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.

 Horst wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't say 1/6...

But, you are not likely in range because it is only 24" on turn1.
Maybe in range turn 2 if you happen run a biker seer with a huge point intensive shining spears screen or flyers.

That 2+4++ is there and you dont have to roll for it. It just happens. And before you say it, only 2 factions have vect and most tournunamets around where I live are sinlge codex events.

Anyting that you dont have to roll for is reliable.
Psychic powers are beneficial but not 100% reliable.. Its a dice game.

In my opinion, both super-heavies and large fliers should've been Apocalypse only, with rules and statlines created with that in mind. Even things like Knights, Riptides, and Wraithknights straddle the line of what I'd call reasonable for a 6x4 board, never mind to try and force into a D6-based game.

But now they're out and so common, I can't see it being changed. I reckon they'd sooner alter the dice system than reverse decisions to merge super-heavies into regular play, not that I feel that move would be one they'd exactly take, either.

At this point I feel it's more a case of trying to cope with the fact they're here and likely not going away. I might not like it, but that might be partly why I've only played one match since the start of 6th. I don't think I enjoy 40k for what it currently is, but lots of people seem to.

 Argive wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 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.

I wouldn't say 1/6...

But, you are not likely in range because it is only 24" on turn1.
Maybe in range turn 2 if you happen run a biker seer with a huge point intensive shining spears screen or flyers.

That 2+4++ is there and you dont have to roll for it. It just happens. And before you say it, only 2 factions have vect and most tournunamets around where I live are sinlge codex events.

Anyting that you dont have to roll for is reliable.
Psychic powers are beneficial but not 100% reliable.. Its a dice game.

Yeah that was based off my terribad math. It's now edited.

People try to come up with reasons/methods on which knights can be taken out with ease under within-a-vacuum circumstances. When you offer a rebuttal within-a-vacuum calculations they say its not realistic.

 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.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

Bharring wrote:

 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.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 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.

THis is in relation to pointing out that it *only* costs over 1400 points of Guardians within 12" to take down a Castellan. Remove it, because I thought it was off base.

Doom is super reliable - you'll have it 80% of the time. The numbers above assumed 100% for free, so 20% of the time it's (6/11ths) as good
Shurikens can reroll 1s - sure, it's like having an Autarch or Captain - an 11% increase in firepower at the cost of Chapter Tactics (or Autarch)
Rolls of 6s giving -3 AP means fuckall against a 3+/3++ target. RIS is silly.
Jinx can lower saves - but now that's another Warlock, and it's at ~ 80% chance (including spending a CP on rerolling) to increase firepower by 50% - a net increase of 40%.

So by adding two HQs, a Chapter Trait, and manifesting 2 different Powers, you're looking at something like 50% better firepower 65% of the time. So you only need roughly 1000 points of Guardians and only a couple hundred points of HQs? Yay?

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

Don't disagree. This part of the thread was a response to "Doom + Shuriken will kill Knights" - technically true, but not effective. Guardsmen (or any other S4 or lower) troop basically do the same.

Those Skyweavers with Doom really do rock a Castellan. 3++ T8 and 24 wounds? Haywire is one of the few tools that it fears. They'll scare just about any unit.

I'm not confident that they'd be cost effective at dropping things like Vypers or others of it's class, but that's a whole other rabbit hole. They're definitely good - and the meta practically demands them.

Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

Mono they are because there is atleast another two 5++ save knights for you to shoot instead.
Really sounds like Knights could be made a lot less contentious by requiring a lance for strategum access.

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

I find Super Heavies - and Knights in particular - make for an incredibly boring game.

Win or lose, there's simply no fun to be had when playing against them because they're so one-dimensional.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
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.

It is not just about winning tournaments, it is also about the overall experience. Pure Knight lists are an extreme skew list with some bad match-ups so if they hit that match they drop out of contention for the tournament. That does not make the experience of playing against them any better for the other 4 players over the weekend.

Obviously the same issue applies to other massive skew lists and could be said of a green tide list - and would be just as true. But this discussion is about superheavies so let us look at the extreme skew that superheavies might bring to the game. A lot of the spam skew lists got fixed by the rule of 3 but I find that there are a few which pretty much escaped the effects of that
* Troop spam lists (hordes)
* Superheavy lists (in which each model is already the equivalent skew factor to 3 or 4 "normal" models IMO)
* Factions with overlapping very similar datasheets (such as Daemon Princes).

I think each of those wants looking at in its own away and to the extent that it can tend to create poor game experiences - especially on the middle tables and pick-up games which is where most of the good or bad gaming experiences will be happening.

The other thing that messes with game balance is the return on investment for any force multiplier when applied to a single unit which has such a huge value. Force multipliers (buffs) are not really scaled to the size of the thing they buff at all - which makes the game simpler and more streamlined but also does create balance issues especially when those buffs get stacked. If the game had equal access to de-buffs then this would all balance out but as currently designed most factions have a lot more buffs available that de-buffs so those super-expensive units benefit hugely.

 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.

Well, you could put your Squats up for sale and see what happens. You might be able to buy a few Knights with the proceeds.

In all seriousness, you are talking about things that happened over 20 years ago (mostly in the transition from RT to 2nd Ed) or a thing that has not happened (regular Space Marines). Knights are premium models that GW appears to be quite proud of. They are also quite popular, and not just for competitive reasons. The models you are talking about from the RT days were, at best, fringe models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I find Super Heavies - and Knights in particular - make for an incredibly boring game.

Win or lose, there's simply no fun to be had when playing against them because they're so one-dimensional.

I've had some very fun tourney games against Lords of War (Baneblades and Knights mostly). I had a hilarious game against a list with three Baneblades and an NPC Warhound (I'm serious). I wouldn't call them one-dimensional. They can be absolutely frustrating if you don't have a plan for facing them. That's true of lots of things.

I think that a maximum 4++ save on Lords of War would go a long way to alleviating some of the anxiety out there. Nobody was worried about Knights before their Codex. Mortarian, Magnus and Guilliman might need a more finesse solution.

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.

You're likely to have reroll, but very unlikely to have bonuses. So it's likely 82%.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

2 units of 6 Skyweavers don't need Guide to reliably delete a Doomed Castellan. It's one of the few reliable ways to do it.

Ice_can wrote:

 _SeeD_ wrote:
Knights with 3++ save need to be balanced better.

Mono they are because there is atleast another two 5++ save knights for you to shoot instead.

A couple of things I'm salty about:
Rotate Ion shields costs ONE command point and can be activated as soon as you're targeted. Grey knights Heed the Prognosticars costs TWO CP and has to be done at the beginning of your turn, so you have to make that commitment before you know if you're going to be shot or not.

Bharring wrote:

Drager wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
So... there's 42% chance to get doom off

With no rerolls or bonuses it's 58% and you do have rerolls and bonuses. Doom goes off ~90% with standard bonuses ~ 95% with eldrad.

You're likely to have reroll, but very unlikely to have bonuses. So it's likely 82%.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:

We all know that nobody kills Castellans with Guardians... you throw Skyweavers at it. 2 units of 6 Skyweavers is 500 pts, and if they are guided, and the Castellan is doomed, it should not survive that. So 600 pts of Harlequins units will wipe out 600 pts of Knights easily.

They'll also wipe out literally any other tank in the game, so they're just generally good anti-tank.

I can't guide skyweavers.

2 units of 6 Skyweavers don't need Guide to reliably delete a Doomed Castellan. It's one of the few reliable ways to do it.

+1 from Seer council is common. And I'm aware of the potency of skyweavers.

Superheavies are a genie that’s out of the bottle. The only way to put them back is to discuss list building with your local group, and that is to say it’s on you not the game.

Don’t like them, don’t use them.

Don’t like playing against them, don’t play against them.

Or you can buckle down and just deal with them. They are here to stay.

SJ

Tomb Kings are a genie out of the bottle. They are simply here to stay now and you just have to deal with it

 SHUPPET wrote:
Tomb Kings are a genie out of the bottle. They are simply here to stay now and you just have to deal with it

Hey, Setra never did kneel, the world broke before he did. #BuiltTombKingTough

I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

I’m playing a 2vs2 match next weekend, 1500 pts each and I asked for a non-super-Heavy game and all agreed. I’m really looking forward to it.

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers. To me that's what 40K should be like. It's fun, and you can always agree limitations with your opponent in casual games if you want to play something specific. Knights have a full codex now and players have invested in the models. Not only that but they sell well so GW are not going to remove them from the game.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

That's an absurd argument. Buying a model and then being told you can't use it in the game you bought it for is an absolutely and completely different situation to not wanting someone else's models in your game.

What a ridiculous false equivalence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, there are armies that have been retired in the past. Squats, and Corsairs. But surely we aren't advocating for the retiring of other people's armies now? Just because it happened to some people, no one would be spiteful enough to wish it on others right?

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers.

But wouldn't it be better to have different systems for this? One for the skirmish games and one for the big, epic battles?

 Brother Castor wrote:
It's fun

[Citation needed.]

 vipoid wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
I like the variation. You can play everything from skirmishes between a few units of infantry up to massive wars between armies that include knights and large flyers.

But wouldn't it be better to have different systems for this? One for the skirmish games and one for the big, epic battles?

Personally I like having them all in the same system.

 vipoid wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
It's fun

[Citation needed.]

I guess we have differing opinions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think TITANIC units would be fun for your opponent in a small game unless the point was just to experience what it's like to play against them.

At the same time though, I think it's amazing that Forge World sell models and rules for a Chaos Warlord Titan.

Ice_can wrote:
Super heavies atleast feel like they should be part of 40K heck even Titans while were way cooler in Epic make sence.

Super sonic Flyers make no sense in 40k, like realy these marines can not move this direction because flyer, and the supersonic fighter with psychic flamers WTF?

Atleast baneblades, knights, primarchs make sence.

So Giants robots and tanks who need big transports to get carried from planet to planet are ok and flyers who are used more often are no ?

 Stux wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I feel like 40k itself could use something like a slider:

Like, 1. Skirmish 2. Battle 3. Total War.

A Skirmish limits you to no more than a single HQ, elite, heavy. or fast attack, and no more than two of the four in one army. No named characters.

A Battle gives you a basic game of 40k, but only up to one Lord of War, flier, etc, thus keeping the madness somewhat contained with "normal" stuff.

A Total War scenario unleashes everything, in any amount.

That said, if I know players, they would likely always play Total War. At least we can always house rule it smaller if we wish...

Again though, where does this leave a player who was sold on the game by Codex Imperial Knights?

Does the IK Codex have an exception to allow unlimited Lord of War in a 'Battle'? If so, is there much point in this restriction at all?

The same place it left all the people sold on the game of 40k with LoW in Apocalypse only.

That's an absurd argument. Buying a model and then being told you can't use it in the game you bought it for is an absolutely and completely different situation to not wanting someone else's models in your game.

What a ridiculous false equivalence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, there are armies that have been retired in the past. Squats, and Corsairs. But surely we aren't advocating for the retiring of other people's armies now? Just because it happened to some people, no one would be spiteful enough to wish it on others right?

I wonder if it has end up a similar result, when knights come out. I remember it was a play a game or two against them. Then try and avoid them :( No one wanted to play that game at all. When it come to it, if you are not having fun and the other player can only play the game that way. Someone ends up being pushed out.

The problem with wanting 40k to cater to everyone is one set of rules CANNOT do this. Different size games want different levels of detail. In a large scale system you don't want to care about specific weapons, but that information is a must-have in a skirmish game.

We are in the boat we are with 40k precisely because they tried to make a one size fits all game, and showed exactly why that is not done in game design.

It's been the same since RT days though. And back then you treated each model separately, not as units...