Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.