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.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

It's my opinion that the game has generally suffered for it but at this point I would settle for GW to figure out some way to make most infantry and smaller tanks mean anything against knights being powered by a cheer leading loyal 32.

Welcome to Kill Team, my friend. It's where the spirit of 40k has gone.

I said other to avoid skew. An IK in a 500pt match feels unsportsmanlike but at 2000 is a liability. A castellan and full ik/armiger list at 2000 could be r/p/s'd by mission type or meta list but still doesn't feel like a fair pug fight. A tiered approach perhaps?

Superheavies have weaknesses as well as strengths, so I don't have any problem with them. Yes, I do have a Knight, and two more currently in various stages of building, but honestly look at the armies of pure Knights and see how they aren't dominating tournaments. They aren't as crazy good as some people like to believe. Castellans are pretty gross, but really only when they are supported by all the Guard and Blood Angels stuff. So really it's soup that is what makes some superheavies nasty, and then only because the rest of the army shores up their main weaknesses.

The base problem is that a die is rolled, and it determines who has the better chance of winning the game. Until 40K switches to a system that makes use of alternating activation, which forces both players to consider their turn much more carefully, these issues will still be a problem.

CP is the other part of the issue, which is why I've proposed several times that CP not be doled out by detachment, but as an equal number to both players with a built in minor regeneration effect.

Loving Kill Team, which is basically 40k 8th with these changes (alternating unit activation and 1-to-3-command-points-per-turn instead of a pool to burn over the game) and scored-every-turn objectives (in kill team:arena), I feel they're both positive changes. Neither specifically changes things for superheavies, though.

The whole "superheavies break the game" argument is absurd. My Macharius isn't some unstoppable force, it isn't skewing the game, it isn't taking the fun out of it, it doesn't demand special permission and planning to use it, and it sure as hell isn't winning anything outside of the least competitive metas. It's a terrible unit that is much worse than its points in LRBTs. So when we talk about problems with superheavies let's be honest about what the actual problem is: imperial knights.

This. TITANIC as a keyword doesn't grant you anything aside from the ability to be painfully sodomised by Macro weapons and Shadowswords. A stompa is not all that dissimilar to a castellan with a melee arm in vague weapons layout and toughness, but at 900-ish points the only people complaining about it are the orks.

The easiest, minimum changes, system is to just lock CP to the detachment that generates it and solve the CP battery problem without having to worry about the effects of a more complicated change.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't mind allies and a really don't want to screw over someone who wants to play an iconic army from the narrative - guard and dark angels at koth ridge, for example. The problem with allies in 7th wasn't their existance, but using mixed battlebrothers units to give units rules they were never intended to have (oh look, this one white scar biker gives the whole unit hit and run...).

The equivalent in 8th is shared command point pools. I've no problem with stratagems being powerful if you need to spend 900-odd points to earn the command points to use them. Being able to bring a pittance of cheap expendables and use their command points on a different faction's units has always felt wierd.

I would much prefer for superheavies (and fliers, if necessary) to be Apocalypse-only. They skew the game too mcc away from infantry, while the game still tries to be infantry-centric but fails at it.

Pure knights sucks. I alwais win against them, even in one game with a casual tau list, he destroyed all my antitank weaponry (3 railgun hammerheads, 3 broadsides and 1 riptide) turn 1 and then I won without shooting a single shoot because why bother with the rest of my army claiming objetives (30ish kroot, 70 ish firewarriors, two 3 man stealth suits units, a couple characters, cadres, one etereal)
Just as pure custodes only work against elite, pure knights only work against parking lots or other superheavies.

I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

Getting the first turn really wasn't that big of a deal back then.

I haven't played in a long time, but the idea of super heavies just feels like too much power for the small scale of battles I enjoy.

That said, it is good that the option is there for players that want them and no one is forcing me to play super heavies so I don't see any need to ban them.

tinbee wrote:
I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

Getting the first turn really wasn't that big of a deal back then.

I haven't played in a long time, but the idea of super heavies just feels like too much power for the small scale of battles I enjoy.

That said, it is good that the option is there for players that want them and no one is forcing me to play super heavies so I don't see any need to ban them.

Yeah the irony that 40k Kill team has more uncommon with 2nd edition than 8th edition has isn't lost on all of us.
I remember when I sold my Pretorians because trying to expand them to keep up with the scale creep wasn't worth it, at the time.
40k has been scaled up over the editions, but even back in second edition people (myself included) did play larger scale games for fun, they just used to take a full day at best to complete. Though 16 by 8 table did make the 2nd edition movement of vehicles make sence.

tinbee wrote:
I really enjoyed the days back in 2nd edition where armies would, for the most part, deploy entirely within their deployment zones and do most of their movement on foot with only a few vehicles running around.

The game you (and I) actually enjoy in the 40k universe is Kill Team. Sure it needs some support, but it's getting there.

Well maybe titanic units should have higher BS and -1 hit penalty against non titanic units.

Having +1 hit for non titanic units to hit them would be too much the other way...A simple nerf to BS vs standard units would be aight.

To all the people saying "its in the game now has to stay"

Want to buy my squats?
my Imperial army speeders?
Imperial army jet bikes?
Imperial army figures with bolters, power armor, etc.
Stuff has been removed. and in a little bit regular marines will be too.

Super heavies break the scale of a game built on small infantry skirmishes.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
To all the people saying "its in the game now has to stay"

Want to buy my squats?
my Imperial army speeders?
Imperial army jet bikes?
Imperial army figures with bolters, power armor, etc.
Stuff has been removed. and in a little bit regular marines will be too.

Super heavies break the scale of a game built on small infantry skirmishes.

See, the game isn't about small infantry skirmishes anymore though. Maybe that was it's origins, but it hasn't been that way for quite a long time. Hell, in 5th edition armored lists containing land raiders and other tanks were quite common. If you want a small infantry skirmish, play Kill Team. 40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40Ks scale is so off that I'm not sure what anyone can say. Go look up the battle of Kursk and then tell me if there's any way that can happen in 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40Ks scale is so off that I'm not sure what anyone can say. Go look up the battle of Kursk and then tell me if there's any way that can happen in 40K.

Maybe a 2v2 or 3v3 battles, but before apoc scale I thinks!
Scratch that. This is more like 2v2/3v3 apoc match.

Well, at Kursk, they had the advantage of being able to shoot further than they could throw a rock.

Bharring wrote:
Well, at Kursk, they had the advantage of being able to shoot further than they could throw a rock.

True that. Oh, GW.

 skchsan wrote:

 Horst wrote:
...40k is about large scale battles with large vehicles. Apocalypse takes that one level higher even, and the REALLY big boys play there.

Not true in the slightest. Guess how many super heavies populate the world of 40k? A few outliers are ruining the balance as a whole.

Killteam is about skirmish between small cells. 40k is about large battle with battalions of armies. Apocalypse is world war scale.

40K still meets that definition. A battalion could certainly have a Baneblade, or a few Knights assigned to it. Would they be in every battle? No, but this is a scale where it makes sense for them to operate. Apocalypse is world war scale... where you have Warlord and Emperor Titans, Thunderhawks, multiple lances of Knights (like Battletech style, where you'd have 3 lances of 4 in a company), multiple companies of main battle tanks, etc.

There are probably more Titans, and certainly more Knights, than there are Alaitoc Shining Spear Exarchs, but we certainly see more Shining Spear Exarchs on tables than Titans.

40k is a company scale game. Apocalypse (previously Epic) is a mass battle scale. Kill Team is a skirmish/warband level game.

Despite the org charts erroneous names, the game is company scale and below.

No matter what has been brought into the games.
The rules are not able to properly handle the differences in scale from guy with a knife to walking titanic robot with montain shattering guns. the d6 cant cope with the scale shift.

It is because of that i say the super heavies should not be part of the game.

If we need tiers thats fine. My earlier post was meant to convey GW has and will continue to remove things from the game. The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

 Stux wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

That's why I was so happy that I got years of use out of the expanded Corsairs line! </sarcasm>

More seriously; yes, they're part of the game. Expect to face them. There's nothing wrong with *someone else* liking them and wanting to field them.

Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

Edit - not helpful. As the previous poster said, outside the Castellan, it's not so dire.

Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 42% chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 225 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

224.66 shots > 149.77 hits + 24.96 hits (rerolled 1's); 145.61 ~6's + 29.12 6's > 24.26 wounds + 20.22 wounds (rerolled doom) @ AP 0 + 9.70 + 4.04 wounds (doom reroll) @ AP-3 > 14.83 wounds unsaved at 3+, 9.16 wounds unsaved at 5++.

EDITEDIT bad math. 225 shuriken shots

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Doom is super reliable, shuriken can reroll 1s to hit for Biel-Tan/Autarch, roll 6s to wound that give -3AP, Jinx can lower your save. Eldar can combo down your superheavy with a couple of characters and basic troops. Your maths hot take doesn’t factor synergy in at all, and that’s an Eldar strong suit.

With Jinx, biel-tan CT:

159.96 shots > 106.64 hits + 17.77 hits (rerolled 1's); 103.68 ~6's + 20.73 6's > 17.28 wounds + 14.40 wounds (rerolled doom) @ AP 0 + 6.91 + 2.88 wounds (doom reroll) @ AP-3 > 15.84 wounds unsaved at 3+ minus 1 (from jinx), 8.16 wounds unsaved at 5++ minus 1 (from jinx).

So you're looking at about 640~900 pts of guardians before farseer. I don't think that's a good trade.

EDITEDITEDIT and don't forget the HQ taxes required to bring two battalions to bring 8 to 12 units of guardians

 skchsan wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Superheavies are not even that hard to kill, outside of that one edge case Knight. Eldar can do it simply with Doom and enough shuriken.

So... there's 1/6 chance to get doom off, and when you do, mathematical probability shows us that you need 324 shuriken shots to outright slay a normal knight...

324 shots > 216 hits + 72 hits rerolled; 240 ~6's + 48 6's > 40 wounds @ AP 0 + 16 wounds @ AP-3 > 13.33 wounds unsaved at 3+, 10.67 wounds unsaved at 5++.

Yeah I suppose its significantly easier to kill a knight with doom + 324 shuriken shots than astartes with boltguns.

How the heck do you have a 1/6 chance to get doom off? It almost always is a successful cast.

 Stux wrote:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
The argument once in cant leave is untrue.

That's not really my argument, though it is literally what I said. Sure, in 10 years maybe there's no Superheavies in core 40k again. Maybe they've stopped selling them even, who knows!

But right here, right now? Knights are an army. Relatively new, and selling very well. They are not getting removed from the game any time soon. Years at a minimum.

The poll is do you believe they belong, i stated my opinion and reasoning. Your argument seems to be they are in the game now so they belong. I merely pointed out things get removed.

I voted "limited to apoc."

I just find the game less fun when units like this exist. They are invariably just too strong, or designed in such a way that they create a 1 dimensional gaming experience, instant win or lose.

I also think that the FLYER battlefield role should be changed a bit. With a limitation of 1 per battalion, 2 per brigade, and get rid of the FLYER wing.

But maybe i'm just old school.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doom is definitely not a 1/6 chance to get off.

If you have a Seer Council, you get +1. Rerolling 1 or both, thanks to runes, it is rare to fail.

That said, when you factor in denies, culexus, etc, it changes dramatically. Also, if you factor in some armies "deny on a 4+" abilities, that also shifts the bar. Spells aren't cast in a vacuum.

You're also paying over 200 points for 2 HQs that literally don't do much outside of casting Doom, Guide, and probably Quicken, situationally jinx or protect.