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.

IS anyone concerned about the impact of 4 twin linked las cannons with skyfire/inceptor in normal games/tournaments? I feel like that really changes the flyer meta.

Um...yay?


Edit: No wait...that's definitely a YAY.

 MikeFox wrote:
IS anyone concerned about the impact of 4 twin linked las cannons with skyfire/inceptor in normal games/tournaments? I feel like that really changes the flyer meta.

I hope it does, the fact that everyone and their dog always has flyers makes things a bit repetitive.

On the other hand you also have to take into account whats its points price will be - If GW screw up its pricing then people will be more reluctant to use it.

To be perfectly honest I'm more excited about having BS4/5 Punisher Cannon turrets.

 MikeFox wrote:
IS anyone concerned about the impact of 4 twin linked las cannons with skyfire/inceptor in normal games/tournaments? I feel like that really changes the flyer meta.

I don't actually think that it's going to be 4 twin-linked Skyfire Lascannons... It's probably just going to be 2 Twinlinked Icarus Lascannons. Am I concerned? Maybe, not really. Quad guns are still scarier.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Is there actually any discussion of the releases going on in this thread or is it just 'GW is the antichrist' V.232?

There's been some discussion of the releases, although it's veered towards the pricing in recent pages. Personally, I find the terrain particularly interesting, and already have my pre-orders in - it'd be worth getting just for the aesthetic, but the fact it can be used in 40k makes it even more interesting to me (I don't tend to play Apocalypse - Sisters don't scale well with the new Faith mechanic). I'm hoping they function like current Gun Emplacements - Retributors giving a Punisher Gatling Cannon, or two, rending certainly appeals.

I'm slightly disappointed by the lack of Sisters Formations - went into my local hobby centre today and made that point. At the same time, any Formation for SoB would have been about twice as expensive, per model, as the SM ones - still, I'd probably have gone for it if they had one up. And it would have been a nice confirmation that Apocalypse hasn't completely overlooked the poor stepchild army.

Overall, I don't find the super-heavy prices that bad - but my perspective is that of "Oh, so a Baneblade now costs as much as a full Seraphim Squad; my heart bleedeth". I can see why folks who're used to slightly lower per-unit prices might complain, though - particularly those who were in the process of saving up for a super-heavy only to find they need to save 50% more.

All in all, though, I'm rather pleased with the release as a whole, and I think GW have done a better job with it than they have done with several recent products.

I'm just thinking what happens if you put a Vindicare Assassin on one of those Punishers. 20 shots, all at 2+ rerollable, that lets you allocate the wounds... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mythal wrote:

All in all, though, I'm rather pleased with the release as a whole, and I think GW have done a better job with it than they have done with several recent products.

I find myself in agreement that GW's stepping up the quality of their releases.

 Enigwolf wrote:
I'm just thinking what happens if you put a Vindicare Assassin on one of those Punishers. 20 shots, all at 2+ rerollable, that lets you allocate the wounds... lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mythal wrote:

All in all, though, I'm rather pleased with the release as a whole, and I think GW have done a better job with it than they have done with several recent products.

I find myself in agreement that GW's stepping up the quality of their releases.

Actually that sounds like a ridiculously nasty tactic- odds are you are going to get about 15+ hits, then about 10+ wounds you can allocate onto a single model in a unit... you could easily snipe out IC's even in terminator armour. And then if a tank or MC appears you can just use the Exitus Rifle's ridiculous 4D6 pen round.

Gun emplacement punishers are going to be hilarious.

Guys from what I have heard the new baneblade kit builds ALL of the the variants, but any in stock still at stores will be sold at the old price until sold out. But anyway, they save themselves money with 8 kits in 1 box instead of two boxes.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
But anyway, they save themselves money with 8 kits in 1 box instead of two boxes.

Which explains the price rise...since as we know, in GW-land, switching to a less expensive production method requires an increase in price to compensate.

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Guys from what I have heard the new baneblade kit builds ALL of the the variants

When you say 'from what I have heard', you mean 'I have read the description on website'.

UltraPrime wrote:

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
Guys from what I have heard the new baneblade kit builds ALL of the the variants

When you say 'from what I have heard', you mean 'I have read the description on website'.

You missed his point about the old boxes and their price haven't you?

 MikeFox wrote:
IS anyone concerned about the impact of 4 twin linked las cannons with skyfire/inceptor in normal games/tournaments? I feel like that really changes the flyer meta.

I suspect that, since it's apparently got different rules for 40k vs. Apoc, it'll get toned down.

I sure hope so, at any rate.

It'll probably cost a lot points-wise

Quad-Auto is 50pts, so maybe Quad-Las will be 70pts?

*2 + cost of the buildng (assuming it's AV 14 small building, probably 50pts), I'd say it would cost about 190pts more or less.

not game-breaking, really.
Quad-Las will most likely just be 2 twin-linked shots, same range, str and AP of icarus las (seeming the description says 'Quad-Linked Icarus pattern Lascannons)

 insaniak wrote:

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
But anyway, they save themselves money with 8 kits in 1 box instead of two boxes.

Which explains the price rise...since as we know, in GW-land, switching to a less expensive production method requires an increase in price to compensate.

I understand your need to make a pithy response to any comment regarding GW, but the price increase in this one specific case seems justified with the amount of extra plastic you're getting in the box.

Absolutely. Adding an extra dollar's worth of plastic to the box, with the end result being a box that still only builds one complete vehicle, certainly justifies the price rise in this instance.

 Goliath wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Left Hand of the Pheonix wrote:
But anyway, they save themselves money with 8 kits in 1 box instead of two boxes.

Which explains the price rise...since as we know, in GW-land, switching to a less expensive production method requires an increase in price to compensate.

I understand your need to make a pithy response to any comment regarding GW, but the price increase in this one specific case seems justified with the amount of extra plastic you're getting in the box.

Sure $25 (in US-land) for an extra top and a bunch of extra guns isn't a terrible deal. But GW isn't offering to sell you that for $25. They're offering to sell you a single super heavy plastic tank for $140 instead of $115. If you happen to want the super heavy, plus all the extra bits, the new kit probably isn't so bad. If you just wanted to build an extra Baneblade though, well, it's a $25 price increase. What can I say? It's complicated.

 insaniak wrote:
Absolutely. Adding an extra dollar's worth of plastic to the box, with the end result being a box that still only builds one complete vehicle, certainly justifies the price rise in this instance.

I'm not sure where you're getting "an extra dollar's worth" from; the stormsword kit contains an entirely different top panel, as well as the base for the troops transport section (and lid if that isn't used) as well as all of the different guns for the different tanks. There's actually quite a lot of plastic being added to the box, far more than "an extra dollar's worth"

Never mind. I'm coming at this from a completely different angle to most people due to scratch-building Ork vehicles. Anyone else would look to buy it for the tank to assemble as a baneblade/shadowsword/stormhammer/hammerstorm/whaterver, whereas I'm looking at it to buy, then whack plasticard on it and orkify it, then re-use the spare gun barrels and such as spare parts for other stuff.

You know, for once Australia isn't being screwed and I can't help but laugh at the rest of you.

Our baneblades are $165 and have been that way for quite a while now. It's sad that it's that high to begin with but no price rise for us

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, for once Australia isn't being screwed and I can't help but laugh at the rest of you.

Our baneblades are $165 and have been that way for quite a while now. It's sad that it's that high to begin with but no price rise for us

You're a malicious little one, aren't you?

I thought that was the case, just couldn't be sure as I don't really look at superheavy stuff

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, for once Australia isn't being screwed and I can't help but laugh at the rest of you.

Our baneblades are $165 and have been that way for quite a while now. It's sad that it's that high to begin with but no price rise for us

A while back, people were joking that when GW finally realised that equalising prices would be a good idea for keeping customers happier, they would do it the GW way, and lift everyone else's prices to match ours, rather than going the other way.

Sadly, going by the last few releases, this does indeed appear to be the way they choose to go.

 insaniak wrote:
A while back, people were joking that when GW finally realised that equalising prices would be a good idea for keeping customers happier, they would do it the GW way, and lift everyone else's prices to match ours, rather than going the other way.
Sadly, going by the last few releases, this does indeed appear to be the way they choose to go.

We also joked about the 'one-click deals' being more expensive than doing it the "slower" way.
Maybe we should start joking about them lowering the prices?

 insaniak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, for once Australia isn't being screwed and I can't help but laugh at the rest of you.

Our baneblades are $165 and have been that way for quite a while now. It's sad that it's that high to begin with but no price rise for us

A while back, people were joking that when GW finally realised that equalising prices would be a good idea for keeping customers happier, they would do it the GW way, and lift everyone else's prices to match ours, rather than going the other way.

Sadly, going by the last few releases, this does indeed appear to be the way they choose to go.

As sad as it is at least the cries of 'holy this is way too expensive' should now be loud enough to be heard.

 pretre wrote:
You know... It is possible when creating 100 bundles someone made a math error. Just saying...

Yeah, the whole "Never attribute to malice that which can be..." etc. thing.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It'll probably cost a lot points-wise

Quad-Auto is 50pts, so maybe Quad-Las will be 70pts?

*2 + cost of the buildng (assuming it's AV 14 small building, probably 50pts), I'd say it would cost about 190pts more or less.

not game-breaking, really.
Quad-Las will most likely just be 2 twin-linked shots, same range, str and AP of icarus las (seeming the description says 'Quad-Linked Icarus pattern Lascannons)

Still thats a whole lot of nasty. 200ish points to completely counter on coming aircraft, Ill take that any day of the week(now mind you I said counter not blow out of the air, Ill take a jink as a moral victory). Orks can cash in one squad of lootas for those Lascannons and it wouldnt really shift the list that much.

It opens the door for orks to get long range AT and a place to hide lootas. And it gives higher BS models punisher cannons, which could also skew the foot heavy lists meta. This is of course based on the notion that it has the option to take a punisher cannons in normal 40k.

 MikeFox wrote:
IS anyone concerned about the impact of 4 twin linked las cannons with skyfire/inceptor in normal games/tournaments? I feel like that really changes the flyer meta.

So is that terrain piece going to be usable in regular games then? I haven't seen anything that says it is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
You know... It is possible when creating 100 bundles someone made a math error. Just saying...

Yeah, the whole "Never attribute to malice that which can be..." etc. thing.

Exactly. Someone already figured out they did the math for separate vypers instead of the 3 box or someauch.

Historically GW has always added half the cost for a twin link weapon. An Icarus was 35 pts so a twinlink, if GW followed previous criteria, should have worked out at 50pts And it's a pair so each battery should be 100pts.

2 batteries for a total of 200pts + the building.

So GW will probably make the entire thing cost 100pts.

I think this is a bad idea for 'normal' 40K.

Cheers

Andrew

TechMarine1 wrote:


So is that terrain piece going to be usable in regular games then? I haven't seen anything that says it is.

Go and read the descriptions on the GW website. It says there will be rules for it in normal 40k games as well as APOC