wouldn't just bring 6 tanks. But because of the 2k limit and 3 tanks being 1500 points, the game is fairly boring, even if I do bring a couple of recon units, a platoon of infantry, and maybe a maintenance vehicle or so.

I mean, listbuilding is all about compromising what you want to bring, and what you can bring, and what is feasible to bring. You're purposefully going out on a limb by always taking 3 superheavies. Even though it's allowed, it remains a fringe list. Personally I don't have a problem with it, as it is fluffy, and they're great models. But in taking an extreme list you are setting yourself up for some heavily one-sided matches, in either direction. What's wrong again with taking two and some support? I'd just go that route.

We used to have a guy who would almost always bring a Warhound Titan in 6th/7th. Most of the time it felt like a wasted opportunity of an evening. Either I have the tools to deal with it, or I don't, and a lot of the time the game is decided in the first or second turn. The inter-army dialog is minimal, and it's just not the sort of game a lot of us look for when we're looking for a pickup game. I can remember two interesting games with that guy out of 12+, and one of them was when he didn't bring the Titan.

Ok. I'll just shelve the company till I can play 2500 or 3k. Don't have the enthusiasm to play much else though, and I kinda feel like I'm out of hobby steam.

Sorry for thread derail.

As an Armageddon in steel legion player, these changes aren't that hurting to me (but my Armageddon pattern is Medusa went up a little) and since I get zero complaints to running them I shall continue to to do so.

I think it's more about certain spam rather than spam in general with guard IMHO.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ok. I'll just shelve the company till I can play 2500 or 3k. Don't have the enthusiasm to play much else though, and I kinda feel like I'm out of hobby steam.

Sorry for thread derail.

Ya know its just the nature of mono lists and mono culture in general.

its the most susceptible to change and it can be quite devastating.

just look at the humble banana.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ok. I'll just shelve the company till I can play 2500 or 3k. Don't have the enthusiasm to play much else though, and I kinda feel like I'm out of hobby steam.

Sorry for thread derail.

Why not devise a reserve system for the tanks to be used in matched play. I.E. turn 1 has 1 baneblade turn 2 has another show up turn 3 has the final one show up. This will let you have all 3 bane blades while allowing less competitive players the chance to deal with them one at a time instead of getting overrun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the Deepstrike problem. They should make it an upgrade which certain units can purchase including the turn in which they can arrive. Turn 1 arrivals would cost more then turn 2 and turn 3 arrivals would bee the least expensive.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ok. I'll just shelve the company till I can play 2500 or 3k. Don't have the enthusiasm to play much else though, and I kinda feel like I'm out of hobby steam.

Sorry for thread derail.

Why not devise a reserve system for the tanks to be used in matched play. I.E. turn 1 has 1 baneblade turn 2 has another show up turn 3 has the final one show up. This will let you have all 3 bane blades while allowing less competitive players the chance to deal with them one at a time instead of getting overrun.

That sounds like a cool narrative scenario, like a tank convoy or something like that, or the tanks are being repaired during the attack and come in as reserves, something like that.

That is a cool idea, but if I can put things in reserve I could drop down to just running one anyways, because then it wouldn't get alpha-struck.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is a cool idea, but if I can put things in reserve I could drop down to just running one anyways, because then it wouldn't get alpha-struck.

As well as adding another 40 blokes to your list (as we discussed elsewhere) you could see if an opponent would agree to playing a game 1 on/1 off. So every other game you use your baneblade regiment. This could be cool and fluffy in that your baneblades are breaching a hard point in the enemy lines to allow some allies to break through (baneblade game first) or your allies are clearing the area of mines/other crap that is dangerous to tanks (other game first). Also gives you a concrete idea of what your objectives are and a way to theme your force. One Baneblade Company, paired with a scout/recon company or assault focussed force, depending on the narrative in your head. This links the games and makes them relevant to the SHTC at all times, whilst only playing it 1/2 the time. Adding the supporting elements we discussed elsewhere and adopting this approcah, whilst talking to your opponent about the narrative, will probably get you a fair few games.

Only a few armies can bring down a baneblade in a single turn. In the majority of the games you'll still be able to play all your tanks even with this particular scenario. Losing a baneblade in turn one is something extremely exceptional, unless maybe you face the nastiest overpowered tournament lists and only those ones.

In 3rd-5th edition, you had a really good turn if you took out 20% of the opponent's forces on turn one. With the current rules set and meta, it seems like if you don't do 25% casualties turn one you are just not killy enough in the competitive scene.

The game is far more offensive then it has ever been. There are other games that use this same dynamic but do it well (Warmachine/Hordes to name one) but have less issues with it since the ranges aren't ridiculous; the shooting ranges in 40k (and now the melee threat ranges) are basically the table length in a lot of cases.

It's very fun to charge the opponent turn one for the person doing it. It's very fun to blow a super heavy or Mortarion off the table turn one for the person doing it. It's very fun to destroy 40%+ of the opposing forces on turn one for the person doing it.

Through the ages, the number of shot/attack output from weapons and units have increased. Rapid firing weapons gaining an extra shot trivially now, assault cannons adding 2 shots, twin linking returning to extra shots, the prevalence of rerolls, deep striking always allowing an optimized attack, double firing Leman Russ turrets, FRFSRF and other orders, Trivial turn 1 charges from a significant portion of an army.

All this has lead to the game structuring itself to turn most list choices into something resembling a glass cannon that can trade far above its own value. So now we are seeing some armies wiped off the table or effectively tabled on turn 2, which is great if you are the person doing it. This is why that roll to go first has become so important.

Drager wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is a cool idea, but if I can put things in reserve I could drop down to just running one anyways, because then it wouldn't get alpha-struck.

As well as adding another 40 blokes to your list (as we discussed elsewhere) you could see if an opponent would agree to playing a game 1 on/1 off. So every other game you use your baneblade regiment. This could be cool and fluffy in that your baneblades are breaching a hard point in the enemy lines to allow some allies to break through (baneblade game first) or your allies are clearing the area of mines/other crap that is dangerous to tanks (other game first). Also gives you a concrete idea of what your objectives are and a way to theme your force. One Baneblade Company, paired with a scout/recon company or assault focussed force, depending on the narrative in your head. This links the games and makes them relevant to the SHTC at all times, whilst only playing it 1/2 the time. Adding the supporting elements we discussed elsewhere and adopting this approcah, whilst talking to your opponent about the narrative, will probably get you a fair few games.

This is a good idea, but ironically they were kept out of the local narrative campaign because (edit: multiple) LoW are scary. In truth, the best-case use of them would be in a narrative team campaign, where they are sent by my team's supreme commander to aid in crucial battles - like they are in the fluff. That way, if I am bringing a small number of vehicles it is to a team game, and if I am bringing a large number it is for some narrative purpose. Most IG regiments are used like this, in fact, but sadly team games seem rare.

Blackie wrote:Only a few armies can bring down a baneblade in a single turn. In the majority of the games you'll still be able to play all your tanks even with this particular scenario. Losing a baneblade in turn one is something extremely exceptional, unless maybe you face the nastiest overpowered tournament lists and only those ones.

I'm not sure what kind of lists you're playing, but just to give you an example of the things that have one-rounded my Baneblades:

1) 3 Neutron-Laser Onager Dunecrawlers
2) Slaanesh-marked combi-plasma Terminators next to a combi-melta Lord with Endless Cacophony and VOTLW.
3) Alpha Legion Obliterators x3 squads
4) Space Marine Hellblasters near Guilliman
5) Predator Annhilators
6) Stormravens
7) Grey Knight DKGM spam
8) Inquisition smite spam + all melta acolytes falling out of a Valykrie within melta range
9) Other superheavies of various flavors
10) Leman Russ tanks
11) RG Assault Centurions (if they shut down my overwatch like with an Inquisitor's psy power)

I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.

You mentioned about 4 factions, in a game in which there are 20+.

What about orks, SoB, harlequins, gen cult, tyranids, eldar, tau, dark angels, space wolves, blood angels, nercons, thousand sons, deathguard? Most of those armies also have several different types of lists. Even the typical drukhari list with tons of lances doesn't have the math to bring down a superheavy with average rolls unless they tailor the list with only tank essentially.

Smite can't be a problem in turn 1, you should be able to screen the superheavy and the majority of psykers can't even be in range in turn 1.

I didn't say that there aren't things that can bring down a superheavy in first turn, there are many more combinations that can do so, but even most of the anti tank units you listed don't have the math to bring down a baneblade on average rolls. Then if your opponent rolls extremely lucky.... but it's not the norm. A typical TAC list, even with strong anti tank, doesn't kill a superheavy on average rolls.

 Blackie wrote:
You mentioned about 4 factions, in a game in which there are 20+.

What about orks, SoB, harlequins, gen cult, tyranids, eldar, tau, dark angels, space wolves, blood angels, nercons, thousand sons, deathguard? Most of those armies also have several different types of lists. Even the typical drukhari list with tons of lances doesn't have the math to bring down a superheavy with average rolls unless they tailor the list with only tank essentially.

Smite can't be a problem in turn 1, you should be able to screen the superheavy and the majority of psykers can't even be in range in turn 1.

I didn't say that there aren't things that can bring down a superheavy in first turn, there are many more combinations that can do so, but even most of the anti tank units you listed don't have the math to bring down a baneblade on average rolls. Then if your opponent rolls extremely lucky.... but it's not the norm. A typical TAC list, even with strong anti tank, doesn't kill a superheavy on average rolls.

I'll address it point by point:

1) Orks I've not played, so they don't fit into my example. But yes, perhaps they would have a problem. I am the only local SOB player in my meta, but just as an example of one here on DakkaDakka Inquisitor Lord Katherine always brings a Shadowsword for just such an occasion. Gen Cult and Tyranids may or may not be able to one-round a Baneblade with the new dex, but at Nova I had one get charged by 3 Trygons and 20 stealers Turn 1; it didn't die but it was crippled and unable to move, and died the next turn. Eldar have absolutely one-rounded me with WWP Fire Dragons, so you can just add them to my list of nasties. Tau have also done it with 2 Stormsurges, though I did win the game (as again, I have two other tanks), but it's comparatively easy to focus fire Destroyer missiles with Tau given that you only have to markerlight like 1 thing, and 8d3 mortal wounds is half a baneblade's wounds before the Pulse Driver cannon fires. You can add this to my list as well. DA, SW, and BA all have predator annihilators so not sure why they'd have trouble (the Pred Annihilators I mention were BA ones, in fact). Necrons may have trouble like the Orks. Thousand Sons also have predator annihilators and Magnus... so yeah. Death Guard have never gone first against me, so I always alpha-strike their Mortarion, but I'm sure a Warp-Time Mortarion +1500 points of DG could one-round a Baneblade.

2) They came out of a Valykrie. The Valykrie moves 45", and they fall out next to me because Grav Chute Insertion lets them disembark as it moves, then they move 6" closer (so 3" away). And it's unfluffy for me (without a teammate) to screen superheavies anyways, since superheavy tank regiments don't have access to their own integral infantry formations.

3) A lot of what I listed are also parts of a whole - the entire 2k army could one-round a Baneblade (when I said, for example, Predator Annihilators, I didn't mean just one).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[
I'm not sure what kind of lists you're playing, but just to give you an example of the things that have one-rounded my Baneblades:
1) 3 Neutron-Laser Onager Dunecrawlers
2) Slaanesh-marked combi-plasma Terminators next to a combi-melta Lord with Endless Cacophony and VOTLW.
3) Alpha Legion Obliterators x3 squads
4) Space Marine Hellblasters near Guilliman
5) Predator Annhilators
6) Stormravens
7) Grey Knight DKGM spam
8) Inquisition smite spam + all melta acolytes falling out of a Valykrie within melta range
9) Other superheavies of various flavors
10) Leman Russ tanks
11) RG Assault Centurions (if they shut down my overwatch like with an Inquisitor's psy power)

I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.

Bloody hell that’s a bad beat. Your local meta sounds like hell for people who want anything lighter than a tournament face smash.

2 things - first, you say that you don’t want your SHTC list to be powerful. And yet when people suggest using 2 instead of 3 tanks part of your response is that if you do that you lose Regiment rules and some CP. So? Maybe part of the balancing act the designers had to perform was using Regiment rules and CP to help empower non-skew lists to give them a chance against skew lists? If you’re really not wanting your army to be powerful surely you’d be glad of the nerf that using two auxiliary SH detachments gives you over a full SH detachment?

Second, it sounds like you need screening units. Badly. A lot of the things you’ve listed wouldn’t be effective if pushed outside of 12”/18”/24” range by screening units - which, being Guard, you have the best of. The longer the range the harder it is to screen but stuff like Plasma and Melta should never be getting in double tap/melta range first turn if you’re using screens effectively. I know you’re into your fluff about a SHTC, but SHTCs don’t go rolling into battle alone, even in the dire circumstances that would require three or more of them. They go with supporting infantry to, funnily enough, stop enemy infantry with specialist anti-tank tools getting in close and messing up the big guys’ day while they’re focused on the enemy’s big stuff. Stuff like melta drops is literally the in-universe fluff reason why these war machines have chaperone elements. Surely you could work a few squads of infantry into your narrative army as specialist anti-saboteur units that are an extended part of the vehicle’s crew?

I still feel like the original sin of this whole conscript debacle was eliminating the platoon structure and making them spammable.

It's not like footguard didn't exist until 8th, but you needed to drop minimum 150 points on other stuff to unlock your 50 conscripts for 150 points. In theory, it was possible to spam conscripts but it would have been really inefficient points-wise. In some ways, those blobs were even better than their 8th ed counterparts -- 50 conscripts with a priest in 7th ed could do real work in CC.

But, alas in the 8th ed Index, then Codex, they eliminate those restrictions and give guard players just two troop options: Infantry Squads, which depending on what you want to do with them, will probably be inferior to SWS, vets or HWS for that job, or Conscripts who at least are dern good at their job of tarpitting, bubble-wrapping and board control.

So they really pushed guard players to take conscripts as their only troops and of course all of the Imperial soup players were all too happy to throw in a bunch of cheap bodies to their lists.

Even in 8th the problem has never been that you might face a single conscript blob, it was that you would face four, surrounding Gulliman and a bunch of tanks.

At each turn I've been stunned that their rules fixes have attacked the symptoms rather than the disease of the spammable conscripts. First attack their their ability to receive orders and unit size, then attack their morale, now make them unfieldable for anyone seeking list efficiency.

Guys, guys guys. Just limit conscripts to one unit per detachment. Or require a certain number of other units to be taken in order to unlock them like in the olden days. It's really not that hard.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
[
I'm not sure what kind of lists you're playing, but just to give you an example of the things that have one-rounded my Baneblades:
1) 3 Neutron-Laser Onager Dunecrawlers
2) Slaanesh-marked combi-plasma Terminators next to a combi-melta Lord with Endless Cacophony and VOTLW.
3) Alpha Legion Obliterators x3 squads
4) Space Marine Hellblasters near Guilliman
5) Predator Annhilators
6) Stormravens
7) Grey Knight DKGM spam
8) Inquisition smite spam + all melta acolytes falling out of a Valykrie within melta range
9) Other superheavies of various flavors
10) Leman Russ tanks
11) RG Assault Centurions (if they shut down my overwatch like with an Inquisitor's psy power)

I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.

Bloody hell that’s a bad beat. Your local meta sounds like hell for people who want anything lighter than a tournament face smash.

2 things - first, you say that you don’t want your SHTC list to be powerful. And yet when people suggest using 2 instead of 3 tanks part of your response is that if you do that you lose Regiment rules and some CP. So? Maybe part of the balancing act the designers had to perform was using Regiment rules and CP to help empower non-skew lists to give them a chance against skew lists? If you’re really not wanting your army to be powerful surely you’d be glad of the nerf that using two auxiliary SH detachments gives you over a full SH detachment?

Second, it sounds like you need screening units. Badly. A lot of the things you’ve listed wouldn’t be effective if pushed outside of 12”/18”/24” range by screening units - which, being Guard, you have the best of. The longer the range the harder it is to screen but stuff like Plasma and Melta should never be getting in double tap/melta range first turn if you’re using screens effectively. I know you’re into your fluff about a SHTC, but SHTCs don’t go rolling into battle alone, even in the dire circumstances that would require three or more of them. They go with supporting infantry to, funnily enough, stop enemy infantry with specialist anti-tank tools getting in close and messing up the big guys’ day while they’re focused on the enemy’s big stuff. Stuff like melta drops is literally the in-universe fluff reason why these war machines have chaperone elements. Surely you could work a few squads of infantry into your narrative army as specialist anti-saboteur units that are an extended part of the vehicle’s crew?

The only issue with Regiment doctrines isn't power. I'm mostly just upset that my Tank Crews forget their training / how to use their tanks / what world they come from (Concordia!) when they're only fielded in groups of 2. And the weird part about your point about skew is the Baneblades do get regiment doctrines and CP when you bring 3 (which is more skew) but lose them if you bring 1 or 2, except if you bring a Supreme Command detachment and have some random Company Commanders walking next to the superheavy because reasons.

I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

Also, a SHTC is a variant of an armoured company, which often have armoured fist squads. Baneblades have transport capacity, having armoured fist squads that came to the battle mounted in the baneblades, but are now deployed as screens seems fluffy to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

That's actually what I'm considering doing.

Originally, it was 2 things: an attempt to keep the fluff consistent from battle to battle (it's hard to track the histories of two regiments that are only brought together for one campaign and I only have so much fluff-writing time), and also an attempt at self-nerfing because, as people seem to have noticed, screens make Baneblade armies very very very very strong indeed, and with the buff in the 'dex, I also didn't suddenly want to bring a tournament list.

But I'm considering taking one or even two Imperial Guard battalions along with my Baneblade company, because apparently the fact that it is skew is more annoying for people than it would be if it was actually good lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

Also, a SHTC is a variant of an armoured company, which often have armoured fist squads. Baneblades have transport capacity, having armoured fist squads that came to the battle mounted in the baneblades, but are now deployed as screens seems fluffy to me.

Yes, although the e-novel Stormlord as well as the novel Shadowsword makes it abundantly clear that such infantry are from other regiments, and not integral formations to the superheavy tank regiment in question (in fact there's a neat scene where the Stormlord company commander squabbles with the infantry company commander about who is in charge, but I digress).

I actually do have a 3-Banehammer transport company in my regiment (the 7th Company, tanks 18-21) but haven't gotten to use them, as the infantry regiment player here has decided that because he is Cadian, moving or advancing at all is for wusses. So even in our team-games, I end up using my Stormsword assault vehicles to push forwards.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

That's actually what I'm considering doing.

Originally, it was 2 things: an attempt to keep the fluff consistent from battle to battle (it's hard to track the histories of two regiments that are only brought together for one campaign and I only have so much fluff-writing time), and also an attempt at self-nerfing because, as people seem to have noticed, screens make Baneblade armies very very very very strong indeed, and with the buff in the 'dex, I also didn't suddenly want to bring a tournament list.

But I'm considering taking one or even two Imperial Guard battalions along with my Baneblade company, because apparently the fact that it is skew is more annoying for people than it would be if it was actually good lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would kill for some screening units myself, and am considering taking them for sure. But that only makes my list more powerful and less fluffy, because superheavy tank regiments don't have access to infantry formations, sadly. If I ever play a team game with another regiment player, though, you bet my ass I'm begging for him to screen my tanks with his men. Or sentinels. Or whatever regiment type they play.

Why are you required to play a single regiment for your army? Just take the superheavy company with a screening detachment of the Cadian 53904534906909045690456th infantry regiment in support. If you can play a team game with a player with another regiment then you can bring two regiments in your own force and have the same fluff.

Also, a SHTC is a variant of an armoured company, which often have armoured fist squads. Baneblades have transport capacity, having armoured fist squads that came to the battle mounted in the baneblades, but are now deployed as screens seems fluffy to me.

Yes, although the e-novel Stormlord as well as the novel Shadowsword makes it abundantly clear that such infantry are from other regiments, and not integral formations to the superheavy tank regiment in question (in fact there's a neat scene where the Stormlord company commander squabbles with the infantry company commander about who is in charge, but I digress).

I actually do have a 3-Banehammer transport company in my regiment (the 7th Company, tanks 18-21) but haven't gotten to use them, as the infantry regiment player here has decided that because he is Cadian, moving or advancing at all is for wusses. So even in our team-games, I end up using my Stormsword assault vehicles to push forwards.

Have you thought, maybe for just a second, that you are profoundly over-complicating this? Again, looking at the scale of a regular 2k game and tying in the fluff, a full 3-tank SHTC doesn't work because it wouldn't be deployed that way. It would be deployed as the spearhead of a massive offensive, like 10k points of models, with full infantry support. You're trying to take 10% of a larger construct in the most limited and inflexible way possible, and seem to have an excuse for every suggestion because of the box you've locked yourself in. You've mentioned reading some of the books, have you read Iron Harvest? That's a great example of a single Baneblade being seconded as part of a mixed army group, with lighter MBTs, infantry and air support. There's plenty of ways to take some of what you love and some of what makes for a fun game, you just seem hopelessly hung on on these super specific nitpicks that don't allow for any deviation or creativity.

THAT IS RIGHT AND AWESOME

but...

1) I'd love to play team games with other regiments, like a Valhallan conscript company or Cadian veteran company, or something. Even a sentinel recon company would be badass. Any imperial thing really.

But, the locals don't play team games that often.

2) I'd love to play apoc, and I agree that the superheavy tanks make sense there!

But apoc is essentially never played in any of the four cities I've lived now. I think the local store in Harrisburg, PA did one once every six months but each player could only bring 1500 points so you couldn't even bring 3 baneblades.

4) Iron Harvest is an excellent book, and I actually am building an Inquisitorial conclave based on the Inquisitor in that book (despite her gruesome end!).

But, I've found that in game mechanic terms, a single Baneblade doesn't actually get to play the game. If the enemy goes first, I can just say "no, no, skip your shooting phase" then pick up the baneblade, then let them go on to charges, etc. Having a single tank is probably good for a regular guard player, as it attracts every anti-tank bullet the enemy has, but I'd like to actually play with the tank, instead of just writing in my fluff "Tank 05/02 Virgin valiantly exploded so that the rest of the army could function."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) 3 Neutron-Laser Onager Dunecrawlers
2) Slaanesh-marked combi-plasma Terminators next to a combi-melta Lord with Endless Cacophony and VOTLW.
3) Alpha Legion Obliterators x3 squads
4) Space Marine Hellblasters near Guilliman
5) Predator Annhilators
6) Stormravens
7) Grey Knight DKGM spam
8) Inquisition smite spam + all melta acolytes falling out of a Valykrie within melta range
9) Other superheavies of various flavors
10) Leman Russ tanks
11) RG Assault Centurions (if they shut down my overwatch like with an Inquisitor's psy power)

I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.

Note quite sure how most of those one shot a baneblade. The Onagers have a less than 2% chance to do so unless i've missed some special rule?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) 3 Neutron-Laser Onager Dunecrawlers
2) Slaanesh-marked combi-plasma Terminators next to a combi-melta Lord with Endless Cacophony and VOTLW.
3) Alpha Legion Obliterators x3 squads
4) Space Marine Hellblasters near Guilliman
5) Predator Annhilators
6) Stormravens
7) Grey Knight DKGM spam
8) Inquisition smite spam + all melta acolytes falling out of a Valykrie within melta range
9) Other superheavies of various flavors
10) Leman Russ tanks
11) RG Assault Centurions (if they shut down my overwatch like with an Inquisitor's psy power)

I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.

Note quite sure how most of those one shot a baneblade. The Onagers have a less than 2% chance to do so unless i've missed some special rule?

They were near Cawl, like every Onager ever has been that I've played.

Did you remember the minimum 3 damage on the Neutron Laser and take into account the ability to re-roll number of shots with a CP? If I recall, he did that once.

Unit why are you making gak up on the internet.

Just for clarity I am one of the club officers where Unit plays...

We did not prohibit him from bringing his bane-blades in the narrative campaign because they are scary. We gave everyone a stipulation that you could bring ONE LoW per master list (we had a 3k master list with 2k games and potential perma-death over the course of the campaign). We limited it to one LoW because it was a City Fight, Infantry focused campaign and multiple LoW lists would have been incredibly unbalanced. Unit then chose to accuse me of bullying him (when honestly it seems like he has no problem bullying everyone else with 3 LoW lists), and he played his sisters in protest.

Our meta is very casual. I am pretty sure Unit has not lost one game when he has brought all 3 tanks, which is probably why he is now having trouble finding games. Sure there may be occasional things that can alpha a tank (my admech army for example), but we do not have tournament lists in rotation by any stretch of the imagination.

I just also want to say that I have personally offered to house-rule to let him give his tanks a regiment bonuses if he brought less than 3, something which he was not willing to do.

Seriously dude you know I read Dakka, why would you make up imaginary things to whine about?

Valentine009 wrote:
Unit why are you making gak up on the internet.

Just for clarity I am one of the club officers where Unit plays...

We did not prohibit him from bringing his bane-blades in the narrative campaign because they are scary. We gave everyone a stipulation that you could bring ONE LoW per master list (we had a 3k master list with 2k games and potential perma-death over the course of the campaign). We limited it to one LoW because it was a City Fight, Infantry focused campaign and multiple LoW lists would have been incredibly unbalanced. Unit then chose to accuse me of bullying him (when honestly it seems like he has no problem bullying everyone else with 3 LoW lists), and he played his sisters in protest.

Our meta is very casual. I am pretty sure Unit has not lost one game when he has brought all 3 tanks, which is probably why he is now having trouble finding games. Sure there may be occasional things that can alpha a tank (my admech army for example), but we do not have tournament lists in rotation by any stretch of the imagination.

I just also want to say that I have personally offered to house-rule to let him give his tanks a regiment bonuses if he brought less than 3, something which he was not willing to do.

Seriously dude you know I read Dakka, why would you make up imaginary things to whine about?

If you want to start this, that's fine, I suppose.

One LOW per master list is junk. It really is. It's essentially banning me from bringing Baneblades, because if anyone brought anything that could kill one, it'd be dead, off the list, and gone. I am okay with infantry-focused campaigns, but it stung because I didn't know it was infantry focused. Telling me that it's a "cityfight" campaign got me very excited to bring my urban combat superheavy tank regiment, and I had to find out from someone else that it was also supposed to be infantry-focused. So that stung. Also, you know I play and track the fluff for a superheavy tank regiment, and since team games are (inexplicably) not allowed in the campaign, bringing a single Baneblade is essentially a throwaway thing, because it's a campaign and that's the perfect time for a themed, regimental army to play! It's essentially telling me that my main army, my first love and purely narrative construct, is only allowed to show up with one tank out of the possible six (two companies) that a Siege Regiment could send.

Multiple LoW isn't that unbalanced. Seriously, they're not doing that well in competitive play. They're certainly good but not amazing.

I haven't "bullied" anyone with my list; I always let people know ahead of time when/if I am bringing them, and don't force them upon anyone.

The meta is very casual, that's true, but I don't think my list is tournament quality. Hell, just look at the people telling me to bring screens because I "need them."

And the house-rules thing is bupkis. I want to find a way to fix this, because it might become a problem in the other clubs I play at (victory comics and the local GW in Springfield).

But yeah, sure, I'm making things up.

EDIT: There, I added the word "multiple" to my post, as in "..multiple LoW are scary..."

 heckler wrote:


All this has lead to the game structuring itself to turn most list choices into something resembling a glass cannon that can trade far above its own value. So now we are seeing some armies wiped off the table or effectively tabled on turn 2, which is great if you are the person doing it. This is why that roll to go first has become so important.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

It seems like in this edition of 40k ALL armies are glass cannons (unless you have a -2 to hit in shooting or 3++ re-rollable and even then...). This means that armies built around that concept perform well, those not seem to suffer.

Non-LOS weapons, 36-48" range on a 4x6 table w/ 12" deployment zones, ap mods, wound chart, so many high damage weapons, 1st turn charges, scale creep, los rules + lack of cover rules (seeing .1% of my model means you can shoot the whole unit to death...). It is common for me to lose/kill 25-40% of a list to 1st turn alpha @ 2k points.

Dude I am just sick of the passive aggression. When you post online and misrepresent what really happened to make yourself some sort of victim it is infuriating.

I have spent loads of time trying to work with you and explain why 3 baneblade lists are not enjoyable games for your opponent (and this forum has spent time, and other members of our club has spent time) and there is just no effort on your part to adjust your inflexible attitude. I understand 3 baneblade lists may not be inbalanced in tournaments, or in metas with lots of anti-armor, but it is incredibly inbalanced in our local meta where most people play fairly casual TAC lists.

Seriously if you were just nice about it you would probably get the occasional game and people would want to humor you (like your game coming up this weekend), but when you make passive aggressive comments about how we are all trying to ruin your fun because all you care about are skewed LoW lists, and how if we were better it would be easier for us, it just makes me want to tell you to https://www.reddit.com/r/quityourbullshit/

/rant. we can take it offline.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
You mentioned about 4 factions, in a game in which there are 20+.

What about orks, SoB, harlequins, gen cult, tyranids, eldar, tau, dark angels, space wolves, blood angels, nercons, thousand sons, deathguard? Most of those armies also have several different types of lists. Even the typical drukhari list with tons of lances doesn't have the math to bring down a superheavy with average rolls unless they tailor the list with only tank essentially.

Smite can't be a problem in turn 1, you should be able to screen the superheavy and the majority of psykers can't even be in range in turn 1.

I didn't say that there aren't things that can bring down a superheavy in first turn, there are many more combinations that can do so, but even most of the anti tank units you listed don't have the math to bring down a baneblade on average rolls. Then if your opponent rolls extremely lucky.... but it's not the norm. A typical TAC list, even with strong anti tank, doesn't kill a superheavy on average rolls.

I'll address it point by point:

1) Orks I've not played, so they don't fit into my example. But yes, perhaps they would have a problem. I am the only local SOB player in my meta, but just as an example of one here on DakkaDakka Inquisitor Lord Katherine always brings a Shadowsword for just such an occasion. Gen Cult and Tyranids may or may not be able to one-round a Baneblade with the new dex, but at Nova I had one get charged by 3 Trygons and 20 stealers Turn 1; it didn't die but it was crippled and unable to move, and died the next turn. Eldar have absolutely one-rounded me with WWP Fire Dragons, so you can just add them to my list of nasties. Tau have also done it with 2 Stormsurges, though I did win the game (as again, I have two other tanks), but it's comparatively easy to focus fire Destroyer missiles with Tau given that you only have to markerlight like 1 thing, and 8d3 mortal wounds is half a baneblade's wounds before the Pulse Driver cannon fires. You can add this to my list as well. DA, SW, and BA all have predator annihilators so not sure why they'd have trouble (the Pred Annihilators I mention were BA ones, in fact). Necrons may have trouble like the Orks. Thousand Sons also have predator annihilators and Magnus... so yeah. Death Guard have never gone first against me, so I always alpha-strike their Mortarion, but I'm sure a Warp-Time Mortarion +1500 points of DG could one-round a Baneblade.

2) They came out of a Valykrie. The Valykrie moves 45", and they fall out next to me because Grav Chute Insertion lets them disembark as it moves, then they move 6" closer (so 3" away). And it's unfluffy for me (without a teammate) to screen superheavies anyways, since superheavy tank regiments don't have access to their own integral infantry formations.

3) A lot of what I listed are also parts of a whole - the entire 2k army could one-round a Baneblade (when I said, for example, Predator Annihilators, I didn't mean just one).

Well, it doesn't seem like there are many lists that can wreck a baneblade after all. Mostly imperium stuff. But bringing tons of lascannons or equivalents isn't TAC at all, for example a list with 3 las predator may be an hard counter for you but it's not that common since it will struggle against several opponents. T.Sons have those preds as well but you'll never see a huge amount of lascannons in their list, they have other typical builds.

Fire dragons have a crappy 12'' range and only a 6'' melta range, which means that they shouldn't even be able to target the superheavy in turn one if they arrive by WWP, unless your list just has the lone big tank in turn 1 and nothing else. I think you have points for other stuff to mess deep strikers' arrive.

The tyranids anectode is a good one, but I'm sure it wouldn't be the norm if you play against tyranids.

Some examples are matches against other superheavies. If the opponent has a baneblade or even 2 stormsurges I don't think he/she would have a problem in facing your favorite list and you'll certainly be able to deploy all tanks in turn 1.

And as you said a lot of what you listed were part of the same army, which strenghtens my point when I say that there are actually a few possible lists that can cripple a baneblade in turn 1 with average rolls.

We're not even considering the fact that you should be able to have first turn at least 50% of the games, since you'll certainly have a few drops compared to the average 40k list. Again killing a superheavy in the first turn is something exceptional, even for competitive lists. Unless they are tailored against you.

Once I've played a list with 210 boyz/stormboyz, with also a KFF for a 5+ invuln and the painboy for a 6+ FNP. I started second and the opponent managed to kill all my infantries by turn 3 and not a single ork did manage to charge. Ok, I failed to cast Da Jump in turn 1 and the following turn I failed the 9'' charge, but it did happen. Killing 90-120 boyz in the first turn is possible but luckily not the normal. I just started second against a list that was optimized against infantries and I poorly rolled a couple of key rolls. It doesn't mean than orks will lose 210 boyz by the enemy shooting in an average game.

Unit1126PLL wrote: And it's unfluffy for me (without a teammate) to screen superheavies anyways, since superheavy tank regiments don't have access to their own integral infantry formations.

It's totally fine to do this - indeed, that is Normal in our current real world formations.

Usually you will take elements (such as a company) from an Armored Division and attach it to some larger Infantry formation.

TheNightWillEnd wrote:I still feel like the original sin of this whole conscript debacle was eliminating the platoon structure and making them spammable.

It's not like footguard didn't exist until 8th, but you needed to drop minimum 150 points on other stuff to unlock your 50 conscripts for 150 points. In theory, it was possible to spam conscripts but it would have been really inefficient points-wise. In some ways, those blobs were even better than their 8th ed counterparts -- 50 conscripts with a priest in 7th ed could do real work in CC.

But, alas in the 8th ed Index, then Codex, they eliminate those restrictions and give guard players just two troop options: Infantry Squads, which depending on what you want to do with them, will probably be inferior to SWS, vets or HWS for that job, or Conscripts who at least are dern good at their job of tarpitting, bubble-wrapping and board control.

So they really pushed guard players to take conscripts as their only troops and of course all of the Imperial soup players were all too happy to throw in a bunch of cheap bodies to their lists.

Even in 8th the problem has never been that you might face a single conscript blob, it was that you would face four, surrounding Gulliman and a bunch of tanks.

At each turn I've been stunned that their rules fixes have attacked the symptoms rather than the disease of the spammable conscripts. First attack their their ability to receive orders and unit size, then attack their morale, now make them unfieldable for anyone seeking list efficiency.

Guys, guys guys. Just limit conscripts to one unit per detachment. Or require a certain number of other units to be taken in order to unlock them like in the olden days. It's really not that hard.

I'm personally all for Conscript armies, because in my opinion there needs to be a way to demonstrate varying levels of quality in Guard armies.

Also because I wrote part of my guard faction as making use of Mass Infantry formations to hold territory :p

It's the Soup that's the issue, it sounds.

M.