AB40k Maintainers

Take a look here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567366.page;jsessionid=EC019435D36413945CD96E9FE2E4E468 and share your thoughts.

Homer

People wouldn't listen when some of us said that SH tanks in 'normal' 40k are OP. They don't die, the Strongholds are fine, you can shut them down with a single pen hit, but a Baneblade or Titan can't be, it pretty well ignores every vehicle damage result and even 'explodes!' only takes off a few hull points from it. But no, we all got told 'man up this is the way it is now and it's perfectly fine stop whining'.

The best way to combat this is to not play it. Just play base 40k. No formations, no super heavy escalation and no new data slate detachments that are outside the FOC. Honestly I say ditch the allies also and play your codex. Every army has strengths and weaknesses. Allies were created to resolve those weaknesses instead of having to use better tactics.

If people played properly then allies have a reason for use; fluff. Fortifications have a reason - cool story lines when you throw all you have at them, but Super Heavy tanks are too OP to slot in easy. They're just a 'power gamers' orgasm tool, the ultimate 'I win' button.

Yes totally broken because EVERY time you play a GW rep turns up with a large calibre hand gun and forces you to play using all the supplements and every single rule you don't like because their utmost goal is to make the hobby as unenjoyable for you because .... well well well just because and Matt Ward and .... umm stuff.

To paraphrase a great man, Never before in the field of Tabletop conflict has so much bollocks been spoken by so many about so little.

The rules for Escalation and Strongholds and all the other simply give you OPTIONS if your getting tired with the game straight out of the rule book, you now have some ideas about how to spice it up a bit. If you've bought an awesome superheavy then you can have some games with it outside of an Apoc.

Total non-issue.

If people view these add-ones as options for some different "themed" games, I have no issues with them at all. Tourneys and other activities just specify what is allowed and what isn't and all is good. I don't understand why people complain about options. Will some people try to power max it? Probably. But, those people already exist and will make life miserable for everyone else regardless of the rules?

I like to ask how many people have actually played with all of the new rules? Against the new units? I guessing not in most cases. If you are aware that your opponent is playing a SH, you can almost always prepare for it.

Just my two cents. People get all wound up over nothing because they like to vent on the interwebz.

It's not that at all, I dig a lot of rules, fine, but honestly Super Heavies just went way OTT, sorry they have their place; Apocalypse. They don't belong in an ordinary game, they can't be dealt with in the way that say flyers or forts can.

The only way I can justify them is an objective. Either that, or a duel between two going on while the ants try to capture something.

Homer

I made a post discussing this very issue in dakka, titled 'the argument pro-gargantuan creatures"

Most people do think that at the very least the great majority of GCs are a non-OP, infact most people think the ONLY units that are OP are the ones with D weapons.

Having actually PLAYED using the Lord of War against a player with no lord of war, instead of the usual internet 'theory-hammer' I can assure you that there is NO reason to keep GCs out of normal 40k.

I've got 2 wins and 1 loss using it. In all 3 games It was the rest of my army working over time to make up for the huge chunk of points wasted on the LoW. My friend (who was initially having the same OH NOES! reaction) is new to 40k (less than a year old in the hobby) and commented (after actually playing against it) that he felt like the LoW was not even a threat and that it was much easier to deal with an army list using it than dealing with one where my points are better spent.

If a noob tells me that 'hey you seem to be playing with a handicap when using the lord of war' i am confident to say that most players should be able to deal with these units (non-D weapon packing SH/GCs) the same way that they deal with other standard 40k units.

For the record the GC i own is the Tyranid Barbed Hierodule. Even on paper this dude is terrible, but it's FUN to actually be able to field him without having to set up a whole apocalypse game. And as was mentioned by someone else, the game is all optional every rule is optional you don't need to play what you don't like. You can always refuse opponents, allies are broken everyone knows it yet begrudgingly agrees to play against them because they are 'official'. Escalation is every bit as official, so either continue the trend of begrudgingly playing against things you dislike or simply assert your right to decline.

As a nid player yes it will be a handicap of course to some degree, a Gargantuan critter isn't like a Super Heavy, which in turn is nothing compared to say a Revenant Titan. Heck I'll happily face any tank with only a S10 gun, but when they start having D class weaponry and 9 hull points which have to be removed (no explodes result until then) is when it gets silly, sure it's a point sink but a point sink that will almost guaranteed still be there on turn 7. Which sadly most of the opposing troops choices won't. It's not the tanks in themselves, it's the kind of guys that will use them and how. They will turn up with for example a Baneblade, or one that has a D weapon, can't remember what tanks do right now but stay with me - they will show up with it, and proceed to use it straight on your scoring units, large blasts guaranteed to kill them. Over a few turns you won't have any scoring units and therefore can't now win unless you have a SH of your own, which then it will be a slugging match between them first, whichever comes out on top will then proceed to win, and remember this they can 'split fire' as much as they like, each turret firing at a different target, so they would use one gun on your super, lascannons on your other tanks, and any bolters etc. on your scoring units.
Fine for a narrative game as part of a campaign or something like that, but not in the hands of power players who just want to win.

Also the book itself... Thirty quid for a book I already have 95% of is ridiculous. Sorry but SA was much better value, it still had some rules I already had, but loads more I don't than escalation does and where I got it cost me 15 quid. Cheapest I can do Escalation is 22. That is way over priced. Like I said, the rules are already out there, they are called Apocalypse! If you wanted to use SH stuff in normal games you can do it with your own rules without shelling out 30 quid for 100 odd pages you already have and about 10 you don't if that.

And BTW I was given a Baneblade for Christmas, it won't be faced by armies that can't counter it. I do play a decent bit of Apocalypse I admit, but still refuse to use it in a normal game unless it's as an objective or there is a specific story line for it being used, in which case you can bet it will be sitting there doing nothing for a few turns first.

Baneblades arent' that tough, there's not that many vehicles that have access to D weapons.

That's what I try to get across, we all agree D weapons are a no no. I will be first to decline games with opponents using them, but if they choose a variant that isn't packing 'heat' I see no reason why not to play against their beast. As typically they can get more fire power if they had spent that same amount of points elsewhere.

For the price of a baneblade you can get like 4 - 5 vindicators (double force org), and the baneblade isn't tossing out that many S10 AP2 large blasts.

I just feel that the problem is solved by simply ommitting the dirty D. Which only a few units have access to, once you've done so the great majority of the units available as Lord of War are things your army should be able to deal with if it's built proper. By proper meaning you are playing a standard list able to deal with vehicles and infantry efficiently.

Even in stronghold assault there's 1 that grants you a D weapon. Which again is something I will be refusing to play against in my games, all the other options are A-ok. I refuse to penalize the entire bunch just because a minority of units in it are OP.

Personally it's not just D weapons that are OP, like I said I won't field the Aquila for the very reason it has 2 shots, one is a D the other I'm sure you will agree is as bad, a 15" blast that is S10 at the centre, big enough to ruin the day of several units, especially if you're a horde army with precious little room on the table to spread out.

jboweruk wrote:People wouldn't listen when some of us said that SH tanks in 'normal' 40k are OP. They don't die, the Strongholds are fine, you can shut them down with a single pen hit, but a Baneblade or Titan can't be, it pretty well ignores every vehicle damage result and even 'explodes!' only takes off a few hull points from it. But no, we all got told 'man up this is the way it is now and it's perfectly fine stop whining'.

That'd make sense if Super Heavies were free. All these discussions act as if they are. Of course 500-900 point models are going to wreck face. They are 500-900 points...

jboweruk wrote:If people played properly then allies have a reason for use; fluff. Fortifications have a reason - cool story lines when you throw all you have at them, but Super Heavy tanks are too OP to slot in easy. They're just a 'power gamers' orgasm tool, the ultimate 'I win' button.

To me, that is the epitome of a WAAC point of view. Weird how that works since you are the one claiming your opponent is WAAC, eh? Your army is probably all grey and lots of proxies. This is a hobby too. Some people have more money than you and like big cool models and want to play with them too. They likely don't care if they win, but you sure don't want to lose to their big toy. So, you complain. And that is WAAC.

Akaiyou wrote:I made a post discussing this very issue in dakka, titled 'the argument pro-gargantuan creatures"

Most people do think that at the very least the great majority of GCs are a non-OP, infact most people think the ONLY units that are OP are the ones with D weapons.

Having actually PLAYED using the Lord of War against a player with no lord of war, instead of the usual internet 'theory-hammer' I can assure you that there is NO reason to keep GCs out of normal 40k.

I've got 2 wins and 1 loss using it. In all 3 games It was the rest of my army working over time to make up for the huge chunk of points wasted on the LoW. My friend (who was initially having the same OH NOES! reaction) is new to 40k (less than a year old in the hobby) and commented (after actually playing against it) that he felt like the LoW was not even a threat and that it was much easier to deal with an army list using it than dealing with one where my points are better spent.

If a noob tells me that 'hey you seem to be playing with a handicap when using the lord of war' i am confident to say that most players should be able to deal with these units (non-D weapon packing SH/GCs) the same way that they deal with other standard 40k units.

For the record the GC i own is the Tyranid Barbed Hierodule. Even on paper this dude is terrible, but it's FUN to actually be able to field him without having to set up a whole apocalypse game. And as was mentioned by someone else, the game is all optional every rule is optional you don't need to play what you don't like. You can always refuse opponents, allies are broken everyone knows it yet begrudgingly agrees to play against them because they are 'official'. Escalation is every bit as official, so either continue the trend of begrudgingly playing against things you dislike or simply assert your right to decline.

You forget that most people complaining just suck at the game. I know people that have been playing for 15 years that still simply suck at strategy games all together.