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.

 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.