I am asking this because the thread about Wraith Knights made me laugh a bit. People are perfectly fine with a 300pt model having 2 D weapons, Stomp, 3+ armor save, 5+ FNP and can benefit from cover, on top of having JUMP.

So with all of that said, what do you fellow dakka heads think a Stompa should cost in a world where a WK is 295pts?

The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

So in your opinion a Stompa is perfectly priced and the Eldar WK is just under priced. The current public opinion on the WK is that it needs a 100pt price bump, bringing it to around 400pts. If you think that is appropriate pricing for the WK (Not saying you do) would you then say that the Stompa is roughly twice as good as a WK? 400 vs 770pts?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

This. The Stompa is about right IMO.

The problem is the Wraithknight; it went from being a bit too durable to being just as durable with 2x D weapon shots plus Stomp on the same high Toughness mobile platform with a long range. Its basically double the cost of a Wraith Lord with a weapon but is much more than double the value, not helped by the fact that the Monstrous Creature rules are not at all fit for purpose on larger models (Wraith Lords are fine as they only have three Wounds).


You should really compare the Stompa more to the Imperial Knights; while they can be cheesy if you take a lot of them, they're about the right price individually. Actually some of their options could do with being cheaper, like the carapace weapons.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

So in your opinion a Stompa is perfectly priced and the Eldar WK is just under priced. The current public opinion on the WK is that it needs a 100pt price bump, bringing it to around 400pts. If you think that is appropriate pricing for the WK (Not saying you do) would you then say that the Stompa is roughly twice as good as a WK? 400 vs 770pts?

12HP, large transport capacity, and lots of weaponry, etc,

770 sounds largely fair, equal to ~4-5 or so battle tanks, but faster and with the ability to assault (and carry lots of dudes).Not a match for two WK's in a straight up slugfest probably, but also brings utility that WK's do not.

I think 770 is probably about right for the stompa platform - about twice the durability of a knight, about twice the points.

My biggest problem with the stompa is that you're paying 770 for one decent gun, another gun that runs out of ammo generally by turn 2, and has only one more D attack than a knight at I1.

So, you're paying a lot of points for damage output that is honestly not much greater than a knight.

Or, to put it another way, two knights (or WKs) are going to do a lot more damage than one stompa.

I personally was hoping for some kustom stompa builders in the new ork codex, or at least some kind of options for one, but no go.

It is a multitool that isn't even mediocre at one job. We could easily knock 100 points off and it would still be mediocre for the price.

Under 300, thing is too underpowered!

In all seriousness, the Stompa is about 100 points over costed. But that's because IA:8 lets you build a Kustom Stompa with (I think) more attacks, same weapon loadout for 100 points less, lol.

It's OK is but not worth 770. I wouldn't lower it anymore then 100 pts. I'd be so happy if this "utilitarian" was made into an assault transport that I'd keep it the same price. That single change would be enough for me so that at least it'll do one of its jobs right. Right now under current rules with current equipment it's overpriced. An author needs to write a new ork novel of a great Waaaaagh! that needs to be stopped as the Space Marises rush on to meet the green horde consisting of a few dozen orks and a couple vehicles. A huge majority of the codex costs more then the equivalents of other armies and the other armies don't get the backfire tables or are superior for less points. In addition to a codex writer that seems to have forgotten Ork BS.

In current meta, around 550 is the max i'd pay for it.

People are delusional if you think 700 is anywhere near "fair". 600 is what it should be, as it loses to a single knight 50 precent of the time in meelee, never mind the rest of the opponents army. The no assault transport capacity always breaks down to how many guys can I fit in here to repair it, making it even more expensive. Or grots to poop out for obsec.

And the wraithknight needs to be 500 base.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Under 300, thing is too underpowered!

In all seriousness, the Stompa is about 100 points over costed. But that's because IA:8 lets you build a Kustom Stompa with (I think) more attacks, same weapon loadout for 100 points less, lol.

IA: 8 is old.

Like really old. It's also worth noting that they said quite often that it was a misprint.

as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

SemperMortis wrote:
as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

I'm of the opinion that the points cost for the Stompa needs to stay right where it is, or else, take a points bump.

Do you know how many lascannon shots it takes to take that thing down?

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

I'm of the opinion that the points cost for the Stompa needs to stay right where it is, or else, take a points bump.

Do you know how many lascannon shots it takes to take that thing down?

*rolls eyes*

I'm sure by your metric of playing an army, the fact that tactical marines can't kill it in one go makes it OP.

Anyways, on topic, It should be roughly 550-575 points, at least with its base loadout. For it to be truly resilient you need to combo in KFF or units with Meks inside which inflate its points even higher and the damage output is mainly through CC, which being I1 means he rarely gets into combat without suffering a fair bit of damage even against power fist units. If they had access to the all the weapons from the kustom stompa it would convince me to keep the 600sh price tag.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

I'm of the opinion that the points cost for the Stompa needs to stay right where it is, or else, take a points bump.

Do you know how many lascannon shots it takes to take that thing down?

Your doing it wrong hit it with Melta and boom you have a 800ish point crater.

On top of that, it really doesn't put out enough dakka to justify its points. People point out the "utility" of the damned thing by saying it has a big troop capacity...but that is literally just for putting mekz and a Big Mek with an KFF or MFF. Otherwise the "utility" is non-existent.

SemperMortis wrote:

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

I'm of the opinion that the points cost for the Stompa needs to stay right where it is, or else, take a points bump.

Do you know how many lascannon shots it takes to take that thing down?

Your doing it wrong hit it with Melta and boom you have a 800ish point crater.

On top of that, it really doesn't put out enough dakka to justify its points. People point out the "utility" of the damned thing by saying it has a big troop capacity...but that is literally just for putting mekz and a Big Mek with an KFF or MFF. Otherwise the "utility" is non-existent.

It has a ridiculous number of hull points. That's why it's so expensive.

Bring that down to 6 hullpoints, and I'd happily agree that it should be less expensive in terms of points value.

Traditio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
as the voting continues it is becoming more and more interesting. I hope to hear a few more opinions on this.

I'm of the opinion that the points cost for the Stompa needs to stay right where it is, or else, take a points bump.

Do you know how many lascannon shots it takes to take that thing down?

Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

So you're using fluff reasons rather than the actual stats and play-tested effectiveness of the weapon profile? Wrong approach. Also, I have to agree with CrownAxe - they can be pretty awful.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

Why are you quoting fluff from a wiki site? What does fluff have to do with good a lascannon actually is?

IllumiNini wrote:So you're using fluff reasons rather than the actual stats and play-tested effectiveness of the weapon profile? Wrong approach. Also, I have to agree with CrownAxe - they can be pretty awful.

The consensus is: "Grav is the only weapon that you should be taking ever; all other forms of shooting are worthless."

That's not an indication that missile launchers are bad.

That's not an indication that lascannons are bad.

That's an indication that the game is imbalanced.

Lascannons are supposed to be AT weapons. If they aren't doing their job, something has gone awry.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:So you're using fluff reasons rather than the actual stats and play-tested effectiveness of the weapon profile? Wrong approach. Also, I have to agree with CrownAxe - they can be pretty awful.

The consensus is: "Grav is the only weapon that you should be taking ever; all other forms of shooting are worthless."

That's not an indication that missile launchers are bad.

That's not an indication that lascannons are bad.

That's an indication that the game is imbalanced.

Lascannons are supposed to be AT weapons. If they aren't doing their job, something has gone awry.

Yeah GW is bad a making balanced rules

Even if you ignore Grav, Missle Launchers and Lascannons aren't very good.

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:So you're using fluff reasons rather than the actual stats and play-tested effectiveness of the weapon profile? Wrong approach. Also, I have to agree with CrownAxe - they can be pretty awful.

The consensus is: "Grav is the only weapon that you should be taking ever; all other forms of shooting are worthless."

That's not an indication that missile launchers are bad.

That's not an indication that lascannons are bad.

That's an indication that the game is imbalanced.

Lascannons are supposed to be AT weapons. If they aren't doing their job, something has gone awry.

Well that's a balance issue, then; and it's no excuse to use fluff as a basis to say that Stompaz need an increase in points.

CrownAxe wrote:]Yeah GW is bad a making balanced rules

Even if you ignore Grav, Missle Launchers and Lascannons aren't very good.

Ignoring grav, what anti-tank heavy weapons do you propose?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:Well that's a balance issue, then; and it's no excuse to use fluff as a basis to say that Stompaz need an increase in points.

Of course it is. The things that lascannons are supposed to kill should have a points cost determined by how many lascannon shots it takes to kill them. That means that Stompas must increase in points costs.

Grav and lascannons should not be equally good at killing tanks. Grav needs serious nerfs.

Autocannons and Meltas.

Also, no, things shouldn't be costed "by how many lascannons it takes to kill them". That's a stupid idea

 CrownAxe wrote:
Autocannons and Meltas

Autocannon over a lascannon? S7, AP 4, Heavy 2?

Why would you do that?

Besides, that's not even an option for devastator squads.

And meltas are so situational. For SMs, it basically only works with drop pods.

Sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance should be a perfectly viable play style.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Autocannons and Meltas

Autocannon over a lascannon? S7, AP 4, Heavy 2?

Why would you do that?

Because removing two HPs is better then trying to get a lucky explode with one. Autocannons are also cheaper by half the points of a lascannon generally

Sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance should be a perfectly viable play style.

Why?

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Well that's a balance issue, then; and it's no excuse to use fluff as a basis to say that Stompaz need an increase in points.

Of course it is. The things that lascannons are supposed to kill should have a points cost determined by how many lascannon shots it takes to kill them. That means that Stompas must increase in points costs.

How did you come to the conclusion that this is how to calculate the points for a unit? And even if I take your word that it's an appropriate way to look at calculating points (which it definitely is not), then how exactly do you define what Lascannons are designed to kill?

Stompaz, along with a number of other things in the Orks Codex like Morkas and Gorkas, do not need a points increase IMHO, and they especially don't need a points increases simply because your fundamentally flawed logic demands it.

Also CrownAxe has hit the nail on the head again. Melta Weapons and Auto Cannons are good anti-tank weapons. I would also argue that Assault Cannons are at least half-decent because S6 Rending.

 IllumiNini wrote:

Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Well that's a balance issue, then; and it's no excuse to use fluff as a basis to say that Stompaz need an increase in points.

Of course it is. The things that lascannons are supposed to kill should have a points cost determined by how many lascannon shots it takes to kill them. That means that Stompas must increase in points costs.

How did you come to the conclusion that this is how to calculate the points for a unit? And even if I take your word that it's an appropriate way to look at calculating points (which it definitely is not), then how exactly do you define what Lascannons are designed to kill?

Stompaz, along with a number of other things in the Orks Codex like Morkas and Gorkas, do not need a points increase IMHO, and they especially don't need a points increases simply because your fundamentally flawed logic demands it.

Also CrownAxe has hit the nail on the head again. Melta Weapons and Auto Cannons are good anti-tank weapons. I would also argue that Assault Cannons are at least half-decent because S6 Rending.

Anyways, the stompa needs a price reduction of 300-400 points at least to be decent, with the amount of D going around, its not hard to take it out and 700+ is stupid insane for one.

Be polite, please. --Janthkin

IllumiNini wrote:How did you come to the conclusion that this is how to calculate the points for a unit? And even if I take your word that it's an appropriate way to look at calculating points (which it definitely is not), then how exactly do you define what Lascannons are designed to kill?

Lascannons are designed to kill AV at range.

That's pretty much their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Why?

Lascannons are strength 9, AP 2 and have 48 inch range. Not to mention that they have "heavy" in their statline. That's why.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why?

Lascannons are strength 9, AP 2 and have 48 inch range. Not to mention that they have "heavy" in their statline. That's why.

No.

Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

CrownAxe wrote:Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

Because there are obviously units in the game, as well as weapon selections, which lend themselves to that style of play.

I could easily ask you the opposite:

Why shouldn't it be a viable style of play?

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

Because there are obviously units in the game, as well as weapon selections, which lend themselves to that style of play.

I could easily ask you the opposite:

Why shouldn't it be a viable style of play?

Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

The stompa could go down a 100 points and the wraightknight up by that amount.

All the long range single shot weapons suck right now, Lascannons, dark lances, railguns etc could take a buff.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I price it at 760 but it counts as an assault transport, doesn't lose hullpoints to glances, and strD only does d3+3 up on a 6 in my houserules so that skews the price a bit.

In the current meta, without assault probably 730... 12 hullpoints is quite a bit.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I have no further comments for this discussion.

Carry on.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I have no further comments for this discussion.

Carry on.

No, you stop trying to price everything off a mediocre anti-tank weapon

Yeah, Traditio, you're using the imbalanced tool to judge others. If you want the lascannon to live up to the fluff (the fluff which is admittedly flawed in places), then fix the lascannon. Not everything else.

I've never had huge issues with Stompas - with a KFF Big Mek, they become rather good, but my main plan is to ignore it and try to get some Weapon Destroyed results on it's main cannon. The rest doesn't bother me.

600 seems like a decent price as it is a very durable vehicle (12 HP means it can even survive a 6 from a D weapon) and when you cram a ton of meks inside they can spam repairs on it to make it almost unkillable for certain armies. Might still be a bit too high considering all the support units you need to take with it to really get good value from it (like a KFF) but any cheaper might be a bit too strong.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

Lascannons have been the staple Imperial heavy ranged anti-tank weapon since this game was created. Yes, there are some weapons that are better (though also dramatically more limited in availability), but that doesn't change the fact that the Lascannon has pretty much been the standard by which all other AT weapons are compared in most cases. If we're at the point where Lascannons are not considered adequate AT weapons to measure a vehicle's resilience by because they're just too weak, something is very wrong.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

Let's break this down to see if Tradito's understanding of the lascannon is correct.

1) 'a formidable laser weapon' -truth! They can kill everything in the game with enough sustained fire.
2) 'capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles' - the Warlord Titan is the only one it is incapable of penetrating, and even then it is only from certain directions.
3) 'it is the favored antitank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is used commonly by the space marines.' - this is the only part that doesn't mesh.

Therefore, Tradito, to make the fluff match the TT, we should make Lascannons compulsory upgrades for the guard and certain Space Marine units, no?

Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

I dunno. Just trying to follow Traditio's logic.

Personally I think it is fine without a change.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

I dunno. Just trying to follow Traditio's logic.

Personally I think it is fine without a change.

It is perfectly fine without the change, I would go into detail more about it, but someone got mad and a mod limited my account last time

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

From your SHV thread:

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:Gauss is a weapon that flays the target at the molecular level, hence why it gets that Gauss bonus. A bolter is a glorified grenade launcher.

Next you're going to say a lasgun should be able to hurt a Baneblade.

This is an argument from the fluff. The fluff can be adjusted however GW sees fit.

Fact is, gauss guns are the basic guns for a basic troop choice in the necron codex. If basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies, then basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies.

Period.

So fluff is useable as an argument only by you? Lawdy lawdy.

It'd probably be better at around 500-550 these day with how the other super heavies have crept into the game easier.

Tradio, you are being ridiculous. A couple units of Necron Warriors will drop the stompa in 2 turns. Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Lascannons suck because the odds of getting an explodes with them is crazy low, and other weapons are better at HP stripping. Plus, with all the T5 in the game now, they don't double out reliably like they used to. Everything is in the favor of wound spam or hp strip spam.

"Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles."

Actually, that was their exact purpose before hull points came out. Lascannons should be removing multiple wounds and multiple hps to keep up with the game.

 koooaei wrote:
In current meta, around 550 is the max i'd pay for it.

This
Right now tournaments allow the kustom stompa which is already over 100points less then the codex stompa at ~650 and the ITC allow the buzzgrob kustom stompa which is only 500 points (600 with belly gun) and has more weapon options and still neither version is really that competitve.

So the joke that 770 codex price is costed correctly is completely unfounded on any reality. No one currently uses it at that price in any tournament because there are cheaper options for the same exact model. Right now it is better in every way for an ork to take a renegade knight then a stompa in any current form.

My recommendation is the codex stompa needs to be 550 and the big Mek stompa with belly gun needs to be 600. The reason being is in or practice and actual use bs 2 single shot weapons including the gaze of mork is completely unreliable and ineffectual in an army without any ability to reroll to hit in shooting. The lifta droppa also suffers the same fate and has a limited selection of targets. The 20 model carrying capacity for an army that regularly consists of either 20-30 unit size models is ok but still lacks an assault option in an assault army with the only access point being the unhelpful rear. The Gatling gun is designed not only to miss at bs2 but stop working by turn 2 and still just fires the same low str low ap Orks don't need anymore access too. The only useful wpn on a stompa is the belly gun kannon as its massive blast limits the bs2 disadvantage and the while the slightly higher str helps it main benefit is access to ap3 which is rare in the entire ork codex.

So yes just looking at actual tournament activity and current available stompas to Orks the codex 770 ot option is a joke and grossly overcosted and the actual price point should be someone where between the cost of the buzzgrob stompa 500 and kustom stompa 650 depending on the weapon loadouts.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Given that Lascannons predate the existence of HP's by about 25 years, and their current incarnation unchanged for 14 years and 3 editions before the introduction of HP's, and likewise Gauss, I would think that any "intent" on how auch weapons were intended to interact with HP's would be, well, nonexistent given the "after the fact" hamfisting of HP's onto the vehicle rules looooooong after such weapons had been solidified in role and purpose.

A Stompa is an armored vehicle, different from a tank largely simply by locomotion, relative to say, a Baneblade or Stormsword or the like.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Given that Lascannons predate the existence of HP's by about 25 years, and their current incarnation unchanged for 14 years and 3 editions before the introduction of HP's, and likewise Gauss, I would think that any "intent" on how auch weapons were intended to interact with HP's would be, well, nonexistent given the "after the fact" hamfisting of HP's onto the vehicle rules looooooong after such weapons had been solidified in role and purpose.

A Stompa is an armored vehicle, different from a tank largely simply by locomotion, relative to say, a Baneblade or Stormsword or the like.

This.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Tradio, you are being ridiculous. A couple units of Necron Warriors will drop the stompa in 2 turns. Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Actually, Lascannons were designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles.

It's just that with the way the game has shifted, single shot AT with high S/low AP is basically garbage when compared to weapons that have high ROF, middling S/AP, and/or special rules that allow for weapons to harm vehicles in a unique manner.

Most ork players agree that the gmorkanauts should be superheavys for their current cost, and since a stompa is about twice the hull points of a gmorkanaut then the stompa should be priced roughly by twice the price of the gmorkanaut.

Lazcannons in fluff are goof against tank armour, but what does the fluff say about their effectiveness against superheavys? A superheavy is a completely different thing compared to an average high armoured tank, it shouldn't be vulnerable to a few squads of lazcannons. The fluff always has sh vs sh, you almost never hear about lazcannon arrays doing that job.(at least what I hear).

Now from what I understand about the overprice of gmorkanauts and stompas is because they are loaded with dakka, but due to poor bs, most of those weapons are useless.

geargutz wrote:
Most ork players agree that the gmorkanauts should be superheavys for their current cost, and since a stompa is about twice the hull points of a gmorkanaut then the stompa should be priced roughly by twice the price of the gmorkanaut.

Lazcannons in fluff are goof against tank armour, but what does the fluff say about their effectiveness against superheavys? A superheavy is a completely different thing compared to an average high armoured tank, it shouldn't be vulnerable to a few squads of lazcannons. The fluff always has sh vs sh, you almost never hear about lazcannon arrays doing that job.(at least what I hear).

Now from what I understand about the overprice of gmorkanauts and stompas is because they are loaded with dakka, but due to poor bs, most of those weapons are useless.

But somehow haywire weapons own them.

If something is not going to be vulnerable to lascannons, it needs to be very costly indeed.

Wit how often people have talked about the underpowered lazcannon in this thread about stompas I'm surprised they haven't started their own thread yet.
Let's get off the topic of lazcannons and get back on what is an apropriate point cost for the stompa.

Unsure who's friends I feel more sorry for: the guys who think a Stompa should cost as much as a Wraithknight, or the guys who feel a Stompa is fine at it's current cost.

Probably the latter. At least the former understands there's an issue with points costs no matter how delusional his fix would be.

geargutz wrote:
Wit how often people have talked about the underpowered lazcannon in this thread about stompas I'm surprised they haven't started their own thread yet.
Let's get off the topic of lazcannons and get back on what is an apropriate point cost for the stompa.

That's tied to the efficacy of the various anti-tank weapons.

 Voidwraith wrote:
Unsure who's friends I feel more sorry for: the guys who think a Stompa should cost as much as a Wraithknight, or the guys who feel a Stompa is fine at it's current cost.

Probably the latter. At least the former understands there's an issue with points costs no matter how delusional his fix would be.

"Lets just insult people instead of addressing the reasons they gave and offering counterpoints, that'll work!".

Stompas have a gargantuan amount of resiliency and access to tools to enhance that. Theyre not the absolute killiest things, but they dont hit like soft pillows either. A stompa can match guns with half a Russ battlegroup, with more resiliency (particularly being able to ignore most damage chart results) and an assault and transport ability to boot. We can fiddle a bit here or there on its points, but it's not unrealistically costed next to looking at equal points of other vehicles unless you're comparing it only to the top power combos.

Vaktathi wrote:Lascannons have been the staple Imperial heavy ranged anti-tank weapon since this game was created. Yes, there are some weapons that are better (though also dramatically more limited in availability), but that doesn't change the fact that the Lascannon has pretty much been the standard by which all other AT weapons are compared in most cases. If we're at the point where Lascannons are not considered adequate AT weapons to measure a vehicle's resilience by because they're just too weak, something is very wrong.

Yes!

Someone who understands what I am saying and actually talks sense.

Props to you, Vaktathi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Tradio, you are being ridiculous. A couple units of Necron Warriors will drop the stompa in 2 turns. Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

If it has an AV value, it's a tank, for all lascannon intents and purposes.

If we could write the rules (which is what this and all similar threads imply) then the stompa cost should be lowered and a lascannon should be Heavy 3.

That would balance both. Too bad it will never happen.

 JimOnMars wrote:
If we could write the rules (which is what this and all similar threads imply) then the stompa cost should be lowered and a lascannon should be Heavy 3.

That would balance both. Too bad it will never happen.

Not heavy 3. Still a single shot that causes multiple wounds/hull points. Because it's a giant freaking laser that cuts things apart.

Martel732 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
If we could write the rules (which is what this and all similar threads imply) then the stompa cost should be lowered and a lascannon should be Heavy 3.

That would balance both. Too bad it will never happen.

Not heavy 3. Still a single shot that causes multiple wounds/hull points. Because it's a giant freaking laser that cuts things apart.

Strength D lascannons. Same points cost.

Cheaper missile launchers with flakk already included.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
Unsure who's friends I feel more sorry for: the guys who think a Stompa should cost as much as a Wraithknight, or the guys who feel a Stompa is fine at it's current cost.

Probably the latter. At least the former understands there's an issue with points costs no matter how delusional his fix would be.

"Lets just insult people instead of addressing the reasons they gave and offering counterpoints, that'll work!".

Stompas have a gargantuan amount of resiliency and access to tools to enhance that. Theyre not the absolute killiest things, but they dont hit like soft pillows either. A stompa can match guns with half a Russ battlegroup, with more resiliency (particularly being able to ignore most damage chart results) and an assault and transport ability to boot. We can fiddle a bit here or there on its points, but it's not unrealistically costed next to looking at equal points of other vehicles unless you're comparing it only to the top power combos.

That deosnt sound like an insult, I can think of worse things to say.
The resilience is decent if your opponent didn't bring melta or d weapons, heck a gmorkanaut is just as resilient (but affected by the dmg table), but with those weapons being so bloody common then a stompas is very vulnerable an no amount of Mek or kff coverage can keep it from being a worthless 770 plus point sink.
I don't think a stompa is assault, and even if it is the only access point is in the rear.

Even melta weapons are going to be needed in large masses to kill a 12 HP AV13 target. Assuming no meks to repair anything, no wargear by embarked units giving the Stompa a save, and the melta units having a completely unobstructed view, you're talking ~17 BS4 Meltaguns to kill a Stompa (accounting for Explodes results too). Now, looking at the cost concentrating that many meltaguns on a target generally comes out to be about 700-800pts worth of units (assuming no losses before they can engage), which is about how much a Stompa costs.

If we're talking a shielded Stomoa with meks to repair it, almost nothing is going to kill it save lucky D weapon rolls.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even melta weapons are going to be needed in large masses to kill a 12 HP AV13 target. Assuming no meks to repair anything, no wargear by embarked units giving the Stompa a save, and the melta units having a completely unobstructed view, you're talking ~16 BS4 Meltaguns to kill a Stompa (accounting for Explodes results too). Now, looking at the cost concentrating that many meltaguns on a target generally comes out to be about 700-800pts worth of units (assuming no losses before they can engage), which is about how much a Stompa costs.

If we're talking a shielded Stomoa with meks to repair it, almost nothing is going to kill it save lucky D weapon rolls.

And again, there's the problem of getting the melta there to begin with.

If you're not drop-podding that melta, it's much more difficult to hit that stompa.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
If we could write the rules (which is what this and all similar threads imply) then the stompa cost should be lowered and a lascannon should be Heavy 3.

That would balance both. Too bad it will never happen.

Not heavy 3. Still a single shot that causes multiple wounds/hull points. Because it's a giant freaking laser that cuts things apart.

Strength D lascannons. Same points cost.

Cheaper missile launchers with flakk already included.

Yes, because to fix the balance issues we must start to spam D weapons thanks to one garbage ork unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even melta weapons are going to be needed in large masses to kill a 12 HP AV13 target. Assuming no meks to repair anything, no wargear by embarked units giving the Stompa a save, and the melta units having a completely unobstructed view, you're talking ~17 BS4 Meltaguns to kill a Stompa (accounting for Explodes results too). Now, looking at the cost concentrating that many meltaguns on a target generally comes out to be about 700-800pts worth of units (assuming no losses before they can engage), which is about how much a Stompa costs.

If we're talking a shielded Stomoa with meks to repair it, almost nothing is going to kill it save lucky D weapon rolls.

But the imperials getting 6 hp, av 13, at int.D and a 4+ inv save at half the cost AND can take formations and be buffed is perfectly fine?

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
If we could write the rules (which is what this and all similar threads imply) then the stompa cost should be lowered and a lascannon should be Heavy 3.

That would balance both. Too bad it will never happen.

Not heavy 3. Still a single shot that causes multiple wounds/hull points. Because it's a giant freaking laser that cuts things apart.

Strength D lascannons. Same points cost.

Cheaper missile launchers with flakk already included.

Yes, because to fix the balance issues we must start to spam D weapons thanks to one garbage ork unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even melta weapons are going to be needed in large masses to kill a 12 HP AV13 target. Assuming no meks to repair anything, no wargear by embarked units giving the Stompa a save, and the melta units having a completely unobstructed view, you're talking ~17 BS4 Meltaguns to kill a Stompa (accounting for Explodes results too). Now, looking at the cost concentrating that many meltaguns on a target generally comes out to be about 700-800pts worth of units (assuming no losses before they can engage), which is about how much a Stompa costs.

If we're talking a shielded Stomoa with meks to repair it, almost nothing is going to kill it save lucky D weapon rolls.

But the imperials getting 6 hp, av 13, at int.D and a 4+ inv save at half the cost AND can take formations and be buffed is perfectly fine?

Yes, because it is only a 4+ one one facing and only AV13 on one facing.

Knights are trivial to deal with because of those two crucial details.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:


But the imperials getting 5 hp, av 13, at int.D and a 4+ inv save at half the cost

At half the HP and less than half the firepower of a Stompa, and with no transport capacity...so that sounds about right? That 4+save also only applies to a single arc and can be worked around.

AND can take formations and be buffed is perfectly fine?

Thats another issue altogether, were it up to me, I'd dump formations in their entirety and take everything back to a single CAD 3E-6E paradigm. Ultimately however, they play no part on the cost of the Knight/Stompa either way.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:


But the imperials getting 5 hp, av 13, at int.D and a 4+ inv save at half the cost

At half the HP and less than half the firepower of a Stompa, and with no transport capacity...so that sounds about right? That 4+save also only applies to a single arc and can be worked around.

AND can take formations and be buffed is perfectly fine?

Thats another issue altogether, were it up to me, I'd dump formations in their entirety and take everything back to a single CAD 3E-6E paradigm. Ultimately however, they play no part on the cost of the Knight/Stompa either way.

and with gak BS the stompa is very, VERY unreliable for 'firepower' and the knight will just hop over and punch the stompa in one round of combat, easy explode, for half the cost.....

Oh, and base cost at 2x, the stompa gets NO SAVES at all.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:


and with gak BS the stompa is very, VERY unreliable for 'firepower' and the knight will just hop over and punch the stompa in one round of combat, easy explode, for half the cost.....

A knight will not statistically destroy a Stompa in one round of CC, you would need some impressive luck. Possible, but not probable. Sure, the Stompa has typical Ork low BS, but it does have a ton of shots and Blasts, which mitigate the low BS.


Ultimately the Stompa isn't designed to generally 1v1 other superheavies the way a Knight is, its weaponry is designed to lay waste to lots of smaller units and infantry. Just like the basic Baneblade makes a poor Superheavy killer next to a Shadowsword. As such, directly comparing the two that way obviously shows in the Knight's favor. However, if faced with half a dozen medium tanks and three dozen infantry, the Stompa is going to be far more effective than the Knight will.

Oh, and base cost at 2x, the stompa gets NO SAVES at all.

As noted, the Stompa has twice the HP (and I believe better side armor) and a large transport capacity which the Knights lack and far more firepower than an individual Knight, and can be given saves and repair abilities by passengers to make it far hardier than any Knight could ever hope to be.

No, lascannons should have a decent chance to do 2 wounds/hps. Not be Str D.

Martel732 wrote:
No, lascannons should have a decent chance to do 2 wounds/hps. Not be Str D.

They do have a decent chance - 16.7% of doing at least that much.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, lascannons should have a decent chance to do 2 wounds/hps. Not be Str D.

They do have a decent chance - 16.7% of doing at least that much.

Not vs MCs, and it's not even close to 16.7% after to hit and penetration rolls. They are a joke.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, lascannons should have a decent chance to do 2 wounds/hps. Not be Str D.

They do have a decent chance - 16.7% of doing at least that much.

Not vs MCs, and it's not even close to 16.7% after to hit and penetration rolls. They are a joke.

So you think it should do 2 hull points just for hitting? Or just for penetrating, before even rolling on the damage chart?

And MC's are a whole different problem which is not the Lascannon's fault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, lascannons should have a decent chance to do 2 wounds/hps. Not be Str D.

They do have a decent chance - 16.7% of doing at least that much.

Not vs MCs, and it's not even close to 16.7% after to hit and penetration rolls. They are a joke.

So you think it should do 2 hull points just for hitting? Or just for penetrating, before even rolling on the damage chart?

And MC's are a whole different problem which is not the Lascannon's fault.

I said a chance. Or, alternatively, give out more hps and then set it to 2. The fact that the net result from penetrating with a lascannon is almost always the same as glancing with an autocannon is nuts to me.

I dunno, I think the game of Lascannon 40k sounds fantastic. The game where the only thing anyone ever brings is more S: D lascannons.

Vehicles and multi-wound models aren't worth the paper their rules are printed on.
Lascannon-sniping your opponents las-cannons before they snipe yours is the only way to play.

Imperial guard blobs with embedded heavy weapon teams are the undisputed kings. Sorry space marines, but your devastator squads just won't cut it in this brave new lascannon world.
Armies without lascannon equivalents can just cheer from the sidelines.

Some horde armies might put up some competition. Ork green tides perhaps. Tyranids won't (synapse is too easy to snipe). Yeah I think Imperial Guard are the winners here.

The problem with the "utility" of the stompa is that as an Ork I can just as easily get as much utility out of an equal points in battlewagons. In fact, for 5 points less than the stompa alone I could get three battlewagons filled with shootaboyz with a big shoota on each. That's the same amount of HPs that can't be destroyed by one unit, more transport capacity, AV front of 14, and those 60 shootas are going to do more consistent damage against infantry across the entire game than the one shot supa-gatler (short of getting really lucky with it). The fearless bubble requires you have foot slogging boyz around it which is either going to slow it down or prevent the boyz from shooting/assaulting (unless Waagh!ing) as they'd have to run to keep up. Sure you do have the ability to assault with it, but there are still plenty of ways in the game to reduce the effectiveness of assault.

And again, this is before adding the cost of the unit you would want to put inside of it. Putting anything you'd want to disembark from it in there is actually dumb, because it doesn't have assault vehicle and the one access point is in the back. Even 'nauts got it right with having it in the front! You can do the massed mek thing, but that takes how many points? If I remember right and you can have more than one unit in a super heavy transport, you can take three min units of lootas with three meks each for 210, then two big meks and two normal mek HQs for another 100pts. And then take Grot riggers for 30 on top. for about 340pts, all your HQs and heavy slots, you're getting 13 mek tool rolls and IWND and the 6 lootas you have in there too can take turns firing out of the 3 front facing fire ports

(And this is assuming I'm right about SH transports. If I'm wrong, yes that's down to 200 and only one heavy support slot, but it's down from 5 hull points recovered on average, which IS impressive, down to 3, which isn't as great)

Yes, you can give it a +5 save... for 85pts because you have to buy a big mek to do it (which boosts up the above cost to 390). No joke, I can get the morkanaut a +5 bubble for 50pts and is almost as dangerous in melee. And I'm saying this as someone who thinks the 'nauts sucks.

So what you have is an "invincible" 1160 point model... which will still get its head kicked in by two knight titans, despite costing around three of them. The transport capacity is null because it's holding the units trying to keep it alive who are never going to want to leave to assault because they suck at it, and the fearless aura is not doing anything because the rest of your points have probably been nuked by the all the units your opponent bought with the points he didn't waste on an overpriced LoW.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The problem with the "utility" of the stompa is that as an Ork I can just as easily get as much utility out of an equal points in battlewagons. In fact, for 5 points less than the stompa alone I could get three battlewagons filled with shootaboyz with a big shoota on each. That's the same amount of HPs that can't be destroyed by one unit, more transport capacity, AV front of 14, and those 60 shootas are going to do more consistent damage against infantry across the entire game than the one shot supa-gatler (short of getting really lucky with it). The fearless bubble requires you have foot slogging boyz around it which is either going to slow it down or prevent the boyz from shooting/assaulting (unless Waagh!ing) as they'd have to run to keep up. Sure you do have the ability to assault with it, but there are still plenty of ways in the game to reduce the effectiveness of assault.

And again, this is before adding the cost of the unit you would want to put inside of it. Putting anything you'd want to disembark from it in there is actually dumb, because it doesn't have assault vehicle and the one access point is in the back. Even 'nauts got it right with having it in the front! You can do the massed mek thing, but that takes how many points? If I remember right and you can have more than one unit in a super heavy transport, you can take three min units of lootas with three meks each for 210, then two big meks and two normal mek HQs for another 100pts. And then take Grot riggers for 30 on top. for about 340pts, all your HQs and heavy slots, you're getting 13 mek tool rolls and IWND and the 6 lootas you have in there too can take turns firing out of the 3 front facing fire ports

(And this is assuming I'm right about SH transports. If I'm wrong, yes that's down to 200 and only one heavy support slot, but it's down from 5 hull points recovered on average, which IS impressive, down to 3, which isn't as great)

Yes, you can give it a +5 save... for 85pts because you have to buy a big mek to do it (which boosts up the above cost to 390). No joke, I can get the morkanaut a +5 bubble for 50pts and is almost as dangerous in melee. And I'm saying this as someone who thinks the 'nauts sucks.

So what you have is an "invincible" 1160 point model... which will still get its head kicked in by two knight titans, despite costing around three of them. The transport capacity is null because it's holding the units trying to keep it alive who are never going to want to leave to assault because they suck at it, and the fearless aura is not doing anything because the rest of your points have probably been nuked by the all the units your opponent bought with the points he didn't waste on an overpriced LoW.

This. Not sure how being able to transport models on a non assault vehicle equals out to having 2 imp knights hit you with 8~(?) Str D attacks. And like you said you can make it tank as feth but it costs over half your army for bad damage AND can still be killed in one turn fairly easy!

Sure you can take a trio of battlewagons, but their AV14 is easily bypassed, they are extremely easy to kill if assaulted, are much easier to kill individually and pick apart as a group, and while you can get lots of Shoota boys putting out lots of S4 shots, its going to lack the quality of firepower and range that a Stompa offers.

There are pro's and con's to both depending on what you're looking for. The biggesy con for the Stompa is the awkwardness of the disembarking, that I will grant, but they choice isnt ultra stark there.

For the points, though, I can get more than enough Lootas and Tank Bustas to make up for that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately the Stompa isn't designed to generally 1v1 other superheavies the way a Knight is, its weaponry is designed to lay waste to lots of smaller units and infantry. Just like the basic Baneblade makes a poor Superheavy killer next to a Shadowsword. As such, directly comparing the two that way obviously shows in the Knight's favor. However, if faced with half a dozen medium tanks and three dozen infantry, the Stompa is going to be far more effective than the Knight will.

And isn't that entirely the point when we consider an Imperial Knight vs Stompa vs Wraithknight? Different tools for different jobs?

I've found that most superheavies are just fine and dandy where they are. When compared to the WK they all look like crud. I agree with everyone else who has stated the stompa is OK where it is at, and shouldn't be compared to the WK for point cost purposes.

Why not compare it to another 700pt superheavy? Like the Greater Brass Scorpion, or Scabreithrax?

Warhound Titan with default loadout of dual twin turbolasers is still 750 pts, right?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Warhound Titan with default loadout of dual twin turbolasers is still 750 pts, right?

720. A warhound with 4 primary weapon str D ap2 large blasts, 2 void sheilds, better armour and 9 hp and its CHEAPER than the stompa. But, like the other guy said, stompa doesn't need to get cheaper

No Transport, so yeah, Stompa should be at least 800 pts...

I don't understand why people think it should be 700+ points. When you compare it to other units of comparable points cost, it gets dumped on. The Warhound Titan (which had been brought up a few times now) is a prime example.

So one of two things needs to happen to the Stompa:

(i) It needs to be the subject of a significant points reduction. A maximum of 550 points is a number I think is fair.

(ii) If the points remains the same or increases, then it should receive some significant buffs.

550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand why people think it should be 700+ points. When you compare it to other units of comparable points cost, it gets dumped on. The Warhound Titan (which had been brought up a few times now) is a prime example.

So one of two things needs to happen to the Stompa:

(i) It needs to be the subject of a significant points reduction. A maximum of 550 points is a number I think is fair.

(ii) If the points remains the same or increases, then it should receive some significant buffs.

Even at 550 thats pushing it IMO. It has 4 big shootas, three 1 use only battlecannon shots, it does have a 7" str 10 ap 1 blast and 6d6 str 7 ap 3 shots, but its ork shooting at 48" range. not going to hurt much at all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

Glad to know that you're apparently taking this seriously. [/Sarcasm]

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand why people think it should be 700+ points. When you compare it to other units of comparable points cost, it gets dumped on. The Warhound Titan (which had been brought up a few times now) is a prime example.

So one of two things needs to happen to the Stompa:

(i) It needs to be the subject of a significant points reduction. A maximum of 550 points is a number I think is fair.

(ii) If the points remains the same or increases, then it should receive some significant buffs.

Even at 550 thats pushing it IMO. It has 4 big shootas, three 1 use only battlecannon shots, it does have a 7" str 10 ap 1 blast and 6d6 str 7 ap 3 shots, but its ork shooting at 48" range. not going to hurt much at all.

And that pretty much sums up why Stompaz should be cheaper.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

And then a marine costs 2 pts. No dice. WK is at least 100 pts under costed as it is. I've never seen a Stompa, but it seems like a pretty big turd for the price.

The Warhound doesnt pay for weapons....because GW apparently just stopped caring, they basically treat everything equally...for whatever reason. With the double turbolasers, it could definitley use a notable points bump.

That said, if armed with say, double megabolters or other weapons, do people think its terribly out of whack with the Stompa? It gets void shields and better armor, but fewer HP's and ancillary options and possible gimmicks.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

Glad to know that you're apparently taking this seriously. [/Sarcasm]

If we're just makin' stuff up, I can make up stuff, too.

The idea that a Stompa just gets to be 550 pts, because reasons? That's just nonsense. Within an Ork context, Stompa is fine.

Stompa does something very different from a WK and it does something very different from an IKT or WH. The idea that all of these should have the same cost templates? Total nonsense when they fulfill very different battlefield roles, and the various armies necessarily pay more for certain premium abilities while paying less for other capabilities. Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Warhound doesnt pay for weapons....because GW apparently just stopped caring, they basically treat everything equally...for whatever reason. With the double turbolasers, it could definitley use a notable points bump.

That said, if armed with say, double megabolters or other weapons, do people think its terribly out of whack with the Stompa? It gets void shields and better armor, but fewer HP's and ancillary options and possible gimmicks.

The Warhound's weapons are built into the cost. It's not like a Guardsman pays extra for his Lasgun or armor. OK, not the best example... It's not like a LRBT pays extra for the battlecannon. Well, certainly not like Lyth tried to cost them working backwards... And actually, the Turbolasers would be fine, if they simply lost the Blast AoE.

" Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes."

That's not true. The Stompa sounds overcosted for what it actually does on the battlefield, just as the is grossly undercosted for what it contributes. It's not "fine" just because it's an Ork vehicle. That's nonsense.

Hi my name is buzzgrob big Mek stompa I cost 500 pts and come with a free big Mek inside and people tried to play me competitively in the ITC.

Guess what I still suck at this price, so people spent another 100pts to give me a decent weapon in a belly gun that made me reasonably decent. I now cost 600 pts and still am not that great of a unit.

Sometimes people bring my friend the kustom stompa from IA8 instead he only costs 650pts and can be built exactly the same as the ork codex stompa for over 100 pts less and people still think he sucks for the 650 points And you math majors think spending 770 pts for the same exact model is somehow appropriate. Please pass me whatever meth induced drugs you have been taking!!!

The option to take the stompa for over 100pts less or more already exists and it still isn't worth the cost. What this means is NO one plays the codex stompa except for the poor dumb kid playing friendly games and is overpaying for the stompa because his club only allows codex unit entries. Great job people you nerfed the friendly club scene that poor ork player really needed that kick in the balls.

Martel732 wrote:
" Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes."

That's not true. The Stompa sounds overcosted for what it actually does on the battlefield, just as the is grossly undercosted for what it contributes. It's not "fine" just because it's an Ork vehicle. That's nonsense.

It is overcosted by about 35-50% easy. It's funny seeing the people think knights or str d blasts are okay but stompa is somehow costed correctly!

The Stompa is overcosted and I think it's because they've over valued its transport capacity and over estimated it's survivability since it was written before the proliferation of so much D and which can rapidly take out HP. In thinking about its point cost in many ways a Stompa is more like a Baneblade or one of its variants in terms of its offensive capability, just more survivable. It's not as good as a Warhound. For 400-ish points IG get something similar in offense with about half the survivability; only doubling survivability obviously shouldn't mean almost double the cost. At most survivability is half the overall cost; I'd say it should be in the mid-600's of points.

I've played 3 of these versus my Reaver and it was pretty even. In other games I've watched with multiple stompas they seem to fail most often because other things are undercosted more than it being about these being overcosted, but it's cumulative. These being even 50pts off when other things are 100 points undercosted means a 150 point spread which is too big to ignore.

I think an aspect of what make it challenging to think about is that when GW modeled the "Stompa" for 40k the model was originally intended to be a "Supa Stompa" both of which represent something sub-Warhound Titan. Though the rules reflect some amalgam of the two.

gungo wrote:
Hi my name is buzzgrob big Mek stompa I cost 500 pts and come with a free big Mek inside and people tried to play me competitively in the ITC.

Guess what I still suck at this price, so people spent another 100pts to give me a decent weapon in a belly gun that made me reasonably decent. I now cost 600 pts and still am not that great of a unit.

Sometimes people bring my friend the kustom stompa from IA8 instead he only costs 650pts and can be built exactly the same as the ork codex stompa for over 100 pts less and people still think he sucks for the 650 points And you math majors think spending 770 pts for the same exact model is somehow appropriate. Please pass me whatever meth induced drugs you have been taking!!!

The option to take the stompa for over 100pts less or more already exists and it still isn't worth the cost. What this means is NO one plays the codex stompa except for the poor dumb kid playing friendly games and is overpaying for the stompa because his club only allows codex unit entries. Great job people you nerfed the friendly club scene that poor ork player really needed that kick in the balls.

made me LOL a bit But, with that said, going off the survey over 50% of people who took the poll think that the Stompa needs to be reduced to 550points or less, with the biggest amount of players saying it should cost as much as a Wraith Knight.....which even I think is a bit wrong. The idea of seeing 4 Stompa's in a 1500 point game makes me cringe inside. Next thing people will start complaining about Ork Cheese (BTW Ork cheese is known as Frumunda Cheese).

So based off the judgement of dakka I would suggest that an appropriate price for the Stompa would be about 450-500points. That sounds closer to what it should be then the current 770.

I am also wondering however what BUFFS you guys would propose to make it worth taking at the moment. I think a 4++ against everything would help enormously, as would adding "assault" to its rules as well as a front access point. Finally I would get rid of the rule about the Gattling Gun jamming after it rolls doubles. At least then it can pretend to be good at Dakka. What are your thoughts?

A 4++ effectively doubles survivability in a way not even Titan void shields do. It's already a highly survivable superheavy and it isn't really consistent with everything else to give it that sort of save. Some sort of Ramshackle "it will not die" type rule would be more appropriate.

 aka_mythos wrote:
A 4++ effectively doubles survivability in a way not even Titan void shields do. It's already a highly survivable superheavy and it isn't really consistent with everything else to give it that sort of save. Some sort of Ramshackle "it will not die" type rule would be more appropriate.

to make it worth 770 points I think a 4++ is fair. Keep in mind that currently you can give it a 4++ against shooting if you add in a Bigmek with a KMFF (Kustom Mega Force Field) from Waaaagh Ghaz supplement. But that costs over 100points which is ridiculous. So to make it worth 770points I think a 4++ with the other added benefits would just about make it reasonable to take in friendly to mid-competitive games. Anything seriously competitive and no, not worth it at all.

I understand what you mean. As a "to fit the cost" fix I almost agree... I just don't think it fits with so many other things and goes too far.

It should be cheaper, but given its already high survivability my Reaver Titan struggles to kill 2 out of set of 3 stompas... Your "fix" would make it unlikely that I'd ever be able to take out a single one of these sub-Titan class units with a medium Titan equipped with Titan killing weapons.

Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

I think my fixes to it would be to drop all the out of ammo/jamming rules... To give it an "it will not die" type roll, and no more than a 5++.

I do think the Stompa is overcosted, but I'm not sure by how much. I think it should maybe cost somewhere from 450-550 points. Now, I'm not an Ork player, so I don't know if that would make it more appealing as a LOW choice, but I think it might be a step in the right direction.

As a tangent to this, would you guys be ok with a Imperial Knights-esque detachment for Stompas? Like maybe 2+ Stompas and a Mek as a formation with some decent rule?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As a tangent to this, would you guys be ok with a Imperial Knights-esque detachment for Stompas? Like maybe 2+ Stompas and a Mek as a formation with some decent rule?

GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

I play Freeblade, and I hope to see GW translate the Mega Dredd to plastic. That would be cool.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

I play Freeblade, and I hope to see GW translate the Mega Dredd to plastic. That would be cool.

Lyth also argued his system to create units was perfectly fine even when Perigrine broke it, creating a unit with a -1 point value. He also thinks he balanced the game in his proposed rules but didn't.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


The Warhound's weapons are built into the cost. It's not like a Guardsman pays extra for his Lasgun or armor. OK, not the best example... It's not like a LRBT pays extra for the battlecannon.

Right, but different turret guns cost different prices, a Demolisher is more expensive than a Battle Tank or Punisher for example, and there's just no such differentiation with the Warhound where the Turbolasers really very much should be notably more expensive than the other weapons options.

And actually, the Turbolasers would be fine, if they simply lost the Blast AoE.

That might be a solid fix, it would still make it very potent against big things, but would make the Megabolter and other weapons have more of a point against lighter targets instead of just being able to toss 4 D pieplates and have it just be awesome at everything

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.

This kinda goes back to my opinion that I think GW overcosts transport capacity... But I think in general it gets us to a starting point.

Ork shooting simply isn't as accurate and should also translate into something cheaper. BS2 hitting 20% less and all. If we start at 2 Baneblade type superheavies it's about 900 pts. 20% less effective might generally translate to 20% less cost... 720pts... That's before we consider lower armor and the hp that's lower than 2 baneblades; some of that is likely covered by the by the blanket 20% but not likely all of it. 12hp is only 30% better than a single Baneblade and being AV13 instead of AV14 opens you upto more infantry heavy weapons that tends to cost 30% less translating to minimum of 30% more shooting. In this way an AV14 superheavy with 9HP is very roughly equal to an AV13 with 12 HP, but this comparison would favor the Baneblade as it will want to remain relatively static while the Stompa will expose itself even more.

I think this gets us to the point many people arrive at that the Stompa is only as survivable as a Baneblade though it can generate the shooting of 2 baneblades and has a close combat D. So in this way we start at around 450pts add 50% more shooting that's 20% less effective...675*(.80) = 520 pts before we consider the transport capacity or StrD close combat weapon.

In this way we have a range that puts us between 520-720pts depending on how transport and close combat Str D are valued.

Just because BS is lower shouldn't translate directly into a 20% off cost, it's usually closer to a 10% discount in most cases where we do have such options, remember that 20% decrease in effectiveness is only in one aspect, not across the board, particularly for a multi-role vehicle. That said, lets also not forget many of the weapons are Blasts (especially with large blast templates), where the difference in hit rate is dramatically closer than with normal weapons, and the weapons that do hit on straight BS (at least the big ones) tend to have a very high number of shots (6d6 gives an average of 21 shots at S7, vs a standard 15 at S6 with a Megabolter) which mitigates that somewhat. I'd call AV13 HP12 about the same as AV14 HP9 in most cases.

Transport kinda depends on what other options you have. If you have lots of small, disposable transport that's fine for certain play. However, if you want to reliably deliver a deathstar of 20 guys, what then?

Also, if you are dropping a 7" blast, BS2 vs BS3 vs BS4 isn't that big of a difference compared to direct fire or 3" blast.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because BS is lower shouldn't translate directly into a 20% off cost, it's usually closer to a 10% discount in most cases where we do have such options, remember that 20% decrease in effectiveness is only in one aspect, not across the board, particularly for a multi-role vehicle. That said, lets also not forget many of the weapons are Blasts (especially with large blast templates), where the difference in hit rate is dramatically closer than with normal weapons, and the weapons that do hit on straight BS (at least the big ones) tend to have a very high number of shots (6d6 gives an average of 21 shots at S7, vs a standard 15 at S6 with a Megabolter) which mitigates that somewhat. I'd call AV13 HP12 about the same as AV14 HP9 in most cases.

I was trying to say I'm using the 20% broadly because I know all those other things more than add upto 20% off the approximate 900 pts combined total of two Baneblade like vehicles. I have to use some concrete number to make the comparison, even if I can back it up with relevant abstractions and approximation. The 720pts gives us a high end of the scale value by showing without a doubt that a Stompa is over-costed in comparison to similar things but is NOT an assertion to what the Stompa should cost.

I'm not trying to argue one way of establishing the cost over the other but I am trying to establish a realistic range based on what I consider the most alike things. Based on a comparison to a Baneblade it should cost no less than 520 points and no more than 720pts. Its not all that helpful but based on statistical performance narrows down what is reasonable. This tells us GW is wrong, but so is anyone who thinks it should be less than 520pts.

From there I was identifying the unaccounted factors which should impact the cost one way or the other. If considering the 520 pts as a starting point you must account for the StrD close combat weapon and the transport capacity as you approach 720pts whoever is more and more likely wrong in their estimate. In this way I've tried to narrow the argument drastically to the only remaining and relevant factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Transport kinda depends on what other options you have. If you have lots of small, disposable transport that's fine for certain play. However, if you want to reliably deliver a deathstar of 20 guys, what then?

Also, if you are dropping a 7" blast, BS2 vs BS3 vs BS4 isn't that big of a difference compared to direct fire or 3" blast.

5" blast at BS4 will be roughly equal to a 7" blast at BS2... but ultimately the Ork Stompa is relying on its BS for a lot of its small weapons.and that generally contributes to it being something that less than 2 baneblades.

When it comes to "transport" its a difficult thing to price. An embarked unit loses attack opportunities in exchange for tabletop longevity and a greater likelihood of reaching their target. A unit built for this purpose stands to benefit disproportionately.

Transport is indeed difficult, no doubt.

The Stompa has a lot of small arms fire 6d6 shots averages 21 dice, or 7x S5 hits. The difference is that the Stompa can get amazingly lucky, where the BB is deliberately consistent. That gambling nature is much of the attraction of Orks in general, the Stompa in particular. Doesn't win a lot of tournaments, but it is a lot of fun!

Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

6d6 shots = 21 shots on average, at BS2 that equates to 7 hits on average.....The Megabolter has 15 shots at BS4? (I dont know) So at BS4 that is 10 hits, at BS3 that is 7-8 hits...both are better on average then the Stompa.

As far as the transport capacity. The only units it can carry are either assault oriented or Lootaz designed to give the Stompa as many repair rolls as physically possible. While the repair roll strategy works and is decent at keeping the Stompa alive it also adds on another 200-300points to the Stompas cost, while adding nothing really to the effectiveness of the shooting except for a handful of shots from the few gunports.

The Assault troops on the other hand are useless in a Stompa because it isn't an assault walker.


I Honestly, and I mean this, feel that GW tacks on Transport capacity to Ork Vehicles to justify the over inflated price of the vehicle.

Trukk (Actual transport, makes sense)
BattleWagon (This is a tank, but it can carry 22 bodies...good but now im paying for a tank and a transport, and generally it is only effective as a transport)
Gork/Morkanaut (Transport capacity of 6....on a walker.....why?)
And then the Stompa.

Of all the vehicles I just listed, the only one worth its points...and barely at that, is the Trukk and that is because it is ONLY a transport, it doesn't pretend to be a tank or a giant fighting robot as well as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Last comment for the night, At this point in the survey its becoming more and more clear that Dakka is split about evenly on this, however! going by the numbers the majority/mean want the stompa to be priced around 500-550pts. I honestly don't think this would make it that much better as far as winning tournaments but it would definitely be fielded more often with 200-270pt reduction.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

As I stated, Orks aren't for competition - they're for fun. The Stompa is a prime example of that philosophy in action.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

As I stated, Orks aren't for competition - they're for fun. The Stompa is a prime example of that philosophy in action.

And if Orks are ever going to become more than just the "For Fun" army (i.e. become competitive), things like the Stompa becoming more appropriately costed (either through buffs of its profile or a decrease in points cost) need to happen.

Adjusting points won't do it, because Orks are still too random. If you're going for competition, you need consistency. Not randomly auto-winnning 1 game and then randomly auto-losing another. You can't win consistently if you're constantly fighting the inherent randomness of your army.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

I dont want to argue with. I agree that the Wraithkmight is criminally undercosted.

But do you know why?

Even with the current FAQ, GW did not even fix the cost of the Wraith Knight so that means GW does not believe that they made a mistake in determing points cost.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

I play Freeblade, and I hope to see GW translate the Mega Dredd to plastic. That would be cool.

The baneblade is about 30 points too expensive. The stompa should be assault and a 6 on the destroyer table should do d3+3 up. The lucky 6 and not being able to drop bodies is the primary problems. That and being a generalist unit. I knocked 10 off after my houserules still. Good to know I left a lasting impression on you!

(By the way, I've updated the vdr again, if you wanna take a look at it in my signature...)

Grief wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

I dont want to argue with. I agree that the Wraithkmight is criminally undercosted.

But do you know why?

Even with the current FAQ, GW did not even fix the cost of the Wraith Knight so that means GW does not believe that they made a mistake in determing points cost.

GW doesn't change points costs in FAQ's, they only make changes to points or rules with new books, the only exception I can think of was a 5pt fix on "Chaos Helbrutes" because apparently it was misprinted, but aside from that GW just doesn't make such changes except with new releases.

Traditio wrote:
The things that lascannons are supposed to kill should have a points cost determined by how many lascannon shots it takes to kill them. That means that Stompas must increase in points costs.

120 pt rhinos anyone?

This is way easier than many of you are making it out to be.

If a unit is being played, it's points cost is somewhat correct. If a unit never hits the table, it's overcosted in comparison to what other options that army has.

If a codex is full of weak or not great units and a given unit NEVER EVER hits the table, it's either sucks a bag of beets or is massively overcosted.

Considering the Stompa does not suck at all rules-wise and is found in a codex full of non-inspiring units, what does that tell you about it's points cost?

 Voidwraith wrote:
This is way easier than many of you are making it out to be.

If a unit is being played, it's points cost is somewhat correct. If a unit never hits the table, it's overcosted in comparison to what other options that army has.

If a codex is full of weak or not great units and a given unit NEVER EVER hits the table, it's either sucks a bag of beets or is massively overcosted.

Considering the Stompa does not suck at all rules-wise and is found in a codex full of non-inspiring units, what does that tell you about it's points cost?

This is exactly right. This, along with game footage, is how Blizzard balances Starcraft. Arguably, the cyclone has been nerfed too hard, and maybe the colossus, but it's much better than "LOL look at my invincible Riptide".

 Voidwraith wrote:
This is way easier than many of you are making it out to be.

If a unit is being played, it's points cost is somewhat correct. If a unit never hits the table, it's overcosted in comparison to what other options that army has.

If a codex is full of weak or not great units and a given unit NEVER EVER hits the table, it's either sucks a bag of beets or is massively overcosted.

Considering the Stompa does not suck at all rules-wise and is found in a codex full of non-inspiring units, what does that tell you about it's points cost?

What is telling is that a vehicle of its sort should have the advantage in non-apocalypse games and you would expect to see it more than you do. For its cost it should perform better. This was already established in the OP's topic. The discussion is now about how to quantify the disparity between the Stompa's cost and similarly performing units.

The sentiments of players is that it's overcosted and based on performance relative to the most similar thing the statistics back up that sentiment. As far as its performance goes, it's as survivable as a Baneblade with about 30% more shooting effectiveness, a transport capacity, and a Str D close combat weapon. Relative to a Baneblade, it should cost more than 520pts and no more than 720pts. This is why I think it should be 620-650 points depending on how that transport capacity is valued. The people who want it even cheaper tend to compare it arguably undercosted units the skew the norm to the detriment of the game.

You need to remember that the Baneblade kind of sucks though.

IMHO, Somewhere in the 550 to 620 point ballpark is where I figure you'd see them taken, but wouldn't make them so cheap as to be an auto-include.

That'd also balance out reasonably well against one of the more balanced superheavies - Imperial Knights. Yes, double the hull points, way more guns and transport capacity, but also Ork BS, I1 and no inhereant save as well as lacking the ability to be in 2 places at once like a pair of Knights.

The ability to hand out fearless to an army with well documented leadership issues is also a boon, but as it stands now, there's not much point since there's not much left in the way of support after meks, loota meks and min grots. Drop it down enough to get a couple of big blobs of fearless boys to not only act as chaff, but also protect from melta drops via bubblewrap and let them tarpit scary stuff and I think you'd have something worthwhile.

After a bit of time this is what we are looking at. 32% of people think it should be AT LEAST 550pts 68% think it needs to be 550 or cheaper. The biggest cluster of voting seems to be around the 450-550 marker which is honestly where I believe it should be, around 500points. 17% of people think it should be as cheap as a Wraith Knight...which would be funny as hell to watch someone take 3+ Stompas in a 1,500 point game but realistically this would break Warhammer 40k Almost as bad as the Eldar Codex did. The most surprising statistic for me is that 4% (roughly 6 voters) think that the Stompa is to cheap and needs a points bump to make it fair for other armies.....im, well honestly shocked by that

300 (Same as the Wraith Knight) 17% [ 26 ]
350-400 5% [ 7 ]
400-450 9% [ 13 ]
450-500 11% [ 16 ]
500-550 14% [ 22 ]
550-600 9% [ 14 ]
600-650 11% [ 16 ]
650-700 7% [ 11 ]
700-750 5% [ 7 ]
770 (What it currently costs) 9% [ 14 ]
770+ (This thing is to amazing!!!!!!) 4% [ 6 ]

I think 650 would be a proper testing point, and see how it works from there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think 650 would be a proper testing point, and see how it works from there.

Remember, FW already has cheaper Stompas and nobody takes those either.

I don't think you can judge the GW ones worth by the use or lack of use of the FW ones. The cheaper FW ones are a downgrade in shooting capability... Whatever amount we determine the GW Stompa should be reduced is likely similar to what the FW ones need to be reduced by. That before you consider how many fewer you'd see just because it's FW.

SemperMortis wrote:
After a bit of time this is what we are looking at. 32% of people think it should be AT LEAST 550pts 68% think it needs to be 550 or cheaper. The biggest cluster of voting seems to be around the 450-550 marker which is honestly where I believe it should be, around 500points. 17% of people think it should be as cheap as a Wraith Knight...which would be funny as hell to watch someone take 3+ Stompas in a 1,500 point game but realistically this would break Warhammer 40k Almost as bad as the Eldar Codex did....
300 (Same as the Wraith Knight) 17% [ 26 ]
350-400 5% [ 7 ]
400-450 9% [ 13 ]
450-500 11% [ 16 ]
500-550 14% [ 22 ]
550-600 9% [ 14 ]
600-650 11% [ 16 ]
650-700 7% [ 11 ]
700-750 5% [ 7 ]
770 (What it currently costs) 9% [ 14 ]
770+ (This thing is to amazing!!!!!!) 4% [ 6 ]

After graphing the data points, we have 3 spikes, around "300," "500-550," and "770"... this is important because it illustrates what's already apparent, that "300 same as a Wraith Knight" and "770 (What it currently costs)" are statistical outliers. It demonstrates that those data points are junk data. The question is "How Much Should a Stompa Cost?" but these two outlying answers do not ask solely for a judgment on valuation but a judgement relative to other specific values. In a poll they become cognitive safe havens for those who don't want to think too hard or fear making a quantitative judgement. Those outliers present a binary of choices, in what's meant to establish a spectrum and a narrowing range.They really shouldn't have been asked that way; to that end, for a consensus to be meaningful those data points should be excluded. Excluding them doesn't alter the critical points, but it makes them more meaningful.

Half of voters say less than 500-550, and half say more. The 500-550 is the median and average choice.

If you look at a chart of the data the two greatest points, ignoring the outliers, are 500-550 and 600-650. It would be interesting know why the distribution at the 550-600 data point is smaller than the other two.

500-550pts generally reflects the Stompas recognized capabilities as something with the firepower of two baneblade variants, with the survivability of one. As I identified on previous pages, relative to a baneblade it should cost 520 points before you consider the value of a Str D close combat weapon or its transport capacity. So it seems apparent, the voters place a low value on those factors.

I think the people who think the point cost should be even lower, likely think Baneblades are overpriced or would like to see some advantageous pricing. The people who think it should be more expensive I have to imagine are thinking of the current price as a starting point to be priced down from, with some assumption that GW had to be generally right.

SemperMortis wrote:

The most surprising statistic for me is that 4% (roughly 6 voters) think that the Stompa is to cheap and needs a points bump to make it fair for other armies.....im, well honestly shocked by that

I don't think you should read into it this way. Technically speaking for a poll of this size with a limited sampling anything less than 6% is within the margin of error. If you ran this poll again, you're as likely to get 1% as 7% saying this but its generally unrepresentative.

Eh... stompa should be like 600-ish

I do agree though, WK is WAAAAAAY too good for the price.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Eh... stompa should be like 600-ish

I do agree though, WK is WAAAAAAY too good for the price.

I've played 3 Stompas against my Reaver titan... the 3 together are close but just under it in performance. The Reaver titan is ~1800pts... they should be sub-600pts from my experience. I think they should be in the 550-600pt range and it really comes down to the value of that transport capacity.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Eh... stompa should be like 600-ish

I do agree though, WK is WAAAAAAY too good for the price.

I've played 3 Stompas against my Reaver titan... the 3 together are close but just under it in performance. The Reaver titan is ~1800pts... they should be sub-600pts from my experience. I think they should be in the 550-600pt range and it really comes down to the value of that transport capacity.

And the transport capacity isn't transport capacity, it is there for you to cram other units in to boost the Stompas lack of shields and give it chances to repair hull points. You could get rid of it entirely and just give the Stompa 5 repair rolls and a 5++ and it wouldn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

After graphing the data points, we have 3 spikes, around "300," "500-550," and "770"... this is important because it illustrates what's already apparent, that "300 same as a Wraith Knight" and "770 (What it currently costs)" are statistical outliers. It demonstrates that those data points are junk data. The question is "How Much Should a Stompa Cost?" but these two outlying answers do not ask solely for a judgment on valuation but a judgement relative to other specific values. In a poll they become cognitive safe havens for those who don't want to think too hard or fear making a quantitative judgement. Those outliers present a binary of choices, in what's meant to establish a spectrum and a narrowing range.They really shouldn't have been asked that way; to that end, for a consensus to be meaningful those data points should be excluded. Excluding them doesn't alter the critical points, but it makes them more meaningful.

The problem with that statement is that the biggest number of respondents chose 300pts. Whether that is garbage data is for you to determine for yourself. I personally agree with you that 300is WAY to cheap for the Stompa, But I think that 450 is pretty close to what it should be.

SemperMortis wrote:

gungo wrote:
Hi my name is buzzgrob big Mek stompa I cost 500 pts and come with a free big Mek inside and people tried to play me competitively in the ITC.

Guess what I still suck at this price, so people spent another 100pts to give me a decent weapon in a belly gun that made me reasonably decent. I now cost 600 pts and still am not that great of a unit.

Sometimes people bring my friend the kustom stompa from IA8 instead he only costs 650pts and can be built exactly the same as the ork codex stompa for over 100 pts less and people still think he sucks for the 650 points And you math majors think spending 770 pts for the same exact model is somehow appropriate. Please pass me whatever meth induced drugs you have been taking!!!

The option to take the stompa for over 100pts less or more already exists and it still isn't worth the cost. What this means is NO one plays the codex stompa except for the poor dumb kid playing friendly games and is overpaying for the stompa because his club only allows codex unit entries. Great job people you nerfed the friendly club scene that poor ork player really needed that kick in the balls.

made me LOL a bit But, with that said, going off the survey over 50% of people who took the poll think that the Stompa needs to be reduced to 550points or less, with the biggest amount of players saying it should cost as much as a Wraith Knight.....which even I think is a bit wrong. The idea of seeing 4 Stompa's in a 1500 point game makes me cringe inside. Next thing people will start complaining about Ork Cheese (BTW Ork cheese is known as Frumunda Cheese).

So based off the judgement of dakka I would suggest that an appropriate price for the Stompa would be about 450-500points. That sounds closer to what it should be then the current 770.

I am also wondering however what BUFFS you guys would propose to make it worth taking at the moment. I think a 4++ against everything would help enormously, as would adding "assault" to its rules as well as a front access point. Finally I would get rid of the rule about the Gattling Gun jamming after it rolls doubles. At least then it can pretend to be good at Dakka. What are your thoughts?

I think the codex stompa should cost 500-550pts and I think the bigmek stompa with belly gun is right about the correct price at 600pts(don't forget it has d6 powerfields).
I certainly don't think the stompa needs a 5++ save unless it's an additional 50pt KFF upgrade. Since all this does is save the hq slot people were using to get the big Mek anyway. save the 4++ save for the MFF big Mek is it's a relic.

Stompas don't need survivability. Orks need presience or twinlinked shooting somewhere. Orks are loaded with low str (6 or lower) and bad ap (4 or higher) shooting all at bs2 (5+ to hit) with almost no ability to reroll to hit in shooting. What this means is unless you are throwing out massive blasts (aka belly gun and it's ap3... Yea!!!!) you are unlikely to make much use out of any stompa weapon. The gaze of gork a long range str d single shot weapon should be just as scary as one the wraithknights 2x d cannon, but in actuality it's horribly unreliable and you are lucky to get one hit a game with it and odds are that's not going to be that 6 on the str d chart you were hoping for...

So overall I just think the codex stompa needs to be reduced in price and I think other units in the ork codex needs to be fixed and as a whole the stompa would get better.

For instance how about redoing the ork psychic powers and instead of giving us 5 mostly useless witch fire powers we get something more useful.
weirdboyz need a force multiplier so personally I'd like a template psychic power(psychic vomit, this should be our primaris it's the most iconic weirdboy power), beam psychic power (kill bolt) the deepstrike psychic power(da jump), a psychic power that adds 2+str to all models in a unit(aka improved warpath), something that adds defense (but not fnp)such as 4+ invul to the psychers unit (da warpead), a malediction that reduces a single Model toughness by 2 or armour value by 2(new and improved eadbanger) a power that allows models with err we go within 12in of the psycher to reroll to hit (aka Orks have crap bs and almost no twinlinked options for shooting in their entire codex)(call it da waaagh)

SemperMortis wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
Eh... stompa should be like 600-ish

I do agree though, WK is WAAAAAAY too good for the price.

I've played 3 Stompas against my Reaver titan... the 3 together are close but just under it in performance. The Reaver titan is ~1800pts... they should be sub-600pts from my experience. I think they should be in the 550-600pt range and it really comes down to the value of that transport capacity.

And the transport capacity isn't transport capacity, it is there for you to cram other units in to boost the Stompas lack of shields and give it chances to repair hull points. You could get rid of it entirely and just give the Stompa 5 repair rolls and a 5++ and it wouldn't matter.

I've know people who don't use it that way. This is a discussion on how much it should cost, not on how the rules should change.
What you're talking about already has a prescribed cost, and is simply a moot point in determining the base cost before changes to its rules.

SemperMortis wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

After graphing the data points, we have 3 spikes, around "300," "500-550," and "770"... this is important because it illustrates what's already apparent, that "300 same as a Wraith Knight" and "770 (What it currently costs)" are statistical outliers. It demonstrates that those data points are junk data. The question is "How Much Should a Stompa Cost?" but these two outlying answers do not ask solely for a judgment on valuation but a judgement relative to other specific values. In a poll they become cognitive safe havens for those who don't want to think too hard or fear making a quantitative judgement. Those outliers present a binary of choices, in what's meant to establish a spectrum and a narrowing range.They really shouldn't have been asked that way; to that end, for a consensus to be meaningful those data points should be excluded. Excluding them doesn't alter the critical points, but it makes them more meaningful.

The problem with that statement is that the biggest number of respondents chose 300pts. Whether that is garbage data is for you to determine for yourself. I personally agree with you that 300is WAY to cheap for the Stompa, But I think that 450 is pretty close to what it should be.

This isn't an election where the greatest number wins some intangible pat on the back... This is how you do this type of statistical breakdown, in looking for a meaningful distribution.

When "300" has such a high number of votes for a poll of this nature and the value is so far removed from the mean it is indicative of error in data collection and an error in format. It's the sort of incoherent distribution you get if you asked how fast was the average runner in a race and proceeded to include times of zero seconds for every person who dropped out before the start. The OP effectively created, in how they asked, multiple data points that function no differently than saying "none of the above".

Even if we included the data, it doesn't change the average or median much if at all because the "like a wraith knight" effectively cancels out the "as it is" and "higher than as is" poll, but the error it induces makes the poll far more meaningless.

I think 450 is too cheap. Relative to smaller things it seems too cheap, there are versions of Knights with price tags around 450pts that are nowhere near as good as a Stompa. Having played against multiples of them a number of times I think 450 goes too far, it means 4 of these are roughly equal to a Reaver Titan, when I know 3 is enough for it to be 50/50 odds whether the Titan or the Stompas win.

Note that the Stompa has some extra value for the Morale / Transport synergies that the Reaver doesn't provide.

If Superheavies made IG within 12" Fearless / No Fear, that would change their value considerably. Same if the Shadowsword allowed me to bunker up Guardsmen and have them fire their Heavy weapons with impunity. Or apply a ++ save.

Those are non-zero benefits that don't show in a straight out slugfest.

It really wouldn't change for IG because Priests exist. That's a poor argument.

The I8 Kustom stompa rules are actually not far of in the current meta. It has the bonus of also being highly kustomizable. The Codex one is horrible over costed.
The Ia8 FW update + houserule nonsense is just undercosted silly / borderline cheating and has a dull load out.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Note that the Stompa has some extra value for the Morale / Transport synergies that the Reaver doesn't provide.

If Superheavies made IG within 12" Fearless / No Fear, that would change their value considerably. Same if the Shadowsword allowed me to bunker up Guardsmen and have them fire their Heavy weapons with impunity. Or apply a ++ save.

Those are non-zero benefits that don't show in a straight out slugfest.

Titans now have the "God Engine" special rule granting fearless to Mechanicum within 24"... for what that's worth.

Synergy is a hard thing to price for particularly for these larger war machines. If you charge a premium for synergy advantages in the absence of that unit combination you're over-charging for the model.

I think these sorts of things have some impact on price just not a big one.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

But for the first 25 years of the game, GW sold a gak ton of lascannons to players. Now, no one buys them in great quantity because they have enough of them. So, GW introduced grav and wrote the rules so that it would be ridiculous for us NOT to buy the new kits with grav guns/ cannons in them.

Dirty play? I suppose, but don't forget that no one is forcing you to continue buying their minis or playing their game.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Note that the Stompa has some extra value for the Morale / Transport synergies that the Reaver doesn't provide.

If Superheavies made IG within 12" Fearless / No Fear, that would change their value considerably. Same if the Shadowsword allowed me to bunker up Guardsmen and have them fire their Heavy weapons with impunity. Or apply a ++ save.

Those are non-zero benefits that don't show in a straight out slugfest.

Titans now have the "God Engine" special rule granting fearless to Mechanicum within 24"... for what that's worth.

Synergy is a hard thing to price for particularly for these larger war machines. If you charge a premium for synergy advantages in the absence of that unit combination you're over-charging for the model.

I think these sorts of things have some impact on price just not a big one.

It's worth something, not necessarily a lot, but more than nothing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Note that the Stompa has some extra value for the Morale / Transport synergies that the Reaver doesn't provide.

If Superheavies made IG within 12" Fearless / No Fear, that would change their value considerably. Same if the Shadowsword allowed me to bunker up Guardsmen and have them fire their Heavy weapons with impunity. Or apply a ++ save.

Those are non-zero benefits that don't show in a straight out slugfest.

The problem with that buff (Fearless) is that your paying 770points for it. So in a 1,500pt game half your army (Not including big mek and Mekz to fix the Stompa) is devoted to that one unit. What your left with his 730 points to fill your HQ and troop slots and those will gain fearless, which is good and all but not worth the price tag, especially when you factor in the piss poor shooting abilities off the Stompa and the fact that it needs to get into CC to even use its D weapon, which means its going to be steadily advancing and the only units that can keep up are mounted, meaning you have to spend even MORE of your points on vehicles to get to even use that fearless bubble.

Taking a kustom stompa with double D guns for around 650 is perfect.