Latest posts for the thread "Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?"

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Orock — GMT

Fast forward to the release of 7th edition.

HYPOTHETICALLY if superheavies were made a standard part of the force org chart, say like fortifications now, allowed up to one, that it would be a good change of pace for 40k, and allow those who had invested in say a baneblade/skullhammer/stompa/chaos skullcrusher or what have you to field them without special permission. Or do you feel that they would be impossible to balance (at least for GW anyway) and be just another stone sinking 40k as a whole.

Personally I feel for the people who thought apocalypse was going to be a bigger thing, and have had their huge models sitting unused on the shelves for years, but I highly doubt GW is competent enough to balance them properly. The fliers rules they shoehorned into this game are a mess and not well thought out, granting them a lot of potential and power, regardless of more and more armies getting halfway decent skyfire options. As a whole, their d6 system to begin with is already thought of as antiquated and insufficient for the ruleset this game would really need to be considered balanced. Then again I personally feel they are just cramming as much out there right now to find a sucker to buy their company, so maybe they have no vision for 7th anyway. Either way I think it would be a negative addition to this game, and would probably be written like so many of their rules, where they are purpousley made as powerful as possible to sell 150 dollar units that few have to add to their armies. Gameplay to them would be a far distant second consideration.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

TheCustomLime — GMT

No. Just... no. A Baneblade does not belong in a small skirmish. It's a waste of firepower.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Commissar Benny — GMT

I play IG and as cool as playing with a Baneblade in normal games sounds, I don't see it happening. How are opponents who don't have their lists tailored to bring down AV14 heavies supposed to handle that?

Assuming they do have something to deal with it, those are going to be your highest priority eliminating in 1st turn & once they are gone your opponent is kind of SoL.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

SarisKhan — GMT

Superheavies simply don't belong in standard games. Beyond the 3000 pts. limit you're bound to either have sufficient amount of firepower to bring them down, or at least so many lesser units that enemy superheavy can't deal with all of them fast enough. In a normal game, few people would be able to scratch them and could easily lost like one third their whole army to a single Baneblade per turn.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Orock — GMT

well flyers and fortifications each had their own expansion in 5th, and were integrated into 6th (badly) so if that trend of "write a test expansion in order to figure out the rules for the next edition" trend holds true, none of us may have our reservations addressed. I fully expect GW to do this, and damn the consequences.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Massawyrm — GMT

I think it'll be great. GW is readjusting their model in order to deal with a myriad of changes in the marketplace. They've moved away from using tournament play as their primary marketing tool to relying the WOW factor of people looking at tables covered in cool looking fortresses and tanks and flyers to sell models. Competitive players aren't driving sales; guys with garages full of terrain and huge tanks and giant robots are. Everything about 6th edition - from the way line of sight works to the way units interact with terrain - is about moving towards the hobbyist and away from guys with gray plastic fine tuned lists. Superheavies are the next step toward that. They're *fun* to play with. They're evocative. They're what hobbyists daydream about fielding.

As to balance, the current superheavies aren't any more survivable than an equal amount of points of smaller, similar units. Sure, in 5th they were disgusting. But now a baneblade has just as many HP as a unit of three LRs for just as many points. It will change the meta for sure - people will have to move away from min/maxing STR 6/7 shots and add back in the anti-tank that has gone away with the advent of HP - but a lot of us will be fine with that. And the real balance will come from the fact that everyone will have access to a SH of their own if they want one. I also imagine this will do a number on the current MORE MONSTERS! meta of throwing as many giant monstrous creatures on the board as you can squeeze into the FOC. It might, in the end, rebalance the meta.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Orock — GMT

Massawyrm wrote:
I think it'll be great. GW is readjusting their model in order to deal with a myriad of changes in the marketplace. They've moved away from using tournament play as their primary marketing tool to relying the WOW factor of people looking at tables covered in cool looking fortresses and tanks and flyers to sell models. Competitive players aren't driving sales; guys with garages full of terrain and huge tanks and giant robots are. Everything about 6th edition - from the way line of sight works to the way units interact with terrain - is about moving towards the hobbyist and away from guys with gray plastic fine tuned lists. Superheavies are the next step toward that. They're *fun* to play with. They're evocative. They're what hobbyists daydream about fielding.

As to balance, the current superheavies aren't any more survivable than an equal amount of points of smaller, similar units. Sure, in 5th they were disgusting. But now a baneblade has just as many HP as a unit of three LRs for just as many points. It will change the meta for sure - people will have to move away from min/maxing STR 6/7 shots and add back in the anti-tank that has gone away with the advent of HP - but a lot of us will be fine with that. And the real balance will come from the fact that everyone will have access to a SH of their own if they want one. I also imagine this will do a number on the current MORE MONSTERS! meta of throwing as many giant monstrous creatures on the board as you can squeeze into the FOC. It might, in the end, rebalance the meta.

While I agree with many points you made, my only concern at the end is that GW has no idea how to write rules, and if they overdo it, it could mean its even harder to find a game.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

PandaMango141 — GMT

I hope they won't be included, but if they do so be it.

My Grav weapons will be waiting.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Zweischneid — GMT

Dunno. As a rule of thumb, I'd rather have more in the game by default (and leave things out I don't like) than have less things in the game I need to add (via. "houserules").

More options are a good thing, IMO. The 40K community, however, by and large still seems to be too meek in turning down things they don't like in their games, running on the odd assumption that everything available in the game must automatically be appropriate to field in all games at all times.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

dementedwombat — GMT

Doesn't that "Warhammer 30K" ruleset (the one that lets you play during the Heresy) have something like this already?

I think they have a spot on the force organization called "lord of war" or something like that. It's 0-1 and lets you bring in either some kind of big smacky thing or a super awesome character of some kind.

I could see it being cool if there was a separate "superheavy points pool" either decided upon by both players before the game starts or being some fixed percentage of the total game points. That way you could keep the titans out of smaller games and "scale up" to them once you have enough points that they won't swamp the rest of the army.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

SarisKhan — GMT

Well, with some adjustments it might be able to work out... But if they plan something like that, they better release a bunch of more "neutral" superheavies for some factions. For instance, I wouldn't want to field a Khorne Lord of Skulls in my EC army.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Orock — GMT

PandaMango141 wrote:
I hope they won't be included, but if they do so be it.

My Grav weapons will be waiting.

superheavies are immune to grav and lifta tracktor type weapons.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Madcat87 — GMT

This would be a terrible, terrible idea.

We've already seen how badly implemented flyers are in this edition and that bringing more than a single flyer spells certain doom for any army that does not have the tools to deal with it. Let's not forget that not every army has access to the tools needed to deal with flyers, a change like this would shift the balance of power heavily towards the Imperium with all the favouritism they already get.

We already have massive complaints about 6th being a shooting edition with CC armies struggling , super heavies would be a death sentance for anyone wanting to field a close combat centric army.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

dementedwombat — GMT

Madcat87 wrote:

We already have massive complaints about 6th being a shooting edition with CC armies struggling , super heavies would be a death sentance for anyone wanting to field a close combat centric army.

Assuming that no superheavy will be close-combat centric? A giant thing with 8-9 wounds that shreds in close combat could easily be something I could see Tyranids getting (with initiative 5 so jaws does nothing)

Or even some kind of super jacked up giant spore pod type creature... a close combat superheavy that drops in from reserve?

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Madcat87 — GMT

Thus turning 40k from a gunline VS gunline game to a Super Heavy VS Super Heavy game.

EDIT: Anyone ever play Age of Mythology: Titans? That game turned into a race to see who can build a titan first, use it to kill your opponents Titan and then win the game. That is what 40k would become if super heavies were introduced, a race to see who can kill their opponents super heavy first.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Ashiraya — GMT

Madcat87 wrote:
Thus turning 40k from a gunline VS gunline game to a Super Heavy VS Super Heavy game.

EDIT: Anyone ever play Age of Mythology: Titans? That game turned into a race to see who can build a titan first, use it to kill your opponents Titan and then win the game. That is what 40k would become if super heavies were introduced, a race to see who can kill their opponents super heavy first.

I did play it, and I agree. Superheavies should be a thing to use for custom scenarios or whatever, not an official expansion and certainly not part of the BRB.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

lynxstrife — GMT

Seeing that their are what only a few (baneblade and varients also the chaos tank with big axe thing). Not many armies that have super heavies that can keep pace. It would turn into a deep strike melta spam nightmare.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

amanita — GMT

Madcat87 wrote:
Thus turning 40k from a gunline VS gunline game to a Super Heavy VS Super Heavy game.

EDIT: Anyone ever play Age of Mythology: Titans? That game turned into a race to see who can build a titan first, use it to kill your opponents Titan and then win the game. That is what 40k would become if super heavies were introduced, a race to see who can kill their opponents super heavy first.

Agreed. In fact that is how several Apocalypse games have played out, so it would be even worse on a smaller scale.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Blacksails — GMT

Well, I imagine it'll be implemented similar to the HH/30k Lord of War slot.

In that case, it'd be restricted to 2000+pts games, and can only be worth 25% of the total army list.

The main downside to this is the availability of some D strength weapons on a budget. Namely the Shadowsword, which would be a lot like a point and click unit remover.

Then again, I'd just house rule anyways. Certainly won't be paying for the privilege when I could rule in it just as well, if not better.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

dementedwombat — GMT

Blacksails wrote:
Well, I imagine it'll be implemented similar to the HH/30k Lord of War slot.

In that case, it'd be restricted to 2000+pts games, and can only be worth 25% of the total army list.

The main downside to this is the availability of some D strength weapons on a budget. Namely the Shadowsword, which would be a lot like a point and click unit remover.

Then again, I'd just house rule anyways. Certainly won't be paying for the privilege when I could rule in it just as well, if not better.

Thank you for clarifying what I meant in my previous post. I knew there was a system like this but I didn't know the specifics.

I would love to see a "super heavy budget" that's some percentage of the total game points though, so you could still get a big impressive centerpiece unit in smaller games without taking something so overpowered it makes the game balance go crazy...of course if you went that route you'd probably have to class riptides and wraithknights as "low end superheavies"...you know I don't think I'd have a problem with that.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Lockark — GMT

If you play useing the "Age of darkness" 30k rules, you get a"Lords of war" in a 0-1 choice. options for this slot is:

-One primarch
-One Titan
-One Super Heavy Flier
-a detachment of 1-3 super heavy tanks with no more then 3 structure points each
-a detachment of 1-3 Imperial Navy Fliers
-A detachment of 1-3 ordo redactor war engines

Now, alot of these options are ALOT of points. It's impossible to fit a reaver into a 1500 point list for example, and takeing something like a Thunderhawk only leaves enough points to fit you bare HQ/troop choices.

In all honesty I think the Age of Darkness rules are meant as a test bed to see how people react to the idea of super heavies in games. 5th introduced fliers witch got proper rules in 6th... I think all these huge kits will too in time once 7th rolls around.

Also in all honesty I don't think baneblades would be that bad in normal 40k. Warhounds start pushing it thow for me. I don't think T-hawks belong outside of apoc.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Billagio — GMT

I wonder how it would fair if it was limited to skullcrushers, stompas and baneblades and you were only allowed one and it takes up all 3 HS spots. Maybe only available at 1500 minimum ? (with obvious balancing in stats)

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Warp Angels — GMT

Lockark wrote:
If you play useing the "Age of darkness" 30k rules, you get a"Lords of war" in a 0-1 choice. options for this slot is:

-One primarch
-One Titan
-One Super Heavy Flier
-a detachment of 1-3 super heavy tanks with no more then 3 structure points each
-a detachment of 1-3 Imperial Navy Fliers
-A detachment of 1-3 ordo redactor war engines

Now, alot of these options are ALOT of points. It's impossible to fit a reaver into a 1500 point list for example, and takeing something like a Thunderhawk only leaves enough points to fit you bare HQ/troop choices.

In all honesty I think the Age of Darkness rules are meant as a test bed to see how people react to the idea of super heavies in games. 5th introduced fliers witch got proper rules in 6th... I think all these huge kits will too in time once 7th rolls around.

Also in all honesty I don't think baneblades would be that bad in normal 40k. Warhounds start pushing it thow for me. I don't think T-hawks belong outside of apoc.

Basicaly this BUT only at 2k + points AND the unit may not use more than 25% of your total points.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

sangheili — GMT

I think it'll be awesome I've been wanting to get a warhound and some baneblade variant for a while. And I'm prety sure just as how there's people that say no forgeworld they'll be some that will say no super heavies.

And for the rules writing I think is more of our fault than GW we all want to win, some more than others. So there's many people that try to exploit the rules for their advantage. I've even seen here and played against people that disregard the FAQ they still want to play there rule the way they think it should be played

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Lockark — GMT

Warp Angels wrote:
Lockark wrote:
If you play useing the "Age of darkness" 30k rules, you get a"Lords of war" in a 0-1 choice. options for this slot is:

-One primarch
-One Titan
-One Super Heavy Flier
-a detachment of 1-3 super heavy tanks with no more then 3 structure points each
-a detachment of 1-3 Imperial Navy Fliers
-A detachment of 1-3 ordo redactor war engines

Now, alot of these options are ALOT of points. It's impossible to fit a reaver into a 1500 point list for example, and takeing something like a Thunderhawk only leaves enough points to fit you bare HQ/troop choices.

In all honesty I think the Age of Darkness rules are meant as a test bed to see how people react to the idea of super heavies in games. 5th introduced fliers witch got proper rules in 6th... I think all these huge kits will too in time once 7th rolls around.

Also in all honesty I don't think baneblades would be that bad in normal 40k. Warhounds start pushing it thow for me. I don't think T-hawks belong outside of apoc.

Basicaly this BUT only at 2k + points AND the unit may not use more than 25% of your total points.

Never realized I missed the 2000 point thing almost everytime I've read it. When you've been playing mostly 500 games, it's not a section you play much attention to. Thanks for point that out for me. XD

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Peregrine — GMT

Absolutely not. Superheavies are way too "swingy". Either you have a list designed to face them and you probably kill it before it even gets to shoot and then win easily against the broken remains of your opponent's army, or you aren't prepared for superheavies and you watch helplessly as it wipes whole units off the table. Neither situation is very much fun.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Billagio wrote:
I wonder how it would fair if it was limited to skullcrushers, stompas and baneblades and you were only allowed one and it takes up all 3 HS spots. Maybe only available at 1500 minimum ? (with obvious balancing in stats)

It would be amazingly fair. Some armies would get to use the big new thing of 7th edition, while everyone else would get nothing. Best idea ever!

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

dementedwombat — GMT

I love it how a primarch (i.e. an approximately human sized/shaped individual) and a titan (a multi story tall hulking engine of death) are both equal options on said chart.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

ultimentra — GMT

If it does happen, GW will be doing Dreamforge Games a huge favor.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Peregrine — GMT

dementedwombat wrote:
I love it how a primarch (i.e. an approximately human sized/shaped individual) and a titan (a multi story tall hulking engine of death) are both equal options on said chart.

It makes sense, the 0-1 limit represents their status as priceless relics that you're lucky to see one of. The titan costs significantly more points, and a lot of the primarch's point cost goes into the army-wide abilities they give rather than their ability to kill stuff, while the titan is nothing more than an efficient (and scary) gun platform.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

ShatteredBlade — GMT

I think that the best way to handle this would be how they used to run special characters and limit at what point value the game is set at before the super heavies start showing up.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Peregrine — GMT

ShatteredBlade wrote:
I think that the best way to handle this would be how they used to run special characters and limit at what point value the game is set at before the super heavies start showing up.

The problem with that approach is that the point level where superheavies become a reasonable option is well beyond the point level where 40k stops being a playable game.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Orock wrote:
Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Most super-heavies are 1-gun glass hammers, so no, I think it'd be fine to have them in regular 40K.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

ShatteredBlade — GMT

Peregrine wrote:
ShatteredBlade wrote:
I think that the best way to handle this would be how they used to run special characters and limit at what point value the game is set at before the super heavies start showing up.

The problem with that approach is that the point level where superheavies become a reasonable option is well beyond the point level where 40k stops being a playable game.

Honestly I'm not going to argue this one, because I agree with you. The higher the points, the more of a mess the game turns into and I'd hate to see super heavies on the field. It is just if they DO cram them into the force org, I would hope they put some limits on it.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Peregrine wrote:
The problem with that approach is that the point level where superheavies become a reasonable option is well beyond the point level where 40k stops being a playable game.

Your unceasing bias against Apoc is showing again Peregrine.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Peregrine — GMT

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your unceasing bias against Apoc is showing again Peregrine.

No, you just missed the point. Apocalypse is not 40k, it's Apocalypse. Playing a 50,000 point game on a giant table with no FOC and an entire day to play is very different from trying to cram a 5000 point game into a 6x4 table, standard missions, and 2-3 hours to play just so a Baneblade will be a reasonable choice. The former is a game that I openly hate, the latter is an unplayable mess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Most super-heavies are 1-gun glass hammers, so no, I think it'd be fine to have them in regular 40K.

Only having one gun doesn't matter anymore since they ignore all damage results.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

kb305 — GMT

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
The problem with that approach is that the point level where superheavies become a reasonable option is well beyond the point level where 40k stops being a playable game.

Your unceasing bias against Apoc is showing again Peregrine.

his hatred is justified.

this was more than enough to put anyone over the edge

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Ok. Lots of pictures of a guy holding a case. I don't see your point? Friend of mine bought that. He likes having a really big case.

Peregrine wrote:
No, you just missed the point. Apocalypse is not 40k, it's Apocalypse. Playing a 50,000 point game on a giant table with no FOC and an entire day to play is very different from trying to cram a 5000 point game into a 6x4 table, standard missions, and 2-3 hours to play just so a Baneblade will be a reasonable choice. The former is a game that I openly hate, the latter is an unplayable mess.

Who said you needed to play a 5000 point game to include a Baneblade, or even that you should get to 5k before using super-heavies? Most super-heavies suck. They're a liability in large games, let alone small ones. Plus they're not all created equal. Put a Macharius into a Guard army. It's not going to change the world. It's a bit of fun.

Peregrine wrote:
Only having one gun doesn't matter anymore since they ignore all damage results.

That's a problem with Strength D, not with Super-Heavies. Don't mistakenly conflate the two.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Peregrine — GMT

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who said you needed to play a 5000 point game to include a Baneblade, or even that you should get to 5k before using super-heavies? Most super-heavies suck. They're a liability in large games, let alone small ones. Plus they're not all created equal. Put a Macharius into a Guard army. It's not going to change the world. It's a bit of fun.

I already addressed this. Yes, superheavies can be weak. If you know they're coming. And if you do you probably wipe them off the table with turn-1 drop pods full of melta sternguard (or your appropriate equivalent). If you don't know they're coming a Baneblade (or worse, a titan) can be something you just can't deal with. So the result is a black and white game where one player easily wins and nobody has much fun whichever way it goes.

And yes, the "small" superheavies are a different case, but let's not pretend that most people are going to take Malcadors if superheavies are an option in normal games. The much better solution if you want to use a Malcador instead of a LRBT is to ask your opponent "hey, can I use this Malcador".

That's a problem with Strength D, not with Super-Heavies. Don't mistakenly conflate the two.

What does STR D have to do with anything? The "one gun" problem was an issue under the old rules because any random lascannon could shut down a superheavy for a turn, and a single "weapon destroyed" result could turn it into a useless paperweight. Now that superheavies ignore damage results it doesn't matter how many guns you have, your tank is fighting at 100% effectiveness until the last HP is removed.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Makumba — GMT

I already addressed this. Yes, superheavies can be weak. If you know they're coming. And if you do you probably wipe them off the table with turn-1 drop pods full of melta sternguard (or your appropriate equivalent). If you don't know they're coming a Baneblade (or worse, a titan) can be something you just can't deal with. So the result is a black and white game where one player easily wins and nobody has much fun whichever way it goes.

Or better yet all armies are tailored to do an alfa strike with 2-3 pods of melta sternguard +pedro and shadow sword. And the objective of every game is to go first , kill the opponents shadowsword , by going first while hoping his sternguard without his shadowsword won't finish your D weapon platform off . That would be kind of a boring.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Peregrine wrote:
I already addressed this. Yes, superheavies can be weak. If you know they're coming. And if you do you probably wipe them off the table with turn-1 drop pods full of melta sternguard (or your appropriate equivalent). If you don't know they're coming a Baneblade (or worse, a titan) can be something you just can't deal with. So the result is a black and white game where one player easily wins and nobody has much fun whichever way it goes.

And again I say that not all super-heavies are created equal, and this is why they have points values. No one's going to be putting a Phantom Titan on the table at 1500 points. It's not a real problem, it's an imagined one.

Peregrine wrote:
What does STR D have to do with anything? The "one gun" problem was an issue under the old rules because any random lascannon could shut down a superheavy for a turn, and a single "weapon destroyed" result could turn it into a useless paperweight. Now that superheavies ignore damage results it doesn't matter how many guns you have, your tank is fighting at 100% effectiveness until the last HP is removed.

My mistake. I thought you were referencing the destructive power of super-heavies, not their durability. And frankly that's a good thing. A major problem with super-heavies was that people focused on them for irrational reasons, meaning that they never did anything because they either had their guns blown off or were shut down too quickly. Allowing them to fight despite damage makes them a more attractive choice beyond "giant bullet magnet that will never do anything".

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Makumba — GMT

I don't know but a big D class template against any IG formation I can think of right now is death. Aegis is ignored, inv is ignored , mecha blows up and it is impossible to spread the army in such a way that he isn't cliping 2-3 units/big models , because the super heavy use will always be placing terrain in a such a way to make both deployments the same .

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Kosake — GMT

Could be fun for some kind of assasination game. Instant win if the Baneblade or whatever is killed, but limited options to do so.
I think you can tailor an army of 500 points for the task, with both, a reasonable chance to kill or be killed.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

BoomWolf — GMT

I honestly dont see the issue.

Lets assume "only" 1000 points.

If you cant take on a single Baneblade because you lack the firepower, you are just as likely to fail against a trio of leman russes

Sure the russes probably wont do as much single-target damage, but they can SPLIT their fire, and they will not take as much punishment from concentrated anti-tank taking them down.

Not to mention the huge baneblade profile makes it very easy to get into range, and rather simple to target the not-that-impressive rear.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

knas ser — GMT

I really like the models and the fluff in me calls out to include them. There's something very cool about a BaneBlade or that Eldar Scorpion tank.

But I think they shouldn't be. Or if they are, they must be restricted to battles over a certain points size (e.g. 2000+). I like them, but I really dislike D weapons. Takes all the fun out it.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Orkhead — GMT

If they just changed them so they used 40k templates and not the dinner plates of Apoc I would be just fine with this idea.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

ductvader — GMT

Commissar Benny wrote:
I play IG and as cool as playing with a Baneblade in normal games sounds, I don't see it happening. How are opponents who don't have their lists tailored to bring down AV14 heavies supposed to handle that?

Well for some reason a Baneblade is only rear armor 12 unlike a LR...

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Lanrak — GMT

IF GW actualy wrote rules to cover ALL the units they included in the 40k game they produced it would be fine.
However, using WHFB skirmish rules and just sticking on poorly implemented and defined rules to cover the latest products GW are trying to sell, would make the game of 40k far less enjoyable.
But as GW plc seem to be intent on short term money grabs rather than long term game development and growing their customer base...
I have a bad feeling about 7th ed 40k..

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Blacksails — GMT

Its not Baneblades people need to be worried about. Its the Shadowswords and other cheap S: D weapons that you need to be truly concerned with. Not that Baneblades are awful or anything, but a Shadowsword is just better for removing things off the table.

I want to believe this...thing/book/supplement will have restrictions like the 30k Lord of War slot and also limit S: D weaponry, but I just can't be that optimistic with GW.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

Commissar Benny wrote:
I play IG and as cool as playing with a Baneblade in normal games sounds, I don't see it happening. How are opponents who don't have their lists tailored to bring down AV14 heavies supposed to handle that?

If Orks don't get an increased capacity to deal with armour in their next dex, this'd ruin them

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

zedmeister — GMT

Here's something to increase speculation. An extract from the latest FW book for the Thunderhawk Transporter:

A few points to note:

HP: 9 (Not structure points, but Hit Points)
The "Lord of War" badge - not seen that before outside of the Heresy books.

So, my extremely wild guess based on this, Structure points are out, to be replaced by Hull Points. Probably some sort of Super Heavy damage chart. Strength D weapons to be turned into S10 AP1.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

Hull points already replaced SP; 3 HP per 1 SP.

I still don't see SH units getting into normal 40k.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Purple Saturday — GMT

Peregrine wrote:
The problem with that approach is that the point level where superheavies become a reasonable option is well beyond the point level where 40k stops being a playable game.

This times one million. With adjustments to points costs and power levels since 3rd edition, I already find games over 2000 points to be excessively tedious. Additionally, as several people have pointed out, it would make 40K even less tactically challenging and varied. Every game would be "get the super heavies!" or "protect the super heavies!"

I understand the appeal of wanting to table your opponent effortlessly, but truly, where is the fun in that?

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

SarisKhan — GMT

Purple Saturday wrote:
I understand the appeal of wanting to table your opponent effortlessly, but truly, where is the fun in that?

Some players may find that appealing, but people like me would be much more excited about the possibility of fielding that spiky Chaos Baneblade along their troops and regular tanks. Still, only if they'd be at least semi-balanced (that is balanced by GW terms).

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

TechMarine1 — GMT

Are these "don't need your opponent's permission"?

There is a reason for a points system, by the way. If it does actually work, the other side should get enough stuff to take that super heavy out for the same amount of points.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Iron_Captain — GMT

It will be nice to be able to field some of the FW super heavies like the Macharius, the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT or the Malcador.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Matt1785 — GMT

This is probably all because Apoc sells practically nothing. I mean, have you seen the arguments against even having to buy the book in the WD thread?

I bought the book, and to be honest I think the new rules are pretty cool compared to the old ones.

On topic though, I think bringing Superheavies into 40K is pretty lame and another obvious "Hey, this will sell models at the expense of the fun... oh well." ploy that has no ACTUAL player support.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

Matt1785 wrote:

On topic though, I think bringing Superheavies into 40K is pretty lame and another obvious "Hey, this will sell models at the expense of the fun... oh well." ploy that has no ACTUAL player support.

Sadly, this has been GW's line of thinking for quite some time by now...

It's possible that GW may do it, but unless it's balanced out so that BEIHNBLAADE armies aren't the be-all-end-all of 40k, I'll just stick with 5th/6th ed 40k.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Fafnir — GMT

40k is a game that's been getting bigger and bigger in the scale of battles over the years, and its rarely worked out well for the game. While allowing superheavies in normal games looks like something GW would do, it's not something that would be constructive for the game itself, since it would only serve to obfuscate things even further.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Eyjio — GMT

I'd rather they fixed some of the stupid stuff in the actual game (cover should make you harder to hit not give a save which is regularly useless, monstrous creatures/vehicles should not only take one hit for a blast especially when that can represent a nuke, all the LOS issues in 6th, master fighters still only hit grots on a 3+ and assault is generally terrible against large fearless units, bombs can't be dropped if you go off the table for no reason whatsoever, regularly making them useless) than them add yet more stuff to be honest. I enjoy Apocalypse a fair amount but it should be kept to itself. That or Str D needs to go entirely; when your normal blast rules don't cope with shooting tough targets, that's a change you need to make to the core rules and not to some random weapon type that just ignores everything, making it way more powerful than even S10 AP1 armourbane ignores cover. It's just absurd how large the jump up is when before it wasn't that much really (autowound/pen, ID with inv saves allowed). I mean, ID was silly but again, that's a core issue; if I hit a Riptide with the in game equivalent of a nuke, I expect it to do more than one wound at best. Even fantasy has this figured out, though cannons are a bit too strong in that IMO. The game needs a rework as big as 2e to 3e; adding more stuff will just make it even more ungainly.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

TechMarine1 — GMT

While it does seem kinda cool at first, it takes away from what would normally make apocalypse different.

Had a talk at my local FLGS about it, came to the decision that anybody who wants to use super heavies or fortifications has to tell their opponent first.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

knas ser — GMT

zedmeister wrote:
Here's something to increase speculation. An extract from the latest FW book for the Thunderhawk Transporter:

A few points to note:

HP: 9 (Not structure points, but Hit Points)
The "Lord of War" badge - not seen that before outside of the Heresy books.

So, my extremely wild guess based on this, Structure points are out, to be replaced by Hull Points. Probably some sort of Super Heavy damage chart. Strength D weapons to be turned into S10 AP1.

It uses magnets. Magnets strong enough to hold not one but two fully loaded Rhinos to its belly through all the manoeuvring and rapid changes of combat flight. I'm now picturing twenty surprised Space Marines stuck the roof of their Rhinos in comical manner.

(yes, yes, I know - ceramite. But I'm sure there's some metal in there).

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Dakkamite — GMT

Only thing I really, really don't want to see is too much Str D. Especially shooty Str D. And *especially* template Str D

But I welcome stuff like the Thunderhawk transporter to the game. Looks neat

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Naw — GMT

I also welcome the superheavies, the more the merrier.

I also welcome the meta change. Maybe my troops will have better survivability then as players will again have to care about vehicles.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

fullmetaljacket — GMT

as much as i would dislike it, becuase yes a baneblade or a titan does not belong in a small skirmish, i can see GW doing that to try to make more money... there are basiaclly superheavies in fantasy already...

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Purple Saturday — GMT

fullmetaljacket wrote:
... there are basiaclly superheavies in fantasy already...

I don't play fantasy anymore. I'm having a hard time imagining what a superheavy would be in that game. Could someone elaborate? And if this is true, then it is quite possible we will be seeing them in 40K soon... Changes in fantasy often herald changes in 40K.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Relapse — GMT

Selym wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
I play IG and as cool as playing with a Baneblade in normal games sounds, I don't see it happening. How are opponents who don't have their lists tailored to bring down AV14 heavies supposed to handle that?

If Orks don't get an increased capacity to deal with armour in their next dex, this'd ruin them

Necrons don't care 'bout no stinkin' armor 14. The troops take the hull points and the heavies finish the job.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

SlaveToDorkness — GMT

It can't be as game imbalancing as including Flyers in 6th.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It can't be as game imbalancing as including Flyers in 6th.

Warhound titan with 2 Str D 10" blast weapons, anyone?

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Matt1785 — GMT

D Weapons are definitely in, the preview shown for the eBook refers to the Macro Cannon in the Strongholds expansion... This bodes ill for all involved.

If there's no points requirement to run a super heavy then this will be a total disaster.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

Matt1785 wrote:
D Weapons are definitely in, the preview shown for the eBook refers to the Macro Cannon in the Strongholds expansion... This bodes ill for all involved.

If there's no points requirement to run a super heavy then this will be a total disaster.

I quite agree.

750 pts of Super Heavies tends to have far to much armour to be taken out in a game of <1500 pts.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Da Kommizzar — GMT

Well guys, sucks for those who do not want it... you know why?!

SUPER HEAVIES ARE NOW ALLOWED IN 40K STANDARD GAMES!!!

What a coincidence...

Now I am going to go with my orkz and hide under my little rok and cry.

Re:Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Charles Rampant — GMT

To be fair, as an Ork player you surely feel well-equipped to deal with Escalation? I mean, our Stompa is clearly the GREATEST superheavy, by dint of being the largest plastic superheavy available?

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Da Kommizzar — GMT

Ya, arr Stompa and arr udda Supa Eavy opshuns are da bestest opshuns in da Furty Kay ooniverse.

Though, I just cannot help the feeling of being swept under the rug once more. All these buffs and updates to all these armies and we are playing with a 4th edition codex still...

Sure we get Stompas now with permission, but I feel like this gives GW reason to put us off even more.

"Here Gork and Mork, have some cookies while we give the other armies state-of-the-art Desctructo-Cannons (with extra Swiss Noodle Cheese)"

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

If the IOM and Orks are gonna bring SH vehicles, I want my Plague Reaper!

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

knas ser — GMT

Selym wrote:
If the IOM and Orks are gonna bring SH vehicles, I want my Plague Reaper!

If we're going down this slight tangent, what are the Eldar superheavies like? I've seen the model for the Scorpion II tank and I'm guessing that's the only one we have. Is it decent?

I really dislike the "2" in the name, btw. It's very un-eldarish. It's more like the Imperium to have "Mark II" in a vehicle name. I would imagine the Eldar to be far more poetic.

Do you think superheavies being available in regular force org charts in 7th would be good/bad?

Selym — GMT

knas ser wrote:
Selym wrote:
If the IOM and Orks are gonna bring SH vehicles, I want my Plague Reaper!

If we're going down this slight tangent, what are the Eldar superheavies like? I've seen the model for the Scorpion II tank and I'm guessing that's the only one we have. Is it decent?

I really dislike the "2" in the name, btw. It's very un-eldarish. It's more like the Imperium to have "Mark II" in a vehicle name. I would imagine the Eldar to be far more poetic.

Maybe rename it the "Scorpion Descendant".