I've spent the week thinking about this and have no idea! They do seem to make good targets for heavy firepower as they present a great points per kill.
@@optimalgamestate I have been pondering your insight about the game as more of a narrative rather than competitive game, once you start looking for the best builds it gets very gamey & rather unsatisfying! With regards to the Super Heavies, I do not think they would work in tournament forces, but could be fun in friendly games where the objective is enjoyment of the lore & creating a story through the gameplay. Although, having said that, I would not complain if GW made some rule changes that allowed Baneblades & their kin play a bit more like the “mobile fortresses” they are described as!
While I understand why you are stating it, it drives me crazy when people talk about either Horus Heresy games as "historical". They are not historical, it is a completely fictional universe with the "documentation" of it being fictional books. My dislike of using this word is that it lends credence to all the rivet counters and gatekeepers who insist you can't participate unless you have specific models that reflect THEIR idea of what is "historically" accurate which is of course complete nonsense.
I get what you're saying, but all the problems around rivet counting are already there. Hell the big drama with 40k currently is the fem Custodes because of a pre-conceived notion as the books never were explicit. For LI, I'm sure my Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists would get a few 'that would never happen' comments were I to ever field them as a combined force. So I think that particular ship has already sailed! The wargame books for the Horus Heresy series of games use the same style for the art and drawings as the Osprey series of historical reference books, so it is an intentional effort on GWs part to make this a 'historical' game. Although what that actually means is up in the air. My original point really was that the army construction rules are currently 'bad' and that the game is more fun with self imposed extra army construction rules. That can be taken to a negative extreme though, when you say "my army is lore accurate, their army isn't" you're just being a bit of a dick really. I do find it interesting that to really optimise a list you need to buy tons of infantry and discard 90% of the models. In this way the balancing factor is cash which I guess GW is fine with.
@@optimalgamestate Yeah I understand you view point and I can agree with your interpretation of the word, all other times I've seen someone use the term in regards to HH they were gatekeeping. Every single time. So I will always call BS on the use of the word in regards to HH.
Great recap. Waiting for more Legions Imperialis with baited breath.
Any advice on using the Solar Auxilia Superheavies? I have found them underwhelming thus far, vapourised in the first or second turn!
I've spent the week thinking about this and have no idea! They do seem to make good targets for heavy firepower as they present a great points per kill.
@@optimalgamestate I have been pondering your insight about the game as more of a narrative rather than competitive game, once you start looking for the best builds it gets very gamey & rather unsatisfying! With regards to the Super Heavies, I do not think they would work in tournament forces, but could be fun in friendly games where the objective is enjoyment of the lore & creating a story through the gameplay. Although, having said that, I would not complain if GW made some rule changes that allowed Baneblades & their kin play a bit more like the “mobile fortresses” they are described as!
While I understand why you are stating it, it drives me crazy when people talk about either Horus Heresy games as "historical". They are not historical, it is a completely fictional universe with the "documentation" of it being fictional books. My dislike of using this word is that it lends credence to all the rivet counters and gatekeepers who insist you can't participate unless you have specific models that reflect THEIR idea of what is "historically" accurate which is of course complete nonsense.
I get what you're saying, but all the problems around rivet counting are already there. Hell the big drama with 40k currently is the fem Custodes because of a pre-conceived notion as the books never were explicit. For LI, I'm sure my Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists would get a few 'that would never happen' comments were I to ever field them as a combined force. So I think that particular ship has already sailed!
The wargame books for the Horus Heresy series of games use the same style for the art and drawings as the Osprey series of historical reference books, so it is an intentional effort on GWs part to make this a 'historical' game. Although what that actually means is up in the air. My original point really was that the army construction rules are currently 'bad' and that the game is more fun with self imposed extra army construction rules. That can be taken to a negative extreme though, when you say "my army is lore accurate, their army isn't" you're just being a bit of a dick really. I do find it interesting that to really optimise a list you need to buy tons of infantry and discard 90% of the models. In this way the balancing factor is cash which I guess GW is fine with.
@@optimalgamestate Yeah I understand you view point and I can agree with your interpretation of the word, all other times I've seen someone use the term in regards to HH they were gatekeeping. Every single time. So I will always call BS on the use of the word in regards to HH.