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.

the_scotsman wrote:
Exactly the same as it is now?

Yall know the meta is space marine parking lot/gun line right now, yes? Not superheavies.

okey, but why does such a situation exist? It is because armies had to kill castellans before, and now they have to dealw ith repulsors, tau drone farms etc. If the meta game had valid melee or short range unit, that weren't just fast moving gunline, maybe all games wouldn't turn in to a castel vs castel matchs.
Fire power adds its fair share to it too, if being in the open means losing half the army for most armies, and there is almost nothing that could encourge spreading. we get 2000pts hidding behind a single hill or building

 bullyboy wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I really don't understand the hate boner against superheavies dakka seems to have. They're not unstoppable killing machines... they have clear and obvious counters. They're not considered "meta" anymore, every army has ways to deal with them.

For many, I dont think that is the reason. It's about scale.
Look at what 40k used to be back in 2nd and 3rd, thats what I feel people would like to see return.

But why is that necessary? You can just choose to play 8th with the units that you'd have had available in 2nd/3rd. Why is there so much impetus to change things for those of who don't want that also?

I don't entirely buy the scale argument either. I think it's far more a taste and personal perspective thing that's being put forward here.
A Knight, in so many ways makes FAR more sense to see on the table than any single named character in 40K for example. There are thousands of Knights after all, and for many worlds in fluff, they represent that worlds entire military presence. You come at them, they defend with Knight suits.

 StrayIight wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I really don't understand the hate boner against superheavies dakka seems to have. They're not unstoppable killing machines... they have clear and obvious counters. They're not considered "meta" anymore, every army has ways to deal with them.

For many, I dont think that is the reason. It's about scale.
Look at what 40k used to be back in 2nd and 3rd, thats what I feel people would like to see return.

But why is that necessary? You can just choose to play 8th with the units that you'd have had available in 2nd/3rd. Why is there so much impetus to change things for those of who don't want that also?

I don't entirely buy the scale argument either. I think it's far more a taste and personal perspective thing that's being put forward here.
A Knight, in so many ways makes FAR more sense to see on the table than any single named character in 40K for example. There are thousands of Knights after all, and for many worlds in fluff, they represent that worlds entire military presence. You come at them, they defend with Knight suits.

But if you show up with a 4th/5th or earlier TAC style list and someone puts down a few knights you are not gonna have a fun game.

There are also many more of the larger Titans in the universe than the named characters. Wouldnt it make sense to have them as well in the game?

Its the same reason I lost interest in Warmachine. I liked the smaller scale of it but when they went from 60mm bases on the largest models to 120mm in battle engines and collosals it just felt wrong. From playing with 1-3 jacks and 5-20 infantry models suddenly its just a warcaster and 2 HUGE models on the table. Looks much more boring and also makes more boring game play since there are fewer models to interact with. Often also less possible actions to take since many of the smaller/cheaper units cant really do much in the face of the larger and more expensive models. They are just standing on objectives passively.

2 well rounded lists with 2 HQs, 2-4 troops, maybe 1 of them are scouts, 2 transports, a dread, a few veterans/terminators, 2 out of assault marines/speeders/bikes and to finish it off a whirlwind, a predator and a devastator squad. 2 lists like that facing each other have lots of different ways to interact and have many different optimal targets that will change during the game. They all do slightly different things and the game isnt over if you lose one or two of the units. But if you have 1500pts of knights on the other side half your units suddenly dont have much to do except camp objectives and the rest try to kill a knight. If they succed and start killing of knights early you will snowball into victory. If the knights start and kill an anti tank unit and you in your turn just fail to finish one of them off then they snowball to their victory. Games easily become more binary when you have so few and strong models on the table.

Klickor wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I really don't understand the hate boner against superheavies dakka seems to have. They're not unstoppable killing machines... they have clear and obvious counters. They're not considered "meta" anymore, every army has ways to deal with them.

For many, I dont think that is the reason. It's about scale.
Look at what 40k used to be back in 2nd and 3rd, thats what I feel people would like to see return.

But why is that necessary? You can just choose to play 8th with the units that you'd have had available in 2nd/3rd. Why is there so much impetus to change things for those of who don't want that also?

I don't entirely buy the scale argument either. I think it's far more a taste and personal perspective thing that's being put forward here.
A Knight, in so many ways makes FAR more sense to see on the table than any single named character in 40K for example. There are thousands of Knights after all, and for many worlds in fluff, they represent that worlds entire military presence. You come at them, they defend with Knight suits.

But if you show up with a 4th/5th or earlier TAC style list and someone puts down a few knights you are not gonna have a fun game.

There are also many more of the larger Titans in the universe than the named characters. Wouldnt it make sense to have them as well in the game?

Its the same reason I lost interest in Warmachine. I liked the smaller scale of it but when they went from 60mm bases on the largest models to 120mm in battle engines and collosals it just felt wrong. From playing with 1-3 jacks and 5-20 infantry models suddenly its just a warcaster and 2 HUGE models on the table. Looks much more boring and also makes more boring game play since there are fewer models to interact with. Often also less possible actions to take since many of the smaller/cheaper units cant really do much in the face of the larger and more expensive models. They are just standing on objectives passively.

2 well rounded lists with 2 HQs, 2-4 troops, maybe 1 of them are scouts, 2 transports, a dread, a few veterans/terminators, 2 out of assault marines/speeders/bikes and to finish it off a whirlwind, a predator and a devastator squad. 2 lists like that facing each other have lots of different ways to interact and have many different optimal targets that will change during the game. They all do slightly different things and the game isnt over if you lose one or two of the units. But if you have 1500pts of knights on the other side half your units suddenly dont have much to do except camp objectives and the rest try to kill a knight. If they succed and start killing of knights early you will snowball into victory. If the knights start and kill an anti tank unit and you in your turn just fail to finish one of them off then they snowball to their victory. Games easily become more binary when you have so few and strong models on the table.

This. As someone who played more 3re edition than any other I have to agree with this assessment. I am so close to just buying a second hand copy of 3rd edition and just sticking with that. Knights were and remain one of the worst additions to 40k. As GW killed of Epic, we have seen the slow release of Epic models and scale into 40k, it comes from a pure business sense. A 28mm scale Knight costs more to buy than a 6mm scale Knight, so has a bigger profit margin, especially as more people play 40k than played Epic.

Klickor wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Horst wrote:
I really don't understand the hate boner against superheavies dakka seems to have. They're not unstoppable killing machines... they have clear and obvious counters. They're not considered "meta" anymore, every army has ways to deal with them.

For many, I dont think that is the reason. It's about scale.
Look at what 40k used to be back in 2nd and 3rd, thats what I feel people would like to see return.

But why is that necessary? You can just choose to play 8th with the units that you'd have had available in 2nd/3rd. Why is there so much impetus to change things for those of who don't want that also?

I don't entirely buy the scale argument either. I think it's far more a taste and personal perspective thing that's being put forward here.
A Knight, in so many ways makes FAR more sense to see on the table than any single named character in 40K for example. There are thousands of Knights after all, and for many worlds in fluff, they represent that worlds entire military presence. You come at them, they defend with Knight suits.

But if you show up with a 4th/5th or earlier TAC style list and someone puts down a few knights you are not gonna have a fun game.

There are also many more of the larger Titans in the universe than the named characters. Wouldnt it make sense to have them as well in the game?

Well, fun is a subjective thing. I'd have plenty of fun playing a Knight list, and I'm not alone in that. You wouldn't, and that's ok too - we are all able to have what we want here. We are all able to play who we want, with what we want, when we want, anywhere outside of organised events. And that is absolutely the way it should be.

What we shouldn't be doing, is campaigning to change the base game in such a way that it suits us, but robs others of their choice in how to play. Right now, we can all have our cake and eat it.

With regard to the Titans, yes! It does make more sense to have them in a game than any named character (in most circumstances). And Titans cause no balance issue at all outside of this fluff arguement, because they're pointed in such a way that you'll never see one fielded in a normal game. I see no issue here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:


This. As someone who played more 3re edition than any other I have to agree with this assessment. I am so close to just buying a second hand copy of 3rd edition and just sticking with that. Knights were and remain one of the worst additions to 40k. As GW killed of Epic, we have seen the slow release of Epic models and scale into 40k, it comes from a pure business sense. A 28mm scale Knight costs more to buy than a 6mm scale Knight, so has a bigger profit margin, especially as more people play 40k than played Epic.

Or, just don't play using, or against Knights in your personal games..? I'm struggling to see why you'd limit yourself and the games you'd get by changing to an out of support edition, than just taking a trivial measure to make 8th work for you. O.o

Rather than a ban, the solution should be like how 30k has it, where you can only spend like 25% on one. It would basically push the worst offenders out of normal games but keep them for large games where they fit better anyways.

Superheavies dont typically dominate a meta by themselves, but what they do do is gatekeep. There's a lot of stuff that you don't see on tables because they either cant deal with superheavies or have to be cut in order to fit the stuff that can, particularly if it involves multiple superheavies.

More critically, the biggest issue with superheavies is those with an Invulnerable save that negate 33-50% of the big expensive AT guns turned on them. Those without invul saves don't seem to have much effect on the metagame, and don't really present a greater threat profile than say a squadron of Russ tanks do.

More critically, I think the rules and army design could be done much better without superheavies and refocus the game scale more appropriately, but I think the current top end meta wouldn't be too shaken all else being equal if there are no rules changes.

 Vaktathi wrote:


More critically, the biggest issue with superheavies is those with an Invulnerable save that negate 33-50% of the big expensive AT guns turned on them. Those without invul saves don't seem to have much effect on the metagame, and don't really present a greater threat profile than say a squadron of Russ tanks do.

I think this is more an issue with the Invuln save mechanic itself, than an issue with superheavies, but I agree with what you're saying. Any unit with a great many wounds (regardless of superheavy status) tends to exaggerate that same issue further.

As a Knight player, I've long been in favour of a return to a system similar to the Ion shield facing that existed previously. It makes me have to think more about my positioning (which enhances my game), and gives another counterplay opportunity to the other player as they can now attempt to out position me, and negate my invuln entirely.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Superheavies dont typically dominate a meta by themselves, but what they do do is gatekeep. There's a lot of stuff that you don't see on tables because they either cant deal with superheavies or have to be cut in order to fit the stuff that can, particularly if it involves multiple superheavies....
More critically, I think the rules and army design could be done much better without superheavies and refocus the game scale more appropriately, but I think the current top end meta wouldn't be too shaken all else being equal if there are no rules changes.

Pretty much this.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Superheavies dont typically dominate a meta by themselves, but what they do do is gatekeep. There's a lot of stuff that you don't see on tables because they either cant deal with superheavies or have to be cut in order to fit the stuff that can, particularly if it involves multiple superheavies.

More critically, the biggest issue with superheavies is those with an Invulnerable save that negate 33-50% of the big expensive AT guns turned on them. Those without invul saves don't seem to have much effect on the metagame, and don't really present a greater threat profile than say a squadron of Russ tanks do.

More critically, I think the rules and army design could be done much better without superheavies and refocus the game scale more appropriately, but I think the current top end meta wouldn't be too shaken all else being equal if there are no rules changes.

This is pretty much my opinion as well. A LOT of the conversations I have with people these days revolve around "but can it kill a Knight?"
The implication is that if it can't, it's worthless, and if it can, it's next to a must-have in your army. I think all across the board options that are normally overlooked because they don't help in killing the Imperial Knight Profile (t8, 3+/5++, 20+ wounds), will be considered more seriously.

Think about all the things in the Space Marine Codex that you don't see on the table, even though Iron Hands are dominating right now. Things like Reivers, Terminators, Bikers, Assault Squads, Land Speeders, Hunters, Stalkers, Vindicators, and Land Raiders, along with a bunch of weapon options for units that *are* used quite a bit might actually be worth their salt in an environment where there are going to be more infantry or lower toughness/wounds tanks.

Especially when you consider the types of weapons and profiles that those superheavies bring to bear. The avenger gattling cannon deletes primaris, or anything else with 2 wounds, like terminators and bikers. Without superheavies, things like fliers might become more potent since they're harder to hit, which brings back some of the anti-air tech that space marines have.

I don't think it reduces the options that a person can bring at all. In fact, I think dropping superheavies brings back a lot of options from codexes that people would overlook, meaning you have MORE options on building your army than you had before.

Wayniac wrote:
Rather than a ban, the solution should be like how 30k has it, where you can only spend like 25% on one. It would basically push the worst offenders out of normal games but keep them for large games where they fit better anyways.

The problem with that solution is that under gw's current points structure it would limit baneblade chassis, relegate hellforged/relic low and stompas to apocalypse and do little to knights other than castellan/tyrants. And knights and their invuls are what most of the anti low crowd are complaining about.

Super heavys don't dominate and aren't op. Everyone should know how to deal with them at this point. There's even a poll on this site right now on what people use against heavy armour. And not surprisingly there's LOTS of options.

 Vaktathi wrote:


This is pretty much my opinion as well. A LOT of the conversations I have with people these days revolve around "but can it kill a Knight?"
The implication is that if it can't, it's worthless, and if it can, it's next to a must-have in your army. I think all across the board options that are normally overlooked because they don't help in killing the Imperial Knight Profile (t8, 3+/5++, 20+ wounds), will be considered more seriously.

Think about all the things in the Space Marine Codex that you don't see on the table, even though Iron Hands are dominating right now. Things like Reivers, Terminators, Bikers, Assault Squads, Land Speeders, Hunters, Stalkers, Vindicators, and Land Raiders, along with a bunch of weapon options for units that *are* used quite a bit might actually be worth their salt in an environment where there are going to be more infantry or lower toughness/wounds tanks.

Especially when you consider the types of weapons and profiles that those superheavies bring to bear. The avenger gattling cannon deletes primaris, or anything else with 2 wounds, like terminators and bikers. Without superheavies, things like fliers might become more potent since they're harder to hit, which brings back some of the anti-air tech that space marines have.

I don't think it reduces the options that a person can bring at all. In fact, I think dropping superheavies brings back a lot of options from codexes that people would overlook, meaning you have MORE options on building your army than you had before.

This seems asinine to me.

You state that the existance of a unit, is what causes a selection of options in a codex to be deemed bad, and its removal will suddenly open up all, or most, of a codexes choices?

It really won't.

The meta always evolves to have a selection of units and combos at the top. At *one* point in 8th, that was a specific Knight (the Castellan), when supported and used in a very specific way. It was never 'Knights' as a whole. In fact, at the start of 8th, Knights were largely seen as quite poor choices - and they had stronger saves at times back then!

The removal of superheavies will simply mean they aren't there. There will still be another unit or combo at the top of the meta, and that will invalidate a whole group of unit options from being taken, just like you feel the case is now. Knights are not dominating the competitive meta currently. It can be sensibly argued that they haven't had hugely significant impact at all since the Castellan was adjusted.

If they're having an unwelcome impact in your personal games, omit them.

Many of these arguments are not about superheavies causing an actual issue - there will always be units causing an issue. It's about superheavies not fitting some individuals personal view of how 40K should be. And that's fine, you can play it your way - but let others play it theirs.

drbored wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Superheavies dont typically dominate a meta by themselves, but what they do do is gatekeep. There's a lot of stuff that you don't see on tables because they either cant deal with superheavies or have to be cut in order to fit the stuff that can, particularly if it involves multiple superheavies.

More critically, the biggest issue with superheavies is those with an Invulnerable save that negate 33-50% of the big expensive AT guns turned on them. Those without invul saves don't seem to have much effect on the metagame, and don't really present a greater threat profile than say a squadron of Russ tanks do.

More critically, I think the rules and army design could be done much better without superheavies and refocus the game scale more appropriately, but I think the current top end meta wouldn't be too shaken all else being equal if there are no rules changes.

This is pretty much my opinion as well. A LOT of the conversations I have with people these days revolve around "but can it kill a Knight?"
The implication is that if it can't, it's worthless, and if it can, it's next to a must-have in your army. I think all across the board options that are normally overlooked because they don't help in killing the Imperial Knight Profile (t8, 3+/5++, 20+ wounds), will be considered more seriously.

Think about all the things in the Space Marine Codex that you don't see on the table, even though Iron Hands are dominating right now. Things like Reivers, Terminators, Bikers, Assault Squads, Land Speeders, Hunters, Stalkers, Vindicators, and Land Raiders, along with a bunch of weapon options for units that *are* used quite a bit might actually be worth their salt in an environment where there are going to be more infantry or lower toughness/wounds tanks.

Especially when you consider the types of weapons and profiles that those superheavies bring to bear. The avenger gattling cannon deletes primaris, or anything else with 2 wounds, like terminators and bikers. Without superheavies, things like fliers might become more potent since they're harder to hit, which brings back some of the anti-air tech that space marines have.

I don't think it reduces the options that a person can bring at all. In fact, I think dropping superheavies brings back a lot of options from codexes that people would overlook, meaning you have MORE options on building your army than you had before.

So agree with your post. Knights and other LoW pushes the upperlimit of the strongest models ever higher and due to how shallow the game mechanics are make it harder for many of the units inbetween to have a space to shine. If everything better than a land raider were removed,like back to 5th ed, it would probably be much easier to balance units and armies both internaly and externaly. If the land raiders toughness and fire power the new standard. No T8 4++ and 20+ wounds with insanely powerful weapons available anymore. Then a lascannon would suddenly feel more threatening and all the guns between a demolisher cannon and a lasgun would feel like they have more of a purpose. Of course some limitations on certain units should still be in place so it doesnt just become 3+3 repulsors or 4 TC + 6 russes.

Either you remove/abstract the top end or the low end of the scale. Like what usage do normal guardsmen or grots have in a game with knights? Cheaper units should just be 10 bases glued together like a movement tray for fantasy and have common values like in apoc. No individuality. Or they remove them or LoW completely. You could also consolidate a ton of the units, weapons and even armies out there so instead of changing the scale of grot to dominus class knight we keep it but simplify everything inbetween. The game is too wide and too deep(in too many options not deep and engaging core rules) for the rules we have and it suffers from it in many ways. GW will propably try to eat the cake and keep it so they wont do any hard and necessary decisions though.

Klickor wrote:
Like what usage do normal guardsmen or grots have in a game with knights?

Generating CP, filling out detachments, screening for the units in their respective armies which are supposed to be killing targets like Knights, capturing objectives...

 StrayIight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


More critically, the biggest issue with superheavies is those with an Invulnerable save that negate 33-50% of the big expensive AT guns turned on them. Those without invul saves don't seem to have much effect on the metagame, and don't really present a greater threat profile than say a squadron of Russ tanks do.

I think this is more an issue with the Invuln save mechanic itself, than an issue with superheavies, but I agree with what you're saying. Any unit with a great many wounds (regardless of superheavy status) tends to exaggerate that same issue further.

As a Knight player, I've long been in favour of a return to a system similar to the Ion shield facing that existed previously. It makes me have to think more about my positioning (which enhances my game), and gives another counterplay opportunity to the other player as they can now attempt to out position me, and negate my invuln entirely.

Truth is, that some vehicles pay More for an invulnerable then others.

Take daemonengines, even the big ones, yes they got baseline a 5++, which nobody takes seriously and in the case of the smaller ones is outright cripplingly balanced with the worse BS seemingly.

The best exemple would be a forgfiend with an amiriger, there is comparatively little reason to not pick the amiriger over the Forgefiend. The bigger comparisons further extrapolate that.
Additionally a lot of the bigger super heavies are not priced fairly. (cough fellblade, macharius, malcador, minotaur, etc.)

 StrayIight wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Like what usage do normal guardsmen or grots have in a game with knights?

Generating CP, filling out detachments, screening for the units in their respective armies which are supposed to be killing targets like Knights, capturing objectives...

The unit yes but I was more talking about the single models. In fights with Knight sized units its just a waste of time with units upgrade and individual movement or stats on weak models like that. They should be put on a tray and moved around in groups of 5 or 10 and have a few attacks and wounds and not 10 wounds and 37! shots. Like have anything below 6-10pts (dont know the exact pt breakdown) treated as if it were apocalypse and abstracted. Or soon we will have 2pts models and 800pts models being played in the same game. I know there are expensive models that cost more than the castellan but thankfully they dont really see play even if legal. We already have a 225x difference already which is quite a lot more than the 40x or so we had less than a decade ago between cheapest and most expensive model. The rule set isnt really good with such a scale difference.

In warmachine you had cheapest at 1/3 of a point (scrap thralls) and most expensive was 13pts(Behemoth was 13 in mk2 right?) at the time I and most of my friends thought the system worked the best. Thats only a 40x difference and it feels like around there is where the cutoff is for a system. Mostly it was models around 1-12pts that saw play. When that difference doubled the whole feel of the game changed and not for the better I think. Too large of a scope is just hard to simulate well in a reasonable amount of time and effort on the table with D6 dice. No problem at all in computer games but you shouldnt really try outside of that.

The OP is asking the wrong question. Instead of "if Super Heavies..." what they should be asking is "if Soup..."

The problem isn't the presence of Super Heavies. Or Flyers. Or really any one Faction or its units. The problem lies in how Soup allows you to exploit those things and make them into issues.

Yes the existence of super heavys causes people to include things in their lists that can deal with them.

The existence of deep strike causes people to include things in their armies that can deal with deep striking. Want to ban that as well?

Every kind of threat requires a response. That doesn't make it bad.

And if super heavys are so op why do people always say my fellblade isn't "efficient ".

Klickor wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Like what usage do normal guardsmen or grots have in a game with knights?

Generating CP, filling out detachments, screening for the units in their respective armies which are supposed to be killing targets like Knights, capturing objectives...

The unit yes but I was more talking about the single models. In fights with Knight sized units its just a waste of time with units upgrade and individual movement or stats on weak models like that. They should be put on a tray and moved around in groups of 5 or 10 and have a few attacks and wounds and not 10 wounds and 37! shots. Like have anything below 6-10pts (dont know the exact pt breakdown) treated as if it were apocalypse and abstracted. Or soon we will have 2pts models and 800pts models being played in the same game. I know there are expensive models that cost more than the castellan but thankfully they dont really see play even if legal. We already have a 225x difference already which is quite a lot more than the 40x or so we had less than a decade ago between cheapest and most expensive model. The rule set isnt really good with such a scale difference.

In warmachine you had cheapest at 1/3 of a point (scrap thralls) and most expensive was 13pts(Behemoth was 13 in mk2 right?) at the time I and most of my friends thought the system worked the best. Thats only a 40x difference and it feels like around there is where the cutoff is for a system. Mostly it was models around 1-12pts that saw play. When that difference doubled the whole feel of the game changed and not for the better I think. Too large of a scope is just hard to simulate well in a reasonable amount of time and effort on the table with D6 dice. No problem at all in computer games but you shouldnt really try outside of that.

...You don't take Guardsmen as single models though. You take them as a unit. Are you saying you'd like a 5 point model to be able to have a good chance to take out a 200 point one? I wouldn't.
Again, options like Knights existing doesn't mean that they have to impact you and your games one iota if you don't wish for them to. That's entirely a choice you make.

I do not see the issue with 2 point models being able to be in the same game with 800 point models where the game is conciously supporting both I can already take a 2000 point Warhound in a 2k points game where your 2 point model is present - and I'll likely lose horribly because I did so.
Knights and Guardsmen do very different things, but both are useful. The fact you'll struggle to kill a Knight with a Guardsman is a non-issue. A Guardsman will struggle to kill a lot of units in the game - he isn't designed to take on a great many units. But the elements he supports are quite capable of doing so.

The existance of a unit that costs several hundred points, does NOT make a cheaper unit 'useless'. It MAY make them less likely to get used in the way that suits your vision of how they should work however...

Wtf? How did you read it as I want 5pt models being able to kill 200pt models?

Im just saying that an individual guardsmen or grot is worthless and we are wasting time shooting up to 37 attacks that on average deal 1 damage to a knight or kill 1 intercessor. It should be abstracted like apocalypse if we want to have such a wide scale in power. Like dont remove any models until 6 wounds abd then remove the unit and instead of shooting 19/37 shots you get 2/4 or 4/8 shot and hit on 2s and wound on 2s against infantry and perhaps 5+ on tanks.

Having both models costing 1000pts and those costing 3pts acting in the same way and treating them as equally important in how much depth and detail they have is insane. But treating a 30 or 40 pt unit more like a single model makes more sense. Then you are narrowing the gap the core rules need to fill.

But you probably also think its a great idea to have a bunch of powerweapons that all cost about 4pts and do basically the same thing being an option on a small squad sergeant while in reality which ever option you choose doesnt matter. It is just there to make the game look more in depth than it actually is. Could probably add a power knife, a power scimitar and a powerstaff(not the same as a force staff) while at it. More tiny details must be better!!

Klickor wrote:
Wtf? How did you read it as I want 5pt models being able to kill 200pt models?

I asked (it wasn't an accusation) if that was what you were saying because you appeared to state much the same as this in your last post:

Im just saying that an individual guardsmen or grot is worthless and we are wasting time shooting up to 37 attacks that on average deal 1 damage to a knight or kill 1 intercessor.

That does somewhat imply that you believe a far cheaper chaff infantry unit should have a reasonable chance of bringing down one with a cost and role completely incomparable to it's own. You tend to find rifle squads avoid attacking large armoured tanks in modern day warfare also. Strangely.

Guardsmen aren't for killing Knights. But that doesn't make them useless as you want to claim. I gave you a list (which I can happily add to) of things Guardsmen and the like can do, which Knights cannot approach with any sort of sensible effectiveness or efficiency.They aren't really compariable.

But you probably also think its a great idea to have a bunch of powerweapons that all cost about 4pts and do basically the same thing being an option on a small squad sergeant while in reality which ever option you choose doesnt matter. It is just there to make the game look more in depth than it actually is. Could probably add a power knife, a power scimitar and a powerstaff(not the same as a force staff) while at it. More tiny details must be better!!

Are we done? I have no opinion on them as my army doesn't use them. Maybe mail GW with your ideas on power weapons... O.o

Look, I get the meat of what you're saying. But consolidation of individual troops into a larger single whole is already present to a degree - just in a different form from what you describe. I'm just not sure what that adds or subtracts from the reality of the subject of superheavies.

Wayniac wrote:
Rather than a ban, the solution should be like how 30k has it, where you can only spend like 25% on one. It would basically push the worst offenders out of normal games but keep them for large games where they fit better anyways.

No sane person wants to go over 2k in 40k. It'd take like 2 days to play a game big enough to use a castellan.

Gadzilla666 781980 10616381 wrote:
The problem with that solution is that under gw's current points structure it would limit baneblade chassis, relegate hellforged/relic low and stompas to apocalypse and do little to knights other than castellan/tyrants. And knights and their invuls are what most of the anti low crowd are complaining about.

Super heavys don't dominate and aren't op. Everyone should know how to deal with them at this point. There's even a poll on this site right now on what people use against heavy armour. And not surprisingly there's LOTS of options.

how do you deal with multiple knights with an army like GK? because neither melee or shoting works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes the existence of super heavys causes people to include things in their lists that can deal with them.

The existence of deep strike causes people to include things in their armies that can deal with deep striking. Want to ban that as well?

Every kind of threat requires a response. That doesn't make it bad.

And if super heavys are so op why do people always say my fellblade isn't "efficient ".

What about armies that can't include stuff that can counter multiple knights and deep strikers at the same time, or even they don't have an option to counter those at all.

Klickor wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Like what usage do normal guardsmen or grots have in a game with knights?

Generating CP, filling out detachments, screening for the units in their respective armies which are supposed to be killing targets like Knights, capturing objectives...

The unit yes but I was more talking about the single models. In fights with Knight sized units its just a waste of time with units upgrade and individual movement or stats on weak models like that. They should be put on a tray and moved around in groups of 5 or 10 and have a few attacks and wounds and not 10 wounds and 37! shots. Like have anything below 6-10pts (dont know the exact pt breakdown) treated as if it were apocalypse and abstracted. Or soon we will have 2pts models and 800pts models being played in the same game. I know there are expensive models that cost more than the castellan but thankfully they dont really see play even if legal. We already have a 225x difference already which is quite a lot more than the 40x or so we had less than a decade ago between cheapest and most expensive model. The rule set isnt really good with such a scale difference.

In warmachine you had cheapest at 1/3 of a point (scrap thralls) and most expensive was 13pts(Behemoth was 13 in mk2 right?) at the time I and most of my friends thought the system worked the best. Thats only a 40x difference and it feels like around there is where the cutoff is for a system. Mostly it was models around 1-12pts that saw play. When that difference doubled the whole feel of the game changed and not for the better I think. Too large of a scope is just hard to simulate well in a reasonable amount of time and effort on the table with D6 dice. No problem at all in computer games but you shouldnt really try outside of that.

We do have 2pt models and 800point models in the same game. Guardsman do move around in groups of 5-10 with a few attacks and wounds. Few being vaguely defined here.

Honestly it sounds like you're just afraid of big numbers. All of your objections sort of boil down to 'big too big for small, me not like'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Gadzilla666 781980 10616381 wrote:
The problem with that solution is that under gw's current points structure it would limit baneblade chassis, relegate hellforged/relic low and stompas to apocalypse and do little to knights other than castellan/tyrants. And knights and their invuls are what most of the anti low crowd are complaining about.

Super heavys don't dominate and aren't op. Everyone should know how to deal with them at this point. There's even a poll on this site right now on what people use against heavy armour. And not surprisingly there's LOTS of options.

how do you deal with multiple knights with an army like GK? because neither melee or shoting works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes the existence of super heavys causes people to include things in their lists that can deal with them.

The existence of deep strike causes people to include things in their armies that can deal with deep striking. Want to ban that as well?

Every kind of threat requires a response. That doesn't make it bad.

And if super heavys are so op why do people always say my fellblade isn't "efficient ".

What about armies that can't include stuff that can counter multiple knights and deep strikers at the same time, or even they don't have an option to counter those at all.

That comes down to army design. IH, GSC, and Tau don't have a problem dealing with all knights/all grots. Neither do most Eldar variants, IF, WS, or even Knights themselves.

It's not a knight's fault your army is gak and getting rid of knights wouldn't suddenly make them good either.

Karol wrote:

Gadzilla666 781980 10616381 wrote:
The problem with that solution is that under gw's current points structure it would limit baneblade chassis, relegate hellforged/relic low and stompas to apocalypse and do little to knights other than castellan/tyrants. And knights and their invuls are what most of the anti low crowd are complaining about.

Super heavys don't dominate and aren't op. Everyone should know how to deal with them at this point. There's even a poll on this site right now on what people use against heavy armour. And not surprisingly there's LOTS of options.

how do you deal with multiple knights with an army like GK? because neither melee or shoting works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes the existence of super heavys causes people to include things in their lists that can deal with them.

The existence of deep strike causes people to include things in their armies that can deal with deep striking. Want to ban that as well?

Every kind of threat requires a response. That doesn't make it bad.

And if super heavys are so op why do people always say my fellblade isn't "efficient ".

What about armies that can't include stuff that can counter multiple knights and deep strikers at the same time, or even they don't have an option to counter those at all.

The problem isn't low. It's the gk codex. It's gak. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it, and yes it sucks. Hopefully gw will finally get around to fixing gk rules in pa or a new codex. Till then my only suggestion would be to stick with opponents that gk are good against.

Karol wrote:

how do you deal with multiple knights with an army like GK? because neither melee or shoting works.

Psionics (Knights have basically no defense against psychic powers at all), allies (you're Imperium, you have more options vs Knights than any other faction in the game), and playing the objective.

Competitively, Renegade/Chaos Knights, were performing around rougthly the same level as GK statistically until the release of their codex recently. For what it's worth. They're middling at best now.

Gadzilla666 wrote:Yes the existence of super heavys causes people to include things in their lists that can deal with them.

The existence of deep strike causes people to include things in their armies that can deal with deep striking. Want to ban that as well?

Every kind of threat requires a response. That doesn't make it bad.

And if super heavys are so op why do people always say my fellblade isn't "efficient ".

Right!

I think they should have adjusted the FOC a little more rather than giving us the detachment system we have currently. having a hard limit for SH/LOW at a given point total might just do the trick. If they had changed the requirements for what can include a SH @ a specified level, and have exemptions for fluffy stuff. i.e. Knight House, Baneblade column, Air Squadron, etc. Working with more restrictions might breed creativity in how people approach the game. Soup is a problem when left unchecked, with smart restrictions should lead to an unclogging the pipeline(points/stats) allowing them to actually "balance" the game. Well as best/as much as GW wants to/will do.

 StrayIight wrote:


Psionics (Knights have basically no defense against psychic powers at all), allies (you're Imperium, you have more options vs Knights than any other faction in the game), and playing the objective.

Competitively, Renegade/Chaos Knights, were performing around rougthly the same level as GK statistically until the release of their codex recently. For what it's worth. They're middling at best now.

even if you get 6 units of GK and all fire off a smite, and it doesn't get stoped, no perils happen, this is till 6MW at 12" range. it requires a whole army shoting at one for entire turns, to take one down.

I tried playing objectives vs knights, it ends with them shoting me for 2-3 turns and then killing my army in melee. VS armies that just run a single knight it is even worse, because the knight is still doing its thing, but I also have to worry about the rest of my opponent army.

That comes down to army design. IH, GSC, and Tau don't have a problem dealing with all knights/all grots. Neither do most Eldar variants, IF, WS, or even Knights themselves.

It's not a knight's fault your army is gak and getting rid of knights wouldn't suddenly make them good either.

then maybe if GW can't write good rules, instead of buffing other armies, they should put out a CA this time that brings the power of all armies down.

Super heavies quite annoy me in 40k.
As an idea they are ok but are poorly implemented. Anyone who has faced them with an army that has no tools to even have some sort of a chance will know how frustrating and ultimately boring the game turns out to be.....

ccs wrote:
I think the game overall would be poorer. We'd be back to where we were at the dawn of 2e - dreaming about "If oly I could field a ______"

Also more balanced. Every game has point at which you can't make unit more powerful before system cracks and breaks. Knights took over that. Titans go even further making them impossible to balance so that they aren't auto win or auto lose


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
Well, many of us didn't play until later editions, when the scale was already ratcheted up. I played in 5th edition, and am playign 8th now. In 5th, I remember Apocalypse coming out, and playing with my trio of baneblades, or massive tank companies. 40k, for me, has always been about massive battles with huge tanks and large formations of vehicles. I understand you may not like it if you originally liked a smaller skirmish game, but it hasn't been that way for at least a decade.

Ummm 40k isn't large scale battle. It's small skirmish. For large scale battles you would need more room to manouver, less fixated on what individual weapon model is carrying(already ridiculous level with lascannon or missile launcher if you want big battles. Power sword, axe or christ sake power knife is absurdity in 10th level)