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.

Most Superheavies have been pointed increadibly heavy - especially the big ones. I'm drawing a blank on anything over Knight class that's not terrible for it's points. And, in the Knight class, only the IKs are good.

Honestly I think this just boils down to an inherent issues with Knight class. Nothing else is pointed competitively enough other than those.

But even within the Knight class, there are problems; the Castellan is underpriced, and the Ork one is overpriced. The CWE was also overpriced, but is one of the few SuperHeavies that feels right right now.

The cats out of the bag unfortunately.

40k has a scale issue in that it's trying to be a game where you can play literally anything in the game universe, and GW hasn't just doubled down on that, they've triple and quadruple downed on it, with predictable results. 40k is really trying to encompasse 3 or 4 different game scales and increasingly encroaching on Epic's turf. No game really has any business trying to differentiate what sort of pistol or power weapon blade type an individual infantryman carries on the same table as Titans and strategic bombers and ICBM carriers, but damned if GW isn't gonna hamfist it!

Personally, I'd prefer a distinct ruleset for larger battles and units, one where detail in smaller units is minimized and larger units made more complex (unlike 40k's usual trend of the opposite), but alas. That said, at least currently, most Superheavies are not currently major competitive balance issues in and of themselves, the problems associated with them are more in GW trying to shove it all into one basket.

I say this as someone with a closet full of superheavy units.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The cats out of the bag unfortunately.

40k has a scale issue in that it's trying to be a game where you can play literally anything in the game universe, and GW hasn't just doubled down on that, they've triple and quadruple downed on it, with predictable results. 40k is really trying to encompasse 3 or 4 different game scales and increasingly encroaching on Epic's turf. No game really has any business trying to differentiate what sort of pistol or power weapon blade type an individual infantryman carries on the same table as Titans and strategic bombers and ICBM carriers, but damned if GW isn't gonna hamfist it!

Personally, I'd prefer a distinct ruleset for larger battles and units, one where detail in smaller units is minimized and larger units made more complex (unlike 40k's usual trend of the opposite), but alas. That said, at least currently, most Superheavies are not currently major competitive balance issues in and of themselves, the problems associated with them are more in GW trying to shove it all into one basket.

I say this as someone with a closet full of superheavy units.

That second part seems to be what they are doing with the new 40k Apocalypse they announced; a completely new game designed for mass battles. Time will tell though if they use that as a way to slowly wean the "regular" game off of superheavies and push them off into Apoc where they can exist without skewing the size of the game to a ridiculous level.

 skchsan wrote:
The game literally doesn't have enough granularity to incorporate both guardsmen AND knights in the same scale.

If you disagree with this then you probably:
1. Have 3 knights
2. Have IG brigade and a castellan

There are ways to deal with knights, but the list specifically needs to be tailored to do so. It's hard to match point-by-point to a knight.

Things that can kill or deal with Knights, that are not titanic themselves, include -

1) Massed Leman Russ fire
2) Kastellan Robots
3) Smash Captains
4) Harlequin Jetbikes
6) Smite Spam armies
7) Demon Princes
8) Mortarion or Magnus
9) Leviathan Dreadnoughts w/ Guilliman Aura
10) Riptides
11) Tankbustas
12) Warbosses on Bikes

There's probably a lot more I'm forgetting about, but the point is Knights have counters. Yes, you need to plan on how to deal with super heavies. But it's really no different from dealing with lots of any other kind of vehicle.

I have an IK army.

Matches with strangers go well gor either side depending on only a few factors:

1) Opponent's unit count.
2) number of anti-tank weapons the opposing army has
3) lucky dice rolls (either side)

In a 7 knight list(4 are little ones), I still have to split focus-fire between credible threats to my knights(anti-tank weapons), and "obsec" units. Generally, unless luck is with me (and they have few of either/both units), I cannot neuter the opponent before I am left with only a few knights remaining.

If I take my Guard w/baneblade chassis(built with the shadowsword variants); my big tank has too few guns to really do much for the cost(baneblade/hellhammer is only a little better), it is just a really expensive distraction carnifex(that can still put out some serious damage, making it almost worth thr price).

Finally we have my Orks and Stompa. Thing is a beast and can put out rounds; but cannot aim worth a drops.

Superheavies just don't have the damage output to really tip the scales, and can still be laid low by scratch damage from troops basic weapons(if you are fielding enough troops to win via mission, you should have enough shots the harry a single super-heavy). The massive weapons still only kill 1 model/hit(3W and less), and there are usually eith too few anti-infantry weapons, or they wind up costing too much loaded out with them(making them priority targets and reducing target saturation).

The only reason a full knight army does well is that target saturation on your opponent, 3+ big scary models that make up most or all of your army forces focus-fire or spread damage leaving either 2 full(or nearly so) and 1 dead, or multiplr damaged but mostly functional threats(over half wounds each) second turn.

Wraothknights are a pain to shift still, tau giant suits are glass cannons, stompas are sturdy and have the shots but cannot hit, bane-variants don't have the firepower, nor do knights. Only the obelisks are really scary and they are expensive as can be.

Super heavies are fine.

Use as many as you want, whenever.

Not up to me to tell others how to build an army.

Bharring wrote:
But even within the Knight class, there are problems; the Castellan is underpriced, and the Ork one is overpriced. The CWE was also overpriced, but is one of the few SuperHeavies that feels right right now.

The Castellan is actually pretty fairly costed by itself, but the Cawl's Wrath relic and the Order of Companions stratagem boost it to obscene levels. Without those, I think it's pretty fairly costed actually. All the other Knights are pretty fairly costed as well, I mean the Crusader is powerful, but its not guaranteed to wipe out 2 vehicles per turn. The Gallant is good for it's cost, but it's melee only and can be countered with effective screening and positioning.

The Ork one should be closer to 500 points instead of the stupid 900 it's at. The Eldar one is pretty fairly costed IMO, after the CA changes. The Baneblades should all be a little bit cheaper as well, or should get more special rules. If the Shadowsword had a rule to ignore invulnerable saves on Titanics or something, then sure, it's totally worth it. But it doesn't even counter the things it's supposed to (Knights) thanks to their invulnerable save.

See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

I like to play with the big boy toys; Greater Daemons, Daemon Primarchs, giant Daemon Engines...I want to use them. Hell, my current list plan is Mortarion, Magnus, a Kytan, two Flawless Host DPs and minimum troops for an in-your-face LoW pants-party!

Out of the bottle or not, current 40K is poorly designed for including superheavies and flyers. Hopefully the upcoming Apocalypse ruleset will provide options to better handle these huge war machines and we can see these toys move away from general 40K to that format.

I’m not holding my breath though, GW’s writing staff is more likely to bodge Apocalypse that actually fix regular 40K and make the whole mess worse.

Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

I have no problem with super heavies. I have problems with individual units. I have a Valiant (I won it in a tournament). I normally play it with two Warglaives in my tempestus scions army. Nobody has bat an eye about them, because they are mediocre at best.

As always the problem is with specific units. In past editions you could had the problem of a imperial knight list being untouchable, but now? Naaa. Even with things like heavy bolters and rerrolls to hit and to wound you can have your anti infantry units peeling at Imperial Knights without a problem.

Bharring wrote:
Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

GW is not good enough at writing rules to manage this. The overpointing of superheavies is indeed a thing, but that's only with large Forgeworld models like actual Titans and Thunderhawks. Knights, Baneblades, and Wraithknights are costed in such a way to make them usable in regular games of 40k. The Stompa... well that one is a mystery to me.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

See your saying the castellen is broken when bolted to a CP farm, the issue by your own words is the CP farm not the model on it's own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Is GW trying to put the genie back in the bottle softly?

The overpointing of superheavies is so consistent it's likely to be intentional.

Consider the Centurion models. GW seems to softly killing them. The rules basically say you can use them, sure, but they're not competitive.

Similarly with "Real"Marines (pre-Primaris). GW seems to trying to keep them not-complete-garbage but clearly not competitive.

Is this a new GW that tries to manage whats "in the game" through soft power instead of outright banning things? Trying to allow people to still use the stuff while ensuring the meta moves away from them?

GW is not good enough at writing rules to manage this. The overpointing of superheavies is indeed a thing, but that's only with large Forgeworld models like actual Titans and Thunderhawks. Knights, Baneblades, and Wraithknights are costed in such a way to make them usable in regular games of 40k. The Stompa... well that one is a mystery to me.

Maybe we just haven't found the secret wombo combo of strategums and buffs that GW is pointing it for?
But yeah it wasn't good in the index and it's not much better under codex rules, but then again look what happened to the new vehicals for said codex, maybe the designer just wanted to push more boys more grots as the playstyle?

They are reason number 1 why I no longer play 40k.

Ice_can wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
See I don't think you can even call the Castellan fairly costed if they're connected to a CP farm and those stratagems and relics. In relation to similar units it is undercosted. My wraithknight will not be built any time soon because they fall over to a stiff breeze it seems so it's not worth the points.

See your saying the castellen is broken when bolted to a CP farm, the issue by your own words is the CP farm not the model on it's own.

Yeah but who legitimately takes a castellan on its own? Even without the CP farm, you still have the stratagems and the relic. It's still undercosted.

Back when I was still new, seeing a land raider on the table was this awesome thing. Seeing two was almost a special experiance within the hobby (whole hobby,not GW exclusive).
Now it’s at the point where it’s just a annoyance, where it’s overdone and I am slowly turning my knights into terain.

I would almost welcome a kill team expansion that just ads rules for the smaller vehicles and larger games up to maybe 1000 points.
We already have commanders and elites coming. Easy enough to put a unit activation to spread things up. Probably would not even need balancing as a narrative expansion.

There's really no reason why any given model needs to be able to shoot at 4+ units. The new split fire rule, or rather, lack of restriction on split firing, works for the range before the introduction of super heavies. There were tactics involved before the game was introduced to units/models with 5 gun platforms that can shoot all five of its weapons at five different target in that you needed to bring all the specialized tools to deal with variety of targets. The current state of 40k is reduced to literally "bring the biggest baddest guy with the biggest and baddest gun and the cheapest, weakest guys and utilize the weight of dice to kill things."

The point cost system was very simple prior to the full induction of super heavies and flyers - you pay less for things that die easy and pay more for things that takes a beating. Of course, the system was lot more complicated than simple durability based calculation, but the current system is totally unjustifiable.

A knight is thrice more durable and quintuple more killy than a LR BEFORE stratagems. a LR costs average 280+ while knights average 550+ (but really should just be 600 because the others are outliers). LR has 2 main guns & 1 sub weapon and 3 options. Castellan has 4 main guns and 3 sub weapons, and 2 options (one time use weapons generalized under option) where the main and sub weapons are minimum twice the firepower compared to LR. Don't give me that "oh but LR is a transport and castellan is not. that's why they're costed the way they are" shenanigans. We all know transports are garbage except for raiders.

You say super heavies are overcosted, I say they are undercosted. They are only overcosted if you look at a knight's (castellan particularly) durability and offensive capabilities separately. Combined, I'd say they're about 200~300 pts undercosted.

In a given standard brigade, you have 18 drops/units. A castellan can target 50% of the units. Bring two castellan, you can target 100% of the bridgade. Barring horde armies, a brigade is typically all you can afford. Two castellans only cost you 1200 pts.

The only way you balance out the dynamic between offense and defence, you have to balance 'how fast/well you can kill stuff' and 'how much beating you can take'. You can't offer a unit that does 'I can kill stuff really well and really fast and I can also take a lot of beating' and expect anything that remotely resembles balance.

It would be balanced enough if knights can reliably delete 300~500 pts worth unit or two in a given round and durable enough to last 3 rounds, not 50% of enemy army. 8th edition is designed for shorter games? I think what GW meant to say was "8th edition is designed to end with an alpha strike".

I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

But you're ignoring the opportunity cost for those units to be able to do that though...

The problem, to my mind, with superheavies in general and Knights in particular is that lighter vehicles just become pointless; a Predator, for instance, cannot be anything more than tissue paper in an environment where everyone's armed to fight Knight-Castellans.

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

So two tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons prove to be more of a threat than a single stomp from an IK? Gosh, 8th 40K is truly a dumpster fire!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem, to my mind, with superheavies in general and Knights in particular is that lighter vehicles just become pointless; a Predator, for instance, cannot be anything more than tissue paper in an environment where everyone's armed to fight Knight-Castellans.

This. It doesn't matter if knights have a counter or not. It skews the power balance of the game which leaves 90% of the available units in the game an utter point sink.

Maybe, only allow 25% of your points on one super heavy vehicles etc. therefore most knights will only be played at around 2k or higher points levels.
if you also had to spend 25% or more points on troops models as well it could go quite differently...

I choose other bc I'm ok with super heavies as long as it is agreed upon before the game or it is established that they are allowed in the tournament before hand. They add some flavor to the game and most of the time SHs are expensive enough to limit other options that could be taken.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think their inclusion is fine, but seeing armies of only superheavies is obnoxious. However, I'd be fine with it if they had some harsher weaknesses without infantry support.

They do have some harsh weaknesses without infantry support though. Knights (the only army that can do all superheavies) have no invulnerable save. A smash captain or biker warboss can very easily kill a 600 pt Knight in a single fight phase.

So two tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons prove to be more of a threat than a single stomp from an IK? Gosh, 8th 40K is truly a dumpster fire!

Not talking about "tiny dudes with infantry close combat weapons"... a Captain is a centuries old veteran of a thousand wars, wielding a thunder hammer, a rare and powerful weapon only entrusted to him because of his experience and rank. A Warboss is a gigantic monster, capable of killing literally anything with vicious cunning and brute force. These are not mere "infantry". It makes sense they'd be able to be more of a threat than a single stomp from a giant robot.

They exist in lore, it would be odd not to have them in some form in 40k.

As for actually using them in a game, I and my gaming buddy, have agreed that they're only for those with huge tabletops (i.e. multiple 8'x4') and huge points games that take weeks to play.

I won't even talk about the monetary cost of such units, especially the Titans...