Balancing Fortifications, Str D weapons and Super-Heavy Vehicles.

[YorkNecromancer]

Fortifications, Str D weapons and Super-Heavy Vehicles are all going to be in 'regular' 40K. This IS happening, because it HAS already happened. Escalation and Stronghold Assault are real things now, and are official.

So, my question is: how do you think these things should be balanced for regular 40K?

Now, if you've read this and your immediate answer is one of the following:

• They can't be balanced.
• They shouldn't be in the game at all.
• They should be removed.
• Any kind of blanket ban of any of the three factors mentioned above.

Please DO NOT COMMENT. This is because that opinion has nothing to add to this discussion. This discussion is about creative ways to balance the three above mentioned factors, and removing them is off the table. Why? Because that's not creative; the superheavy models are awesome, and I want to see/use them in regular games, without them being a.) autowin buttons or b.) overcosted, easy kills.

So: how do we achieve the following success criteria?

1. All Fortifications viable, balanced, usable, fair, fluffy (i.e.: you can take a Fortification network and build a themed 'Trench' army, say).
2. Str D usable in regular games without it running roughshod over everything.
3. Superheavies viable, terrifying, but defeatable.

I would suggest that all the Fortifications are pretty much fine; even AV15 doesn't seem like a huge problem, so long as it's limited to a single building (which should yield significantly more VP's if it IS destroyed).

Str D, I would change to Poisoned 2+, AP1, Instant Death and give it an modified haywire rule, which scores a Glancing Hit on a 2+, a Penetrating Hit on a 4+. I would also limit D weapons to a maximum Blast template in diameter, unless we're talking a weapon mounted on a Warlord Titan equivelant or larger.

Superheavies seem okay, although I would perhaps use a 'percentage' system, where a Lord of War cannot be used in 1500pts or less, and may only take up 25% of your army's total points, which immediately knocks almost any army from using them in standard battles. Either that, or use the FoC chart from the Horus Heresy: Massacre book, where the army is limited to 3 Lord of War slots and 1 allied detatchment only; that would allow for things like Knight households or Baneblade companies, which would (I think) be kind of fun and fluffy, but not exactly unbeatable.

[Tyrendian]

yeah Strength D is the only problem I really see too - other than that most of the stuff is fine...
how about we use the fancy new Pizza Plate Template GW gave - the one us with multiple blast zones? have it be StrD in an inner 3" blast, S8 AP3 for 5", S6 AP4 for 7" and S4 AP5 for anything beyond that, with the blast going only as far out as your weapon tells you? [anyone understand what I'm trying to say here?...]
That still leaves it a bit too deadly against things it directly hits though probably... maybe something like a single auto-pen on Vehicles (like the old D), and D3 (maybe +1) wounds against other models, with Invulns being allowed but never better than 4+? I don't like the concept of things getting hit with something that powerful just walking away, even on a "1" to wound, and a Necron Tomb Stalker would then just laugh you in the face with its poison immunity (corner case I know^^)

[jifel]

I wouldn't mind a Strength 10 Fleshbane Armorbane Ignores Cover weapon as D. Perhaps have a special rule where each model wounded suffers two wounds for each failed save.

EDIT: And also, I think that Stronghold Assault is balanced as it is now, minus the D-weapon part.

[Mr Mystery]

Scenarios, with suitably altered victory conditions.

After all, any Lord of War option represents something ridiculously rare and valuable to it's fielding army. It's loss would be catastrophic to any war effort. So come up with victory conditions to reflect this. To pinch one from the previous Lizardman army book, and Lord Kroak, if the Superheavy is lost, the best your opponent can pull out of the game is a draw.

Likewise fortifications. They just don't suit certain scenarios (like the grab it and leg it objective one), so come up with an alternate scenario or three to replace it.

It's our game folks, GW just provide the framework

[Ivarr]

The balance for all 3 issues should be in the points.

Fortifications don't seem to be a problem. Strength D weapons should not be a problem either as you will pay a premium for them. (ie 370pts plus for the upcoming knights...nearly the cost of 10 CC terminators, which btw should easily destroy a knight in one turn of close combat!). And only the most extreme of super heavy is going to be impossible to deal with...and they are all prohibitively expensive for normal games. (Baneblades, Knights and even Warhounds are very killable)

All in all, I don't think rules changes are necessary to deal with any of them...I think people just need to adjust their thinking/army building to account for these new threats. I think perhaps the days of investing 800 plus points in a Deathstar may be ending, as these units are a big investment that will be vulnerable to str D assaults and str D guns. Might be a great change/challenge to the current meta...but not broken. (no more than 2+ poison or 2++ saves...both of which were deemed the "end of 40k" at one point or another)

The people who scream "the sky is falling" with each new challenge on here make me laugh...and then inevitably are some of the same people who come up with the ways to deal with each challenge in turn. I have faith that it will be the same with all of these topics.

[Tyrendian]

the only Super Heavy I see as truly game-breaking is the Revenant - that thing, with all the support Eldar will give it, just deletes two units per turn, period, no matter what you are (OK except for hordes...) while having basically an upgraded 4+ (sometimes rerollable should you get the right powers) invuln that even stops StrD and can move 60" per turn without drawback, so not even Night Fighting can mathematically keep you save from it no matter where you deploy

[obs0l3te]

After playing a TON OF escalation and strong hold assault.... I have no problem at all with how things are currently. I haven't had a problem yet with a super heavy. Or crazy strong holds. As a Matter of fact... when you fire your opponents vortex missiles back at him.... its priceless.

[YorkNecromancer]

then MCs could basically ignore StrD, which doesn't feel right to me... which brings me back to multiple wounds but no ID...

But MC's themselves are dealt with by other things. I suppose you could make a rule that anything hit by a D weapon has to take a Toughness test or be removed from play? Some kind of variant on that: a slightly 'milder' form of Instant Death?

[Popsical]

I was rather hoping to find a humourous picture of a man with a hat made of a fortress of redemption on top of which stands a forgeworld reaver titan.
That would have been impressive.
Carry on...

[daboarder]

I think D-weapons would be easily balanced perhaps buy making them S10 Ap1 and then having a special rule whereby when a model suffers a wound from them (so after saves and LOS! and all that) it takes D3 wounds and/or hull point. means you still get all your defences, it doesn't by pass mechanics and works within the framework of the rules at large. Pretty much overcomes most of the major problems with D-weapons.

basically it practically means that models hit buy D-weapons suffer similar effects to swarms hit by blast markers.