Hmmm... It shouldn't be usable by a Supa-Stompa since it's not big enough to be as inspiring as it's bigger brothers.

Lets try them at a 25p discount! Better to try smaller changes...:-)

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Is there a reason the Mega-Gargant couldn't be tweaked until it was a viable option?

I guess I just don't see the point of including something in the list if it's not going to be used.

Well, the Imperator has the same role in the AMTL list. It costs to much points to be a viable option in 3K games (which is the points that are being played 90% of the time). For me it's the least important unit because of this. My focus is to create a list that can be used in competitive games and tournaments and being balanced for that.

Nobody is stopping anyobe from doing tveir own fan-list to use in friendly games. But on the tournament scene i don't see the Mega Gargant ever being used...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

It is sad but true. Friendly games however.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I totally support that goal. What I'm asking is why it's impossible to create a new version of the Mega-Gargant that's balanced for use in 3000-point tournament games... surely it can't be that difficult?

I think the problem is the cost. Bringing a mega gargant to a 3k game will always be a huge points sink, to a degree that severely effects your activation count. A wise opponent will be able to avoid it and it is unlikely to make enough of an impact (other than negating BTS for your opponent).

Yes, it's a really slow unit that cost lots of points. Usually thoose kind of units ends up as a BTS guarding the blitz. Not that it's a bad idea. You're effectivly denying your opponent 2 victory conditions, and with the Mega-gargant theres almost 0% chance that it will be broken or loose a engagment.

So we could lower it by 50 points but i still don't think it will be taken more. As Borka said, thats too many point bound in 1 unit.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Remember tournament army lists are supposed to be balanced at 3k-5k. Which doesn't mean that every single option has to be balanced through all of that range, but one would hope that there is a balanced use for everything somewhere within it. So, I would focus on achieving balance at 5k and if you manage that, call it done.

Of course, if a mega gargant is barely any more useful than a great (in a 5k game), I see no reason why it should cost much more than one. For example, for arguments sake let's say you are considering a great gargant. If there is literally zero advantage to choosing a mega gargant instead, then you won't choose one even if it only cost 25 points more. Clearly the advantage is more than zero, thus it follows that there is a price at which it is just about worth taking, even if infrequently.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Going to have to agree with Kyrt, if you compare it to the Imperator. Yes its not the most viable either but that thing can out right destroy anything it looks at at incredible range. In a 5k list it wouldn't do its points in damage likely but it sure as hell could get close as its very hard to avoid the range and LOS on the thing. The Mega offers nothing special over the Great Gargant (the Great Gargant also being a little over costed at the moment) and even if they were costed the same I might still take the great over it as the great can take upgrades to make it faster. Assaults is where you get the most out of them shooting is just something you do when forced to make double moves. As I tried to outline in my last post about the Mega, its shooting for as good as it appears is rather garbage because your to hit rolls are generally terrible. I doubled and shot with it twice and didn't even manage to break one unit or get anywhere close to assault range (with any formation my opponent didn't want me to). lol my opponent was having a riot, he kept harassing me with damn scout ZoC... it was painfully embarrassing for the poor orks.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I can see the mega being useful at 5k certainly, it can double to the TnH objectives in 2 turns or just sit on the blitz. At 5k most armies have a chance at killing a big WE, but probably not a mega gargant.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Nah even in a 5k battle it would be too huge a point sink for what's essentially just a Blitz guard that generally can't kill more than 300-400 points with its shooting.

Why not follow the same formula with allowing several customizable hard points as the other gargants. Because of its size I don't think you can let it have the speed upgrade but if it can take more Zzap-guns/Deth Kannons that would be a big improvement. I know that there is some push back for having the Deth Kannons as an option at all as they have significant range (un Orky) but give them solely to the Mega and you'd have a more capable Blitz guard. Just thowing this out there though it will likely get shot down. What about giving the Mega a CLP like the AM/TL though call it weirdboyz xray vision tower. You might want to risk using a sustained action then and when you pull it off look out!

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

I don't really think the mega gargant's problem is that it doesn't have enough guns or needs more costly upgrades... Epic isn't really a game of "can this formation kill more points that it is worth?"

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Certainly not the sole concern but a metric to consider.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

But clearly there's a cost where it would be taken sometimes (and a cost where it would be taken all the time).

I think we might have a fundamental difference in list-creation philosophy - to me, if a unit is too expensive to be viable, it seems like an obvious choice to keep reducing its cost until it becomes viable at some of the time (but not so much that it becomes an auto-take). If it still wouldn't be taken after a 50-point reduction, why not a 75-point reduction? Why not a 100-point reduction? At some point it will become a unit that people actually think is worth the cost - when the cost roughly matches the perceived in-game value, you've got yourself a viable unit.

If you don't think that's going to work with the unit currently as written, then redesign it from the ground up - you've got carte blanche to make the Mega-Gargant into anything you think will work, since it doesn't appear in any other lists. To me, reusing what has gone before is far less relevant or important than creating a balanced, compelling choice. If the role of a unit is "A sub-par choice in friendly 5k+ games" then there's no point even owning the models, IMO - that thing is going to sit on the shelf forever.

There's more to it than that. What if the point cost were it becomes attractive is 850 or 825. All of a sudden you just made another model practically obsolete. Then you need to lower the cost of the GG too which leads to a need to lower the cost of the regular gargant after which you start comparing the list to others and realise you're out of balance.