34209
Post by: themadlbb
Rumor has it that the Vendetta will go up in points to 170 and will have its transport capacity reduced to six models.
If that is the case, is the Vendetta still worth it? Will you Vendetta fans still run them? Would you/will you buy a new one if you are just starting Guard?
28300
Post by: creeping-deth87
At most it deserved a 20 pt price hike. 40 was too much. I don't think they'll be nearly as common as they were before, though I'm not surprised GW swung too hard with the nerf bat.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
170pts is entirely reasonable for it, and I own 3 currently. I'd have probably put it at 160, but 170pts for an AV12 flyer with 3 Twin Linked Lascannons is still better than most other flyers, though it really belongs in Heavy Support. The change to the transport capacity, when many IG units are static in size at 10, is not so much.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
I think that's still a damn good deal. I think they're costed pretty fairly at this point. For fun, compare them in price to the Dark Angels flyers and shed a single tear for the Unforgiven.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
I'd pass.
Making them more expensive doesn't really make sense. What would make a whole heck of a lot more sense is if they rewrote the rules so that the vendetta actually behaved like a fast attack choice, rather than a misplaced heavy support choice.
Real fast attack choices don't have THAT much killing power, but are still worth taking because they're very flexible and allow you to quickly adapt to situations on the tabletop. A flier that shows up late and has limited mobility and is only worth taking for its guns is none of that.
Because if all you want is a gun platform, then russes already do the job of a vendetta better. Only making vendettas more expensive changes none of that. They need to be rethought, not re-priced.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Considering its AV and weapon loadout, it's far more in line with other races' flyers now. And it can still transport and hover.
14472
Post by: Sargow
For 170 i won't be taking it. I can get that kind of firepower from other things for a lot less. Hell the helldrake is far better at a very close price point. Unless they boosted the Vendetta with a built in 5+ invul.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
With the bump over all for Flyers especially Transports, I foresee a lot of Necron Players myself included being unhappy when the codex is released in 3 years.
61775
Post by: ClassicCarraway
 Ailaros wrote:I'd pass.
Making them more expensive doesn't really make sense. What would make a whole heck of a lot more sense is if they rewrote the rules so that the vendetta actually behaved like a fast attack choice, rather than a misplaced heavy support choice.
Real fast attack choices don't have THAT much killing power, but are still worth taking because they're very flexible and allow you to quickly adapt to situations on the tabletop. A flier that shows up late and has limited mobility and is only worth taking for its guns is none of that.
Because if all you want is a gun platform, then russes already do the job of a vendetta better. Only making vendettas more expensive changes none of that. They need to be rethought, not re-priced.
But that would have required an entirely new model (and then it wouldn't be a Vendetta). The points cost for it now will be exactly where it should be at, although I don't really see the point of the reduced transport capacity. I mean it makes sense from a logistics standpoint, just makes it largely useless as a transport for IG (er, I mean AM).
38926
Post by: Exergy
At 170 it is still good, but it isnt as crazy as it was. It might make someone actually consider taking the valk.
really, neither should be AV12
26672
Post by: Sephyr
It's a good price. Heck, just the 2 twin-linked lascannons should run to about 70-80 points. Add in the transport capacity, the AV12 and the flyer status and 170 is a good price. It's still great but not so easily spammable without making sacrifices elsewhere in the list.
Pretty much every other flyer still dies in one turn against a vendetta, and it can still be squadroned for FOC optimization.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
Sargow wrote:For 170 i won't be taking it. I can get that kind of firepower from other things for a lot less. Hell the helldrake is far better at a very close price point. Unless they boosted the Vendetta with a built in 5+ invul.
OK fair enough give me the option to transport 10 CSM in my drake and we're square. Oh, and make the hades cannon remotely comparable to 3x linked lascannons.
4183
Post by: Davor
Too expensive people say? I guess they will be buying that new tank then eh?
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
MarsNZ wrote:Sargow wrote:For 170 i won't be taking it. I can get that kind of firepower from other things for a lot less. Hell the helldrake is far better at a very close price point. Unless they boosted the Vendetta with a built in 5+ invul.
OK fair enough give me the option to transport 10 CSM in my drake and we're square.
*6 CSM. They reduced the transport capacity as well. Still, 170 for an AV12 flying transport that can hover, packs 3 lascannons and can be squadroned isn't too shabby. Automatically Appended Next Post: Davor wrote:Too expensive people say? I guess they will be buying that new tank then eh?
You mean the Wyvern? That fills a completely different role, so that's not really a good example. Armored Las-Sentinels would be a better comparison.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
ClassicCarraway wrote:But that would have required an entirely new model (and then it wouldn't be a Vendetta).
You could still make it vendetta-like.
Keep it the same, except swap out flier for fast skimmer, swap out three lascannons for two multimeltas and a hard point (to be able to take an upgrade like +1 to its reserve rolls or -1 scatter distance for dudes parachuting out the back, etc.), then give it back deepstrike and scouts. Plus a rule like swooping hawks have to allow it to teleport off the board (to represent it quickly flying away).
That way you'd have a unit that can quickly deliver a squad of infantry somewhere, and can pick other dudes up and quickly redeploy them. It would still have some firepower, but might also have some army synergy (depending on hard point upgrades - one could be a speaker system that gives +1Ld to units within 6", for example).
That way it would be a fast attack choice. Something that zooms around and solves problems as they develop. It would also still be a vendetta - a winged vehicle that can transport troops around and shoot stuff.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
I've been saying all through 6th ed that 170pts would have been fair for the Vendetta, and here we are. The lower transport capacity's not a huge deal for me either, especially since rumour has it that Veterans can be in units of 5+.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Huh, I thought 5 was already the min for vets.
What can be taken in units of 5 in the current IG book anyway?
26672
Post by: Sephyr
It's a good price. Heck, just the 2 twin-linked lascannons should run to about 70-80 points. Add in the transport capacity, the AV12 and the flyer status and 170 is a good price. It's still great but not so easily spammable without making sacrifices elsewhere in the list.
Pretty much every other flyer still dies in one turn against a vendetta, and it can still be squadroned for FOC optimization.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
CthuluIsSpy wrote:What can be taken in units of 5 in the current IG book anyway?
stormtroopers, ogryn, ratlings, and PBSs.
So, elites choices.
Also, to be pedantic, all officer squads.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
This question can't be answered until we see the new rules for the Hydra (and any other AA units IG get). At 170 points and with reduced transport capacity the Vendetta is no longer as brutally efficient as it used to be, so the primary reason to take it is for AA. The Vendetta is still way more powerful than the Thunderbolt and other flyer AA options IG have, but the new Hydra may be effective enough that it can cover the AA role without needing help from aircraft. If the Hydra does become a viable AA platform then the Vendetta probably won't have much of a role.
Ailaros wrote:What would make a whole heck of a lot more sense is if they rewrote the rules so that the vendetta actually behaved like a fast attack choice, rather than a misplaced heavy support choice.
Yeah, what was GW thinking when they put a unit that can move 36" a turn into fast attack. Real fast attack choices move at least 72" a turn!
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
170 points for an AV12 Flyer with 3 Twin-linked Lascannons, Hover and transport capability? Still sounds pretty good for me.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:I've been saying all through 6th ed that 170pts would have been fair for the Vendetta, and here we are. The lower transport capacity's not a huge deal for me either, especially since rumour has it that Veterans can be in units of 5+.
Agreed, 170pts sounds somewhat sane and the fact that it has any transport capacity at all is barely a factor for me.
69014
Post by: Panzer1944
Well until they give us a tank that can do some decent damage to Riptides, Wraithknights, and other monstrous creatures it’s really the only thing in the IG arsenal that can do heavy damage in a single turn so even with the point increase all my flyers will still be seeing plenty of action. Am a little sadden by the larger then hopefully point increase (had my hopes at 150) still it’s pretty much a most have in any of my list.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Imagine for a second it didn't use to be 40pts cheaper. Ok, now pretend it never existed. Cool, now you open your new codex and see a new varient of the valkyrie, it's 170pts, cool, now compare it to other flyers from other codex's. Stacks up pretty well no? 12 armour, same a helldrake (gree, what do those cost?) it's still way better than the dark angel thing. It won't have a problem shooting down other flyers, it has the option to go into hover mode and lascannons are pretty good at killing a lot of the more annoying units out there. (glances at riptide)
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
yeah give the helldrake the option of a hades that works like 3 TL LC and a transport capacity OR the flamer, guess what people would take? the "hades" might see some use rather than NEVER.
62560
Post by: Makumba
 Crablezworth wrote:Imagine for a second it didn't use to be 40pts cheaper. Ok, now pretend it never existed. Cool, now you open your new codex and see a new varient of the valkyrie, it's 170pts, cool, now compare it to other flyers from other codex's. Stacks up pretty well no? 12 armour, same a helldrake (gree, what do those cost?) it's still way better than the dark angel thing. It won't have a problem shooting down other flyers, it has the option to go into hover mode and lascannons are pretty good at killing a lot of the more annoying units out there. (glances at riptide)
only the helldrake has a +5inv and it doesn't have to transport troopers. Looks like am going to have to stop using ally , because I just lost 120pts and I have no where to place my veterans. I hope there is going to be options to run a good foot guard list , because it is looking grim right now . Higher cost vendettas , no units to transport inside, no cheap killy troops , because there is no points to buy chimeras unless the vendettas are droped totaly , but then IG have no good anti flyer units .
82369
Post by: Ruberu
I think 170pts is a good, fair cost for them, however, if they drop the transport capacity to six that all goes out the window. Who really uses a squad of six IG? If this is true then I really am not getting the new codex. My local friends will still let me use the old book.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
It was a fair price as a skimmer but was too cheap once flyer rules came in, 170 seems right to me for the vendetta.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Yeah, it's worth it. It's still better than most other flyers in the game even at 170 points. 150 points with everything else remaining unchanged was just wishful thinking, and wouldn't have really brought it in line with the other flyers at all, nor would it have been balanced internally since it still would have been cheap enough for everyone to justify taking it instead of the valkyrie, or indeed anything else in the Fast Attack slot. The only other flyer that might compare is the heldrake, which has also been widely regarded as being " OP" since shortly after it was released, and will no doubt receive the same treatment when the next CSM update comes out (5-10 years from now, assuming GW's still around by then, but yeah).
 Ruberu wrote:I think 170pts is a good, fair cost for them, however, if they drop the transport capacity to six that all goes out the window.
If you need transport capacity then consider the valkyrie. Assuming it remains mostly unchanged it should be able to carry twice as many models, and it'll probably be cheaper. You wouldn't even need to buy a new model for it, really, if you could convince people to pretend that the lascannons are actually rocket pods.
Not only that but the reduced transport capacity actually makes sense. The vendetta is just a valkyrie that's been converted into a gunship, and like other similar units, the increased firepower would likely come at the cost of carrying capacity. The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries. A Tau devilfish loses all of its transport capacity when you convert it into a hammerhead gunship, as it needs all that space to power the large main gun and hold ammunition. Same idea with the Eldar fire prism. If anything the vendetta probably shouldn't have a transport capacity at all, as I can't think of many other dedicated gunships in the game that do. There are other units, like the SM razorback, that further set a precedent for transports losing transport capacity when you stick big guns on top, and that's just from a single twin-linked lascannon, which tells me that three of the damn things should definitely take up some room.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
From the point of view of me as an Elysians player?
170 points for the Vendetta?
Seems perfectly fair to me. That puts it at 15 points over the Punisher Vulture, which it currently hedges out in most circumstances because it has the advantage of transporting a Veteran squad with Lord Commissar attached.
Also puts it at 40 points over a Valkyrie with Missile Pods, which sounds a little harsh with the reduced transport capacity as well. Still, makes the Valkyrie seem nicer in comparison, so I can't complain too much since I have to take them.
Transports 6? I guess I'll be putting command squads, Stormtroopers and special/heavy weapon teams in them. No big deal, I've got those units floating around in the army anyway.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
It's not bad for the price, I would have liked to have seen it gain a rule like:
Close support aircraft: The Vendetta is built to support troops on the ground more than fight other aircraft. If cannot choose to have the Skyfire rule like other flyers.
That way, we can open the door for some other AA instead (Hydra or better yet, make the Thunderbolt stop sucking balls).
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
It should certainly have Strafing Run, and the Thunderbolt should be BS4, or something like that.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Panzer1944 wrote:Well until they give us a tank that can do some decent damage to Riptides, Wraithknights, and other monstrous creatures it’s really the only thing in the IG arsenal that can do heavy damage in a single turn
That is so not true. Properly-kitted vanquishers, punishers, and executioners all do more damage (well, not punishers to wraithknights, but otherwise...). And russes are much better because they start shooting turn 1 instead of turn whenever they arrive, and they're more durable, and they won't be constantly losing their targets due to having to make 90 degree turns or flying off the board all the time.
ausYenLoWang wrote:yeah give the helldrake the option of a hades that works like 3 TL LC and a transport capacity OR the flamer, guess what people would take? the "hades" might see some use rather than NEVER.
The helldrake also has demon, demonforge, IWND, and vector strike.
Of course, the vendetta is still better, but that's a product of the helldrake being a lot worse than a lot of people seem to think.
44924
Post by: Zande4
The Crimson Hunter is 10 points cheaper.
Let's compare them.
BS4 vs BS3
AV10 - 10 - 10 vs AV12 - 12 - 10
x2 S8 AP2 36" Lance + x2 S8 AP2 48" vs x3 S9 AP2 T-L 48" + x3 S5 AP4 36"
10 Points for superior guns vs most targets, much more armoured and a transport capacity. Yeah the Vendetta sucks now, better not take any.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
 Zande4 wrote:The Crimson Hunter is 10 points cheaper.
Let's compare them.
BS4 vs BS3
AV10 - 10 - 10 vs AV12 - 12 - 10
x2 S8 AP2 36" Lance + x2 S8 AP2 48" vs x3 S9 AP2 T-L 48" + x3 S5 AP4 36"
10 Points for superior guns vs most targets, much more armoured and a transport capacity. Yeah the Vendetta sucks now, better not take any.
To be fair though, a stiff breeze will shoot down a Crimson Hunter... but it'll shoot down a Vendetta either way if it gets the first shot.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I find it very amusing that some people hesitate to pay 170 for the Vendetta, when marines have been paying 200+ for the same basic capability for some time now.
62560
Post by: Makumba
But marine versions of flyers can shot at two targets. I offten had those flying land raiders come in after my vendetas showed up and put bolters and twin AC in to one of my vendetas and the other one with a MM and blow up or stun both. before I could do the same with vendettas at more or less the same points and lucky reserv rolls. now 2 vendettas cost more then one storm raven .
11860
Post by: Martel732
Makumba wrote:But marine versions of flyers can shot at two targets. I offten had those flying land raiders come in after my vendetas showed up and put bolters and twin AC in to one of my vendetas and the other one with a MM and blow up or stun both. before I could do the same with vendettas at more or less the same points and lucky reserv rolls. now 2 vendettas cost more then one storm raven .
You were very unlucky. Splitting fire on the stormraven is statistically quite poor, especially against the #1 target, the helldrake.
Two Vendettas have always cost more than one Stormraven. And I still think the Stormraven is overcosted. AV 12 does not equal "flying land raider". You can kill them pretty quickly with plain old S7 hits by hull pointing them out. The Stormraven is still paying for a lot of extraneous crap it doesn't need.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Sidstyler wrote:The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.
And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Martel732 wrote:Makumba wrote:But marine versions of flyers can shot at two targets. I offten had those flying land raiders come in after my vendetas showed up and put bolters and twin AC in to one of my vendetas and the other one with a MM and blow up or stun both. before I could do the same with vendettas at more or less the same points and lucky reserv rolls. now 2 vendettas cost more then one storm raven .
You were very unlucky. Splitting fire on the stormraven is statistically quite poor, especially against the #1 target, the helldrake.
Two Vendettas have always cost more than one Stormraven. And I still think the Stormraven is overcosted. AV 12 does not equal "flying land raider". You can kill them pretty quickly with plain old S7 hits by hull pointing them out. The Stormraven is still paying for a lot of extraneous crap it doesn't need.
Not to mention that the Stormraven's not so good that the Guard have to field 2 Vendettas to compete... that's just madness.
62560
Post by: Makumba
. You can kill them pretty quickly with plain old S7 hits by hull pointing them out.
Which str 7 weapons . I have str 6 on scater lasers and str 9 on lascannons . I do take a quad gun , but it can't hull point a storm raven in a single turn reliable enough. If I take hvy weapon squads with Autocannons they will just die because GW decided to make them bad.
Two Vendettas have always cost more than one Stormraven.
there is a huge difference between one costing around 240pts and the other 260 , and vendettas going up to 340 .
Unless stuff gets a lot cheaper in the new codex , I won't be able to either take an aegis or coteaz or I will have to play with 2 vendettas . But then they get random in reservs and if one comes in it will die to interceptor units or flyers coming in second.
11860
Post by: Martel732
If you are guard, use Vendettas w/lascannon or sabre platforms and the Stormravens go bye-bye.
"Unless stuff gets a lot cheaper in the new codex , I won't be able to either take an aegis or coteaz or I will have to play with 2 vendettas ."
Boo hoo. Welcome to the insane choices that meq lists have to make every time we make a list. No sympathy for non-meq list s in 6th. That's how bad meqs are.
62560
Post by: Makumba
Sabers are FW and I am using vendettas as anti air . It gets harder to do if vendettas suddenly go 40pts up in cost .
And please you have no problems , Ignore Ld as a stat totaly , have troops that don't die to everything with great range and good weapons , don't die like in melee.
I can't even tar pit with vets a marine player can always send a beat up unit to draw someone away from an objective.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Meqs suck. I can show you by list trading with every Xeno list, including IG. If you think marines have "no problems", then probably most of your best players play marines. Because marines, out side of some death stars and biker builds, are a dumpster fire.
40823
Post by: wildboar
Martel732 wrote:Meqs suck. I can show you by list trading with every Xeno list, including IG. If you think marines have "no problems", then probably most of your best players play marines. Because marines, out side of some death stars and biker builds, are a dumpster fire.
No chance. Meqs are considerably easier to kill these days granted but they still have a vast array of choice and viable builds available to them. They have a decent book. not crappy, nothing too stupid either. Just about right for me.
*Edit*
Back on topic. Until I have the new book in my hands I'll reserve judgment on the viability of the Vendetta. It also depends on how other things are going to be priced (Chimeras, Russes etc). Based on what I've read on here I'll still be taking my Vendetta. 170pts maybe a bit much but it most certainly needed to go up.
82609
Post by: MasterOfGaunts
 Peregrine wrote: Sidstyler wrote:The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.
And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.
Maybe there is the space for the troops but every aircraft has a maximum take off weight --- just a hint from an engineer  @Topic: 170 is absolutely reasonable. Good job GW.!
11860
Post by: Martel732
 wildboar wrote:Martel732 wrote:Meqs suck. I can show you by list trading with every Xeno list, including IG. If you think marines have "no problems", then probably most of your best players play marines. Because marines, out side of some death stars and biker builds, are a dumpster fire.
No chance. Meqs are considerably easier to kill these days granted but they still have a vast array of choice and viable builds available to them. They have a decent book. not crappy, nothing too stupid either. Just about right for me.
*Edit*
Back on topic. Until I have the new book in my hands I'll reserve judgment on the viability of the Vendetta. It also depends on how other things are going to be priced (Chimeras, Russes etc). Based on what I've read on here I'll still be taking my Vendetta. 170pts maybe a bit much but it most certainly needed to go up.
170 is not too much. Functionally, it is almost identical to the Stormraven, and should be priced as such.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MasterOfGaunts wrote:Maybe there is the space for the troops but every aircraft has a maximum take off weight --- just a hint from an engineer
Yes, I know about weight and balance limits, but the lascannons shouldn't be that heavy compared to the other weapon options it can take on the same hardpoints. For example, the Valkyrie is perfectly capable of flying with two huge extra fuel tanks instead of lascannons and a pair of Sentinels in the passenger compartment.
40823
Post by: wildboar
It's AV is about all it shares with Stormraven. 12 models + Dreadnought capacity with Assault Vehicle rule put these 2 in different leagues. Even more so if the Vendettas capacity has been reduced to 6.
30pts difference between these 2. If Marines had direct access to Vendetta as well it would be a no brainer. But as I said I'm reserving judgment atm... 
78031
Post by: UlrikDecado
170pts? Yes, it is. Still strong kickin, for me, its fair price.
And the 6 men transport thing? Well, I can still stick my flamer PCS in it, so, OK here
11860
Post by: Martel732
wildboar wrote:It's AV is about all it shares with Stormraven. 12 models + Dreadnought capacity with Assault Vehicle rule put these 2 in different leagues. Even more so if the Vendettas capacity has been reduced to 6.
30pts difference between these 2. If Marines had direct access to Vendetta as well it would be a no brainer. But as I said I'm reserving judgment atm...
Who assaults out of Stormraven? Who puts a dreadnought in one? They are not in different leagues at all. In fact, outside 24", the Vendetta still massively outguns the Raven.
40823
Post by: wildboar
How are your flyers outside 24"? Flyers can reach anything they want and with the reduced amount of turns flyers participate the missiles make up some of the short fall. You are right the Vendetta does pack more of a ranged punch than the Raven but not as much as you claim. The MM on the Raven itself easily accounts for a Vendettas LC. It can take a TL Lascannon itself and 4 Str8 AP2 missiles all on a BS4 platform that can shoot different targets (not saying it should)
The Raven is also harder to pop should it hover due to ceramite plating.
82609
Post by: MasterOfGaunts
Peregrine wrote:MasterOfGaunts wrote:Maybe there is the space for the troops but every aircraft has a maximum take off weight --- just a hint from an engineer
Yes, I know about weight and balance limits, but the lascannons shouldn't be that heavy compared to the other weapon options it can take on the same hardpoints. For example, the Valkyrie is perfectly capable of flying with two huge extra fuel tanks instead of lascannons and a pair of Sentinels in the passenger compartment.
Well high energy laser consume a lot of power and who knows about the weight of a proper battery. But I think its pointless to go any further on this discussion. :p
10886
Post by: Phanixis
OP, are you kidding me? Of course Vendettas are still worth it, they are among the best fliers, AA units, and tank hunters, if not the best, in 40k and they rock transport capacity to boot. As a Xenos player, I would kill for a flyer like this. If the price truly bothers you that much, I would happily trade you my razorsharks and sunsharks for your valkyries and vendettas. If I had the option to field 200 point Vendettas with no transport capacity in my codices, I would include 1-2 Vendettas in many of my armies. They are arguably still underpriced even at 170, and they sure as heck are still worth fielding.
11860
Post by: Martel732
wildboar wrote:How are your flyers outside 24"? Flyers can reach anything they want and with the reduced amount of turns flyers participate the missiles make up some of the short fall. You are right the Vendetta does pack more of a ranged punch than the Raven but not as much as you claim. The MM on the Raven itself easily accounts for a Vendettas LC. It can take a TL Lascannon itself and 4 Str8 AP2 missiles all on a BS4 platform that can shoot different targets (not saying it should)
The Raven is also harder to pop should it hover due to ceramite plating.
The missiles are lower strength than the lascannons, which is actually very bad, especially for the BA missiles, which need pens for their special ability to be worth a damn. I've probably seen 20+ ravens die on both sides of the table, and at least 66% were from being hull pointed out. The ceramite armor is useless. Hover mode is suicide making assault basically useless.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
People complaining about storm ravens are missing that they can do things like carry blood talon dreadnoughts directly into close combat.
Vendettas can just carry a couple of special weapons on squishy guard models. Their transport capacity should be cheaper because they can't transport as dangerous of cargo.
Also, don't be too quick to dismiss immune to melta. Sure, there are lots of ways to take down fliers without meltaguns, but most of the kills I've made against fliers have been with them. The fact that fliers have so many restrictions on the way they move often means they're forced to be way too close to meltas and multimeltas.
Plus, you have more options with the storm raven as well. You can't take hurricane bolters and assault cannons on a vendetta. Or split fire with anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons.
Whether the points are fair or not, a storm raven SHOULD be more expensive than a vendetta.
11860
Post by: Martel732
"People complaining about storm ravens are missing that they can do things like carry blood talon dreadnoughts directly into close combat. "
Not exactly. They can't assault the turn they arrive, so you have to either drop them with grav chute insertion or spend a turn on the death trap express.
And they are NOT imune to melta. Melta just becomes a fancier krak missile. S8 AP1 is still a lot more dangerous than S8 AP3, although they are equally good at hull pointing the damn things out. So, yeah, I am dismissing that useless feature on the thing. Which I'm sure GW think is worth so many points.
Options that add 30 pts to the already high cost? Yeah, I take the stupid things because in for a penny in for a pound, but the base model should not have to pay for the potential to take options. That's crazy. The cost of the options should take care of that.
And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex. That is also insane thinking. Not that assaulting from the Stormraven is a thing anyway, because its guaranteed to get your raven killed. Besides, I'm not certain that some plasma vets can't cause more damage in 6th than whatever overpriced units you crush into the raven.
By the way, this is the kind of absurd logic that GW used in 2nd that made marines unplayable. Marines were charged for BS 4 and the charged again on their heavies because they were BS 4. Which they already paid for.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
The whole point of transporting units in a Vendetta is using grav chutes to drop a scoring unit on an objective turn 5/6, you don't need extra capacity.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, I think Vendettas are now correctly priced.
However, one could think about the smaller transport capacity.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Peregrine wrote: Sidstyler wrote:The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.
And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.
And my hammerhead model can clearly still transport guys inside of it, but I'm supposed to take GW's word for it that the turret weapon needs all that empty space that's not being taken up by anything. 
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.
Wait, but that's backwards.
If a transport greatly increases the effectiveness of a unit, what should cost more, the unit or the transport? If it's the unit, then I'm grossly overpaying when I don't take a transport, if it's the transport, then I'm only overpaying if I'm not transporting anything - but what's the point of a transport if not to transport?
AtoMaki wrote:I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?
The hellhound is still pretty good, scout sentinels can outflank, unlike the vendetta, and armored sentinels get to start shooting turn 1, can take cover better, and have twice as many hull points (among other sentinely things like tying things up in close combat).
Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Ailaros wrote:Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.
Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.
So anyone who valued the vendetta and took it in every list wasn't creative? With such a broad brush you'd think you'd get more painted..
11860
Post by: Martel732
" but what's the point of a transport if not to transport? "
What indeed. The Stormraven is rarely used as a transport in my experience because its a deathtrap and forces reserving of that unit. The Stormraven in NOT a transport; it's a gunship that GW tacked transport capability on to. The point cost of a unit should be evaluated independently of its transport or transport options.
"f a transport greatly increases the effectiveness of a unit, what should cost more, the unit or the transport?"
Most units get worse (read: killed) in a Stormraven.
"Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity. "
They were at 130 pt price point. Call me uncreative.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.
Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.
I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.
And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Given that these are same morons that brought us the Wave Serpent and Riptide, I was convinced that the Vendetta was going to stay the same price. Guess I was wrong.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
I still don't like the Vendetta out of principle; I don't think it should exist at all, or should have been a true gunship like the Vulture.
But 170pts is in the ballpark of reasonable. I probably would have gone with 160pts including the transport nerf myself, but time will tell how well the new version fares.
I imagine it'll still be the best FA choice though, which is another problem.
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
Ailaros wrote:
AtoMaki wrote:I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?
The hellhound is still pretty good, scout sentinels can outflank, unlike the vendetta, and armored sentinels get to start shooting turn 1, can take cover better, and have twice as many hull points (among other sentinely things like tying things up in close combat).
Sure, Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels can blast FMCs and Baledrakes out from the skies while posing a serious threat to any other "big game" target and they also have good durability and maneuverability... Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/ MCs/ FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
MWHistorian wrote:IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.
Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.
I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.
And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.
I'm not complaining, and the Vendetta is pretty much my only dedicated anti-tank choice with more than a 12" range.
Blacksails wrote:I still don't like the Vendetta out of principle; I don't think it should exist at all, or should have been a true gunship like the Vulture.
But 170pts is in the ballpark of reasonable. I probably would have gone with 160pts including the transport nerf myself, but time will tell how well the new version fares.
I imagine it'll still be the best FA choice though, which is another problem.
I'd have gone with 160 as well. ^^; I don't know how normal sentinels operate, but drop sentinels are pretty effective, even if they are horrifically overpriced compared to their vanilla counterparts (nearly twice the cost!)
AtoMaki wrote: Ailaros wrote:
Sure, Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels can blast FMCs and Baledrakes out from the skies while posing a serious threat to any other "big game" target and they also have good durability and maneuverability... Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/ MCs/ FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.
Sentinels can also get a really, really easy 3+ cover save, without sacrificing their mobility.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Furyou Miko wrote:Sentinels can also get a really, really easy 3+ cover save, without sacrificing their mobility.
How exactly?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Furyou Miko wrote:MWHistorian wrote:IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.
Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.
I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.
And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.
I'm not complaining, and the Vendetta is pretty much my only dedicated anti-tank choice with more than a 12" range.
Wait, what? Did you miss all the other units that can take Lascannons, the Demolisher, the Vanquisher and the Devil Dog?
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Probably referring to obscured + camonetting.
I don't see how that is really, really easy though...
60662
Post by: Purifier
Peregrine wrote: Sidstyler wrote:The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.
And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.
What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.
Forge the narrative!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 BrotherHaraldus wrote:Probably referring to obscured + camonetting.
I don't see how that is really, really easy though...
But that misses the "without sacrificing their mobility" part since camo netting only works if you don't move. And of course it requires 4+ cover, which can be hard to get unless you're willing to camp in one spot behind an ADL.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Peregrine wrote: Sidstyler wrote:The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.
And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.
Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.
There are already battery packs there for the Valkyrie's hull gun. And even if you put an entire set of battery packs like the wing guns have in the transport compartment you don't get any meaningful decrease in space.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Peregrine wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.
There are already battery packs there for the Valkyrie's hull gun. And even if you put an entire set of battery packs like the wing guns have in the transport compartment you don't get any meaningful decrease in space.
I can't see the external battery packs for the hull gun. I agree it's not a good excuse, as the battery packs really aren't that significant as to warrant such a reduction in transport capacity, but I was under the impression the Vendetta, like the Valkyrie, had the power source for the hull weapon mounted inside the transport area.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Honestly this poitns change AND the troop capacity change is about exactly what I was expecting
55206
Post by: Von Chogg
Well I pay 160 for my crimson hunter. No transport, av10, and s8 guns that ain't TL. I get to reroll armour pen vs flyers and am slightly more maneuverable. So I'd rather the vendetta.
62560
Post by: Makumba
What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.
Forge the narrative!
Sure . I can forge some narrative , just give me the 5 hour long preliminary bombardment pre attack and am cool . Lets say d3 templates for any tank , d6 for any artilery pice and d6+2 for any siege artilery pice in an army . That would represent the massing of vehicles in the area. More mecha stuff would mean that IG is massing up for a big attack , while fewer would mean just some soldiers on leave or something.
Failing that make a 130pts vendetta with scater lasers and let it upgrade to las vendetta for 170pts or more.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Von Chogg wrote:Well I pay 160 for my crimson hunter. No transport, av10, and s8 guns that ain't TL. I get to reroll armour pen vs flyers and am slightly more maneuverable. So I'd rather the vendetta.
The Vendetta guns are TL, but 4 shots at Bs4 that aren't TL will typically do more damage than 3 at BS3 that are TL. Vector Dancer is also quite a big deal IMO, the extra turn at the end of it's move goes a long way to setting up targets, getting shots at more vulnerable armour, getting shots at other flyers, etc. Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.
60662
Post by: Purifier
Makumba wrote:What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.
Forge the narrative!
Sure . I can forge some narrative , just give me the 5 hour long preliminary bombardment pre attack and am cool . Lets say d3 templates for any tank , d6 for any artilery pice and d6+2 for any siege artilery pice in an army . That would represent the massing of vehicles in the area. More mecha stuff would mean that IG is massing up for a big attack , while fewer would mean just some soldiers on leave or something.
Failing that make a 130pts vendetta with scater lasers and let it upgrade to las vendetta for 170pts or more.
Absolutely! Of course your enemy then gets 35000 extra points to represent the threat large enough for the operation you describe.
Why are you being ridiculous? I was forging a narrative to the (potential) new rules. Not making up rules with the excuse of a narrative.
62560
Post by: Makumba
But IG had rules like that in 2ed. They got preliminary bombardments for every vehicle taken and could buy extra wargear to get more shots and artilery vehicles were giving extra shots too.
There are no rules for ammo in w40k , other then being one shot and I don't see why my army has to be punished for GW being unable to balance stuff.
Right now with chimeras going up to 65pts and vendettas being 170 , my army is almost 1700pts . To play it I would have to cut off the whole ally section , which is the only thing that makes it work right now.
Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.
very true . Eldars don't want to use their CH , because their armies work fine without them , IG without vendettas need some big buffs and points drops to work.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Crablezworth wrote: Ailaros wrote:Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.
Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.
So anyone who valued the vendetta and took it in every list wasn't creative?
That's not what I said. "Value" is not a synonym of "auto-include".
AtoMaki wrote: Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/MCs/FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.
The 3 lascannons are twin-linked, but they also arrive late and don't always get to shoot at the same target twice, and often leave early or spend a turn pointed at nothing.
And vendettas aren't way more durable (and sometimes are less so). You get more hull points and better cover saves out of other options, and are less likely to stray near high-powered short-range weapons like meltaguns, and once your opponent figures out what skyfire means, any extra durability the vendetta has vanishes.
68672
Post by: ausYenLoWang
Makumba wrote:But IG had rules like that in 2ed. They got preliminary bombardments for every vehicle taken and could buy extra wargear to get more shots and artilery vehicles were giving extra shots too.
There are no rules for ammo in w40k , other then being one shot and I don't see why my army has to be punished for GW being unable to balance stuff.
Right now with chimeras going up to 65pts and vendettas being 170 , my army is almost 1700pts . To play it I would have to cut off the whole ally section , which is the only thing that makes it work right now.
Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.
very true . Eldars don't want to use their CH , because their armies work fine without them , IG without vendettas need some big buffs and points drops to work.
Off Topic, my CSM army weeps for you that now your going to have to make meaningful decisions rather than just smash stuff in..... to think you could field the same army over multiple edditions, as well as codex's... thats not how it works... at all
on topic, again i think 170 is fair, the old costing was a joke and we all know that.
as to losing transport capacity for more guns, course it would.. look at the landraiders, more firepower less troops. and as to the batteries being external, as said, it will be a weight issue. "fluff" wise atleast
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
Ailaros wrote:
And vendettas aren't way more durable (and sometimes are less so). You get more hull points and better cover saves out of other options, and are less likely to stray near high-powered short-range weapons like meltaguns, and once your opponent figures out what skyfire means, any extra durability the vendetta has vanishes.
The more HPs for the Sentinels are cramped into an easy-to-hit, low-mobility package and it is pretty hard to get a cover save for them because of the chicken legs: covering only the legs won't give you cover, and cover that are taller than the legs will also block weapon LoS - on the other hand, vertical cover can only give protection to one or maybe two Sentinels as you have to peek from corners least the cover will block weapon LoS. And even then, your opponent doesn't have to bring all sorts of dedicated anti-Sentinel firepower: you can trash them with any S6+ weapon or even S5 weapons in the case of the Scout Sentinel.
Oh ,and it is much easier to get cover for the Vendetta, as it can just Jink and there it is: an 5+ cover save . And even snap shooting next turn isn't that big problem as you will still hit stuff on a ~5+ thankfully to twin-linked.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
Coming soon to every Astra Militarium army list everywhere...
Introducing the new vendetta:
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 MWHistorian wrote:I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
It IS GW. I could have totally seen them leaving it unchanged.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Wait, what? Did you miss all the other units that can take Lascannons, the Demolisher, the Vanquisher and the Devil Dog?
Those aren't in my codex. I guess I could take a Tauros V, but those are coming in at two Rhinos for an over-gunned humvee.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Ill admit that I'm glad to see some IG vehicles get a price increase. The camera and vendetta were always underscored for what they gave you. I just hope the russes stay priced competitively. I'd like to see more main battle tanks than transports with overloaded guns for a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post made on phone. Sorry for spelling errors.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Jayden63 wrote:Ill admit that I'm glad to see some IG vehicles get a price increase. The camera and vendetta were always underscored for what they gave you. I just hope the russes stay priced competitively. I'd like to see more main battle tanks than transports with overloaded guns for a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post made on phone. Sorry for spelling errors.
Did people really think the Chimera was that overpowered? If anything, it was the Vets that were a no brainer over regular Guardsman, and then they naturally went in a Chimera. However vets are apparently getting cheaper and the Chimera more expensive, so it only widens the gap between Chimera vets and regular infantry Chimeras.
62560
Post by: Makumba
MWHistorian wrote:I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
almost 200pts is not a little change . Not at 1500pts. That is no ally taken , or one tank less , but then why take a single one at all . It forces a total rebuilding of a list. And they aren't showing any good tier units like they did with tau , eldar or even marines.
Coming soon to every Astra Militarium army list everywhere...
Save for places where FW is not legal.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Did people really think the Chimera was that overpowered? If anything, it was the Vets that were a no brainer over regular Guardsman, and then they naturally went in a Chimera. However vets are apparently getting cheaper and the Chimera more expensive, so it only widens the gap between Chimera vets and regular infantry Chimeras.
Most people that have/had a problem with the Chimera are still thinking back to 2009 and the beginning of 5th edition, not how the game actually currently plays.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Where was this price change when it actually would have been accurate?
102
Post by: Jayden63
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Jayden63 wrote:Ill admit that I'm glad to see some IG vehicles get a price increase. The camera and vendetta were always underscored for what they gave you. I just hope the russes stay priced competitively. I'd like to see more main battle tanks than transports with overloaded guns for a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post made on phone. Sorry for spelling errors.
Did people really think the Chimera was that overpowered? If anything, it was the Vets that were a no brainer over regular Guardsman, and then they naturally went in a Chimera. However vets are apparently getting cheaper and the Chimera more expensive, so it only widens the gap between Chimera vets and regular infantry Chimeras.
I didn't think it was overpowered, but it was undercosted. Way too many firing ports for other things than Lasguns. It removed all penalties for having officers in vehicles for giving orders (which clearly was supposed to be a downside since the loss of that ability is a rule).
Now I'm not saying that a Chimera shouldn't have these abilities, just not at the cost that it used to be.
752
Post by: Polonius
 Vaktathi wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Did people really think the Chimera was that overpowered? If anything, it was the Vets that were a no brainer over regular Guardsman, and then they naturally went in a Chimera. However vets are apparently getting cheaper and the Chimera more expensive, so it only widens the gap between Chimera vets and regular infantry Chimeras.
Most people that have/had a problem with the Chimera are still thinking back to 2009 and the beginning of 5th edition, not how the game actually currently plays.
I think that's pretty accurate. I'd wager all the money in my pocket that the chimera price jump was due to some combination of wanting to make the Taurux more appealing and residual complaints of undercosted chimeras in 5th edition.
And yes, Chimeras were undercosted... for about six months. Compared to Space Wolf Missile Spam, chimeras were perfectly balanced.
170 for the Vendetta is good. I think it becomes a solid unit that fills a role, not a no-brainer auto include. I think we'll see more basic valkyries as well, especially since they're basically the same price with rocket pods (well, 5 points more).
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Makumba wrote: MWHistorian wrote:I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
almost 200pts is not a little change . Not at 1500pts. That is no ally taken , or one tank less , but then why take a single one at all . It forces a total rebuilding of a list.
Considering that the rules have only been leaked for about 4 or 5 units in the 'Dex thus far, I think that's a premature assessment...
81259
Post by: Sparkadia
Point increase is warranted, slashing its transport isn't.
What is it supposed to take now? Hell, make it 180 and keep the transport. I just liked having a gunship that could also get dudes where they needed to be. Sure, its a gunship, but what's the point of even having a transport capacity if it's for 6 men - men who die from a stiff breeze no less.
Seems as though everything I really likes about Guard (heavily Mechanised) is being cut back. Chimera costs, Vendetta, removing artillery... sad times.
10886
Post by: Phanixis
MWHistorian wrote:
I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
It IS GW. I could have totally seen them leaving it unchanged.
And for once GW actually made the correct choice. The things were grossly undercosted, 170 is far more in line with their abilities than 130 was. GW made the correct decision and they are still taking flak for it. I actually feel bad for them for once.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Phanixis wrote:MWHistorian wrote:
I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
It IS GW. I could have totally seen them leaving it unchanged.
And for once GW actually made the correct choice. The things were grossly undercosted, 170 is far more in line with their abilities than 130 was. GW made the correct decision and they are still taking flak for it. I actually feel bad for them for once.
Eh of course they're taking flak for it. I play eneugh MMOs to realize that any "nerf" no matter HOW needed, will be met with flak, and ANY nerf no matter the context will be greated with howls out outrage. GW could combine the vendetta nerf with "guardsman now all have plasma guns instead of lasguns with no gets hot, and a 50% point reduction" and people'd still focus on the nerf
75478
Post by: Musashi363
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
BrianDavion wrote:Phanixis wrote:MWHistorian wrote:
I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.
It IS GW. I could have totally seen them leaving it unchanged.
And for once GW actually made the correct choice. The things were grossly undercosted, 170 is far more in line with their abilities than 130 was. GW made the correct decision and they are still taking flak for it. I actually feel bad for them for once.
Eh of course they're taking flak for it. I play eneugh MMOs to realize that any "nerf" no matter HOW needed, will be met with flak, and ANY nerf no matter the context will be greated with howls out outrage. GW could combine the vendetta nerf with "guardsman now all have plasma guns instead of lasguns with no gets hot, and a 50% point reduction" and people'd still focus on the nerf
Erm, who's giving GW flak for nerfing the Vendetta? You people are being way too dramatic, every Guard player knows that the Vendetta was going to need a nerf and there's been rather little complaining about the nerf other than the illogical reduction in carrying capacity given the Valkyrie and Vendetta share the same transport area.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
At 9,000 Yens a pop the Vendetta is totally not worth it. But then I don't play AirCav, that's what marines are for. The IG should be blood and trenches, tanks and artillery optional.
M.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
I respectfully disagree. Marines wouldn't know aircav if it kicked them in the head.
Anyway, the Vendetta with 6 transport becomes the perfect vehicle for suicide meltagun special weapon squads and throwaway command squads.
66858
Post by: Still Standing
I thought it would be about 180 points as it was previously. With the reduction to 6 model capacity (so only command squads, psycher battle squads and storm troopers can use it) 170 is perfectly fair.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Drop pods > airplanes though.
180 would be a little steep imo, considering that 20 points more gets you melta-immunity, AV12 all over, BS4, far greater weapon utility (anti-horde as well as anti-armor) and 12-man transport capacity in the Stormraven. Don't overestimate that third lascannon.
60662
Post by: Purifier
 Still Standing wrote:I thought it would be about 180 points as it was previously. With the reduction to 6 model capacity (so only command squads, psycher battle squads and storm troopers can use it) 170 is perfectly fair.
Wasn't there some rumour about vet squads being buffed and dropped to a 5 unit minimum? Or did I halucinate that?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Vet squads are 10 points cheaper, but have lost access to their third special weapon.
Also, the carapace armor upgrade is 15 points now.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 BlaxicanX wrote:Drop pods > airplanes though.
180 would be a little steep imo, considering that 20 points more gets you melta-immunity, AV12 all over, BS4, far greater weapon utility (anti-horde as well as anti-armor) and 12-man transport capacity in the Stormraven. Don't overestimate that third lascannon.
First off, it's not melta immunity. Melta still functions as a krak missile ++ against Stormravens. And the anti-horde for Stormravens costs 30 more points, because a single AC isn't cutting it. I still think Storrmraven are overcosted on a hull point/pt basis. They cost more than helldrakes and are so much easier to hull point out.
Secondly, drop pods are great until any turn after you drop in. Then you are stuck foot slogging. Which can be fatal in some matchups. It's much worse if you are not Space Wolves, actually.
81548
Post by: vortexdr
 Panzer1944 wrote:Well until they give us a tank that can do some decent damage to Riptides, Wraithknights, and other monstrous creatures it’s really the only thing in the IG arsenal that can do heavy damage in a single turn so even with the point increase all my flyers will still be seeing plenty of action. Am a little sadden by the larger then hopefully point increase (had my hopes at 150) still it’s pretty much a most have in any of my list.
Ummm you have beast hunter shells which enables you to one shot any MC at super long range.... LOL IG players complaining is truly entertaining...
11860
Post by: Martel732
Beast Hunter shells do make me lol a lot. I might care if BA had any MCs, but guess what? We don't!
34243
Post by: Blacksails
vortexdr wrote: Panzer1944 wrote:Well until they give us a tank that can do some decent damage to Riptides, Wraithknights, and other monstrous creatures it’s really the only thing in the IG arsenal that can do heavy damage in a single turn so even with the point increase all my flyers will still be seeing plenty of action. Am a little sadden by the larger then hopefully point increase (had my hopes at 150) still it’s pretty much a most have in any of my list.
Ummm you have beast hunter shells which enables you to one shot any MC at super long range.... LOL IG players complaining is truly entertaining...
With a specific army list from a FW book.
You'll note that this thread is about the Vendetta, and consequently about the changes to it from the upcoming IG codex.
We're all aware of the ABG list, but that's not relevant to the discussion when most IG players use the base codex for their gaming needs.
Instead, you could have offered in a reasonable tone that perhaps players might consider bringing an ABG allied formation to help. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:Beast Hunter shells do make me lol a lot. I might care if BA had any MCs, but guess what? We don't!
We get it Martel, BA are the worst thing ever.
No need to compare everything ever said to how awful BA are.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
vortexdr wrote: Panzer1944 wrote:Well until they give us a tank that can do some decent damage to Riptides, Wraithknights, and other monstrous creatures it’s really the only thing in the IG arsenal that can do heavy damage in a single turn so even with the point increase all my flyers will still be seeing plenty of action. Am a little sadden by the larger then hopefully point increase (had my hopes at 150) still it’s pretty much a most have in any of my list.
Ummm you have beast hunter shells which enables you to one shot any MC at super long range.... LOL IG players complaining is truly entertaining...
As others have noted, Beast Hunter Shells aren't part of the IG codex, they're part of the FW IA1 Armored Battlegroup list, and even then only on one tank variant in two FoC slots.
85226
Post by: Harukae
Okay, so I've seen a leaked copy of the codex. The Vendetta is no longer a seperate unit and is now purchased as a 35 point upgrade. Regular Valkyries can no longer do grav chute insertions and is only doable by the Vendetta. Valkyries and Vendetta can no longer be taken in squadrons either.
3309
Post by: Flinty
Is it ironic that GW is taking flak on the modifications to a flyer?
59473
Post by: hobojebus
It's only taking flak from people who thought a 12 av flier with three twin linked lascanons was fair at 130 points.
I for one think the new version is priced properly now.
11860
Post by: Martel732
One unit fixed. How many more to go?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Jayden63 wrote:Ill admit that I'm glad to see some IG vehicles get a price increase. The camera and vendetta were always underscored for what they gave you. I just hope the russes stay priced competitively. I'd like to see more main battle tanks than transports with overloaded guns for a change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post made on phone. Sorry for spelling errors.
Clearly...you see so many IG lists winning tournaments these days. They definitely needed a nerf.
Derp.
Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition. In an edition where most armies are infantry-based, typically containing Death Stars with rerollable invulns, or 5+ wound MCs with invulns, 130 points for 3 lascannons that come in, at best, on Turn 2 is perfectly reasonable.
Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights.
Even when Chimeras were 55 points and Vendettas were 130, IG players were getting their asses handed to them in tournaments by newer armies. This kind of thing is only going to further increase the divide.
11860
Post by: Martel732
"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "
Broken logic.
"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"
No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.
I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Martel732 wrote:"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "
Broken logic.
"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"
No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.
I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.
Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...
11860
Post by: Martel732
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:Martel732 wrote:"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "
Broken logic.
"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"
No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.
I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.
Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...
Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else. A marine is already paying for BS 4. Double charging for BS by making their lascannons more expensive on top of that was how the marines became a laughing stock in 2nd edition. Lascannons should cost the same since they do the same thing for all lists. The platforms they are mounted on should be where the differentiation comes in. It doesn't matter that marines have grav. By that logic, DA lascannons should cost less than C: SM lascannons.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Martel732 wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Martel732 wrote:"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "
Broken logic.
"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"
No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.
I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.
Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...
Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else. A marine is already paying for BS 4. Double charging for BS by making their lascannons more expensive on top of that was how the marines became a laughing stock in 2nd edition. Lascannons should cost the same since they do the same thing for all lists. The platforms they are mounted on should be where the differentiation comes in. It doesn't matter that marines have grav. By that logic, DA lascannons should cost less than C: SM lascannons.
You're contradicting yourself. Or at least the wording is inadequate...
A BS4 lascannon has more "efficacy on the battlefield" than a BS3 lascannon. This is the same reason that people are complaining, rightfully so, about having to pay 25 points for a Power Fist on a S3 model.
FWIW we shouldn't use Dreadnoughts as a standard for pricing, since pretty much every dread variant except Psyriflemen blows.
11860
Post by: Martel732
The lascannon itself is not better. It's still S9 AP2. It's only more accurate because of a model that already paid for BS 4. This is double charging for BS 4 and how elite armies end up with miserable throw weight compared to lists like the IG, Conventional marine firepower is miserable. The only thing keeping C:SM really in business is the gravstar.
Okay, then. How about a tri-las predator? The Vendetta has more firepower, more mobility, carries troops, and is much harder to destroy. But it was cheaper? Come on. FWIW, I still think the Vendetta is more efficient than a Stormraven. It's more durability/pt and doesn't have to get within 24" to do its damage.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
The power fist isn't a fair comparison.
A Marine Lascannon is always S9 AP2
A Guard Lascannon is always S9 AP2
If the fist was fixed @ S8 it would compare, I don't disagree with the issue, but the comparison is apples and oranges.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
There's also the fact that these cheap lascannons in question are twin-linked, which is better then BS4.
26170
Post by: davethepak
to the op:
yes, its still one of the best flyers in the game.
Most flyers are cardboard, and have terrible offensive capability - this is reinforced cardboard, and has decent offensive capability.
Yes, the points increase hurt....but it should not have been unexpected.
At all.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Martel732 wrote:Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else
And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it.
At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Martel732 wrote:Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else
And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it.
At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).
Except that leads to situations where elite units are punished because of their additional stats.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:Martel732 wrote:Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else
And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it. At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).
Except that leads to situations where elite units are punished because of their additional stats.
I'd hardly call it "punished". They are better and therefore they should cost more. We aren't talking about going down to the shop and everyone having to pay the same amount of money for a bowl of soup, it's game balance where the value of a Lascannon is highly dependent on the ability of the user to fire it (and also on the user's ability to survive). The alternative is fancy weapons aren't worth taking on cheap troops because they are completely overcosted for their ability. The simple fact is the cost of a weapon SHOULD be "what can this weapon do?" and that varies from one troop to the next. Ork shooting weapons would certainly cost more if you gave them to troops that didn't have Bs2. You also can't tie all the cost of Bs to the unit cost because then the unit with higher Bs will be overpriced with bad weapons and underpriced with good weapons. This is why I don't understand why we've gone back to the "Wargear list" system in codices like we had in 2nd edition. I thought the reason we went away from that system is because the wise game designers realised the same weapon in the hands of 2 different troops isn't necessarily worth the same amount of points... now we've gone back to that system. The value of twin linking depends massively on who is firing as well. That's why TL Las on the Vendetta is worth so much to IG, as it represents a 50% greater chance of hitting. TL for an Ork represents a 66% greater chance of hitting.
3314
Post by: Jancoran
w other point reductions, the points cost increase may not affect a lot of lists.
81025
Post by: koooaei
 Musashi363 wrote:Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.
I sence Tzeench somewhere in the HQ of GW company.
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?
3314
Post by: Jancoran
 Boggy Man wrote:No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?
Platoon commands
66858
Post by: Still Standing
I was actually expecting the armour to drop back down to 11, if I am honest.
1185
Post by: marv335
When the Valkyrie (pre Vendetta) was first introduced by FW it was Av11, and a flyer.
It got bumped up to 12 because it was brought into the codex in a ruleset that didn't support flyers, as a skimmer.
Then it became a flyer again, but retained the Av bump.
I was expecting the Av to drop this time.
Since it didn't, I feel the new price is entirely reasonable, and wholly expected.
Anyone who expected the Vendetta to remain unchanged is frankly delusional.
The passenger capacity reduction is in line with all the other upgunned transports in the game.
The external battery pack argument holds no water, the Land Raider has external batteries, and gains 6 spaces when it drops two TL Lascannons for hurricane bolters.
The Rhino loses 4 for one set of Lascannons, that's just two examples.
I think its not a bad change, and one, to be honest, that the Vendetta needed.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
the problem most people have is that a transport capacity of 6 for Marines means a Razorback can still transport any unit the army might have plus an HQ still, while IG units don't have flexible unit sizes as such, and a transport capacity of 6 precludes use with typical Troops units, unlike a Razorback.
66858
Post by: Still Standing
Guard still have the Valkyrie with capacity 12. It's still a great vehicle. They just limited the universally regarded as overpowered Vendetta.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Still Standing wrote:Guard still have the Valkyrie with capacity 12. It's still a great vehicle. They just limited the universally regarded as overpowered Vendetta.
The Valkyrie also got a 25% price increase too however
62560
Post by: Makumba
Musashi363 wrote:
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.
Eldar had good serpents , they stayed good. They were using jet bikes before , jet bikes got better, DA were good troops , got better. Seers were good , stayed good. Warp spiders were good , got a hell lot better. FD were good , stayed good. The only thing an eldar player had to buy was knight.
Tau had broadsides , those got better. FW were good , stayed good, Kroot were a speed bump and anti infiltration unit , have become realy good with their sniper rifles . hammerheads were good , the one with long strike still is . Suits were good , stayed good. Cmders were good, become buff gods.
Only thing a tau player had to buy were riptides, although there were problems with buying them , because everyone wanted 3+.
Not all armies had to totaly rebuild themselfs like space marines. The problem with IG is that troops didn't become better and all transport options for them went up in points . Worse some troop options became weaker , like veterans for example .
60622
Post by: pepe5454
Heh with eldar and tau everyone else had to rebuild their armies =P.
59473
Post by: hobojebus
Makumba wrote:Musashi363 wrote:
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.
Eldar had good serpents , they stayed good. They were using jet bikes before , jet bikes got better, DA were good troops , got better. Seers were good , stayed good. Warp spiders were good , got a hell lot better. FD were good , stayed good. The only thing an eldar player had to buy was knight.
Tau had broadsides , those got better. FW were good , stayed good, Kroot were a speed bump and anti infiltration unit , have become realy good with their sniper rifles . hammerheads were good , the one with long strike still is . Suits were good , stayed good. Cmders were good, become buff gods.
Only thing a tau player had to buy were riptides, although there were problems with buying them , because everyone wanted 3+.
Not all armies had to totaly rebuild themselfs like space marines. The problem with IG is that troops didn't become better and all transport options for them went up in points . Worse some troop options became weaker , like veterans for example .
Transport costs did go up, but tank prices dropped so really no you are not worse off.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.
GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 Blacksails wrote:Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.
GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.
Hells yes! Flying twin-linked lascannons? Can still drop plasma vets with grav chute? AV 12?
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Martel732 wrote: Blacksails wrote:Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.
GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.
Hells yes! Flying twin-linked lascannons? Can still drop plasma vets with grav chute? AV 12?
I'm not peeved about the strength of the Vendetta, its more that nothing else in that slot is really a good choice.
If Hellhounds and friends were 100pts, there'd be a case for a budget tank, but now...
The Vendetta still fills too many important roles compared to the other FA pickings.
11860
Post by: Martel732
That is a chronic problem throughout GW army lists. It's a problem LOTS of lists share with my BA. Too many non-choices.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C:AS today.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
You mean the army with one or two choice per slot?
Hardly a compelling argument.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
What does that even mean? Automatically Appended Next Post: At any rate, units that die easily need to be rather cheap in 6th. Hellhound, I'm looking at you. Can GW be THIS dumb? Or are they just trolling their own customers?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Martel732 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
What does that even mean?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, units that die easily need to be rather cheap in 6th. Hellhound, I'm looking at you. Can GW be THIS dumb? Or are they just trolling their own customers?
I don't think they really play their own game, and they certainly don't pay attention to anything outside their office really. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had stuff like half the top Adepticon armies being Eldar- INQ-something
3314
Post by: Jancoran
I think its not the end of the world.Its really not going to affect a lot of lists anyways due to other changes. cheaper hydras will help compensate in my case a little. Maybe a little less craziness on this or that and I'll more or less keep my list in tect,
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Vaktathi wrote:Martel732 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
What does that even mean? Automatically Appended Next Post: At any rate, units that die easily need to be rather cheap in 6th. Hellhound, I'm looking at you. Can GW be THIS dumb? Or are they just trolling their own customers?
I don't think they really play their own game, and they certainly don't pay attention to anything outside their office really. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had stuff like half the top Adepticon armies being Eldar- INQ-something
I think it's more they don't play it the way people expect them to play it. They're old timer gamers who seem pretty stuck in their ways. They also put a lot of emphasis on narrative. There would be a lot of gentleman's agreements during their games to get them to play out how they're expected. If their narrative expects a weak unit to do something good, it would be let alone to do it. Personally speaking, my friends and I do something similar. If we want a fun melee showdown in the middle of the battle between our warlords, we'll sometimes agree to leave them alone to meet in the middle. But then sometimes we'll also shoot them in the back with a multimelta. All part of the narrative.
62560
Post by: Makumba
 Jancoran wrote:I think its not the end of the world.Its really not going to affect a lot of lists anyways due to other changes. cheaper hydras will help compensate in my case a little. Maybe a little less craziness on this or that and I'll more or less keep my list in tect,
have you seen the rules for hydras ? They are just 2 twin linked AC now ,don't ignore cover , don't have interceptor.
Transport costs did go up, but tank prices dropped so really no you are not worse off.
So I save 40 pts on lemman russes . lose 80 on vendettas , lose 30 on chimeras , save 30 on vets , but new vets can't have 3 special weapons , making vets questionably good .
Power weapons went up , so that is points lost again . The orders and relics and warlord traits better be realy awesome and help against inv saves and LoW .
Technicly they do save me points , by removing utility units like marbo , removing my medusa. And in stead give me a high ap medium strenght almost thunder cannon with shred .
57646
Post by: Kain
Jancoran wrote:I think its not the end of the world.Its really not going to affect a lot of lists anyways due to other changes. cheaper hydras will help compensate in my case a little. Maybe a little less craziness on this or that and I'll more or less keep my list in tect,
Hydras which no longer ignore jink saves it seems. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote: Blacksails wrote:Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.
GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.
Hells yes! Flying twin-linked lascannons? Can still drop plasma vets with grav chute? AV 12?
Six BS4 GEQs with fancy guns is still Six GEQs. I.E, will instantly die when anything shoots at them or assaults them.
Even grots.
When even thirty bug bricks of gaunts with shrouded and catalyst evaporate with serious efforts to kill them, I don't see a mere six vets surviving retaliatory or interceptor fire in any combat ready capacity.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
Blacksails wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
You mean the army with one or two choice per slot?
Hardly a compelling argument.
My point is that that's what an army with no dross units looks like. Either you have dross options filling out everything, or you have only one or two options per slot, because any more 'variety' and you're just making more or less effective versions of the same thing.
Martel732 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
What does that even mean?
It means that people look at one of only two codices with no "dross units" in it, and declare it to be limited and lacking in variety and purpose because it doesn't have a hundred crappy options to make the two good ones look powerful.
Much like Games Workshop stores existing to make independent retailers look cheap, units like Armoured Sentinels exist to make Vendettas look awesome. That was the design decision behind all those non-modelled units in the previous editions, although they kind of dropped the ball on Tervigons.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Furyou Miko wrote:Blacksails wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
You mean the army with one or two choice per slot?
Hardly a compelling argument.
My point is that that's what an army with no dross units looks like. Either you have dross options filling out everything, or you have only one or two options per slot, because any more 'variety' and you're just making more or less effective versions of the same thing.
...or the choices could be somewhat balanced? Or is that not an option?
Martel732 wrote:Much like Games Workshop stores existing to make independent retailers look cheap, units like Armoured Sentinels exist to make Vendettas look awesome. That was the design decision behind all those non-modelled units in the previous editions, although they kind of dropped the ball on Tervigons.
I'm pretty sure GW never thought that deeply about non-modeled units, as frequently they were actually quite good.
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
Jancoran wrote: Boggy Man wrote:No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?
Platoon commands
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you want a commanding unit inside a transport where their orders are useless, or grav-chuting across board where they can be easily wiped out?
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
AllSeeingSkink wrote:...or the choices could be somewhat balanced? Or is that not an option?
Not really, because they're just slightly different versions of the same thing, and there fore are either better or worse than the original thing, and therefore not balanced. For example, Sentinels. You have one kind of Sentinel, and they are a good choice. You create a second kind of Sentinel, and say, name it Armoured Sentinels, and make it not Open-Topped but take away its ability to Scout. Conceptually, it's just "a bit different", but in real terms, Scout is far more useful than Enclosed, and therefore the two units are imbalanced - Armoured Sentinels are underpowed compared to Scout Sentinels, even at five to ten points cheaper. Martel732 wrote:I'm pretty sure GW never thought that deeply about non-modeled units, as frequently they were actually quite good.
Well, it's a theory, anyway. Boggy Man wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you want a commanding unit inside a transport where their orders are useless, or grav-chuting across board where they can be easily wiped out?
Because platoon command squads can carry four special weapons, and their commander job can be done by a company command squad, but better. Since the CCS can issue two orders per turn, and the PCS only one, and the CCS orders are generally better....
64580
Post by: Boggy Man
Furyou Miko wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote:...or the choices could be somewhat balanced? Or is that not an option?
Not really, because they're just slightly different versions of the same thing, and there fore are either better or worse than the original thing, and therefore not balanced. For example, Sentinels. You have one kind of Sentinel, and they are a good choice. You create a second kind of Sentinel, and say, name it Armoured Sentinels, and make it not Open-Topped but take away its ability to Scout. Conceptually, it's just "a bit different", but in real terms, Scout is far more useful than Enclosed, and therefore the two units are imbalanced - Armoured Sentinels are underpowed compared to Scout Sentinels, even at five to ten points cheaper.
Martel732 wrote:I'm pretty sure GW never thought that deeply about non-modeled units, as frequently they were actually quite good.
Well, it's a theory, anyway.
Boggy Man wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you want a commanding unit inside a transport where their orders are useless, or grav-chuting across board where they can be easily wiped out?
Because platoon command squads can carry four special weapons, and their commander job can be done by a company command squad, but better. Since the CCS can issue two orders per turn, and the PCS only one, and the CCS orders are generally better....
Thank you, that's a fair point, but I'm going to miss 10 scoring veterans with 3 flamers.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Furyou Miko wrote:Blacksails wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
You mean the army with one or two choice per slot?
Hardly a compelling argument.
My point is that that's what an army with no dross units looks like. Either you have dross options filling out everything, or you have only one or two options per slot, because any more 'variety' and you're just making more or less effective versions of the same thing.
Martel732 wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C: AS today.
What does that even mean?
It means that people look at one of only two codices with no "dross units" in it, and declare it to be limited and lacking in variety and purpose because it doesn't have a hundred crappy options to make the two good ones look powerful.
Much like Games Workshop stores existing to make independent retailers look cheap, units like Armoured Sentinels exist to make Vendettas look awesome. That was the design decision behind all those non-modelled units in the previous editions, although they kind of dropped the ball on Tervigons.
As a SOB player I can safely say that I'd love more options even if they were less than optimal. We have 1 troop choice and the two elites we have are practically worthless. I'd love other choices and I'd hate for other codexes to get the same treatment.
3314
Post by: Jancoran
Boggy Man wrote: Jancoran wrote: Boggy Man wrote:No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?
Platoon commands
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you want a commanding unit inside a transport where their orders are useless, or grav-chuting across board where they can be easily wiped out?
Yup. I drop off a pair of quad meltagun units that score. It has won me games. Scoring units that can streak across the board, like eldar jet bikes is pretty cool. Then blast something and go to ground
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
I will continue to use 3 special, a heavy and a breacher charge in my Veteran squads. At least until IA15 and the next Elysian list.
I'm starting to worry that the Imperial Armour books won't be able to keep up with their high quality though. :( I hope they switch over to a fluff bible / stat books model.
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Furyou Miko wrote:I will continue to use 3 special, a heavy and a breacher charge in my Veteran squads.
If you haven't seen it already, the nerf to two special weapons on vets was a translation error in the spanish codex that leaked first. They get to keep their 3x specials + heavy in the real codex, so nothing is lost.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Peregrine wrote: Furyou Miko wrote:I will continue to use 3 special, a heavy and a breacher charge in my Veteran squads.
If you haven't seen it already, the nerf to two special weapons on vets was a translation error in the spanish codex that leaked first. They get to keep their 3x specials + heavy in the real codex, so nothing is lost.
Interesting news. They probably would have been fairer with 2 admittedly, but I ain't complaining. 
62560
Post by: Makumba
 Sihdhartha wrote:Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
as if tau needed flyers with interceptor/skyfire riptides and buffmanders.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Furyou Miko wrote:Not really, because they're just slightly different versions of the same thing, and there fore are either better or worse than the original thing, and therefore not balanced. For example, Sentinels. You have one kind of Sentinel, and they are a good choice. You create a second kind of Sentinel, and say, name it Armoured Sentinels, and make it not Open-Topped but take away its ability to Scout. Conceptually, it's just "a bit different", but in real terms, Scout is far more useful than Enclosed, and therefore the two units are imbalanced - Armoured Sentinels are underpowed compared to Scout Sentinels, even at five to ten points cheaper.
That's true of some things that are very similar, but for many things that's not true and it's as simple as GW buggered up the points values and/or effectiveness of them. The Tyranid codex has things like Raveners who don't perform the same task as other Fast Attack choices, but are still poor choices simply because they are overpriced, don't do enough damage and are too easy to kill. Lictors are unique in the Elite slot, but they are outclassed by the other choices because they suck, not because they are the same but worse.
The artillery tanks IG had previously all filled different roles and despite being the same choice and all being artillery based on a chimera hull, they weren't "non-choices".
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Raveners are actually outperformed by Shrikes for the same role. Shrikes, meanwhile, are overpriced and fragile.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Well the Raveners Deep Strike and move through cover as well, but deep striking fragile assault units doesn't really work as you'd hope. If the game were balanced, you could easily have Raveners and Shrikes in the same army doing completely different things that the other unit could not possibly do.... but because the rules aren't balanced Raveners and Shrikes are not appealing fast attack choices. Not because they are superfluous, rather because the choices aren't properly balanced.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Shrikes can Deep Strike, and while they don't have Move Through Cover, they do have Synpase (and by extension, Fearless), Shadow in the Warp, and access to a greater array of biomorphs and close combat weapons, which includes assault grenade equivalents.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Wait, they can? Doh, totally forgot all Jump Infantry can Deep strike, LOL, as you can tell I normally don't take Shrikes.
But yeah, you don't need to convince me Raveners suck... they are some of my favourite models in the game and I hate the rules for them. They SHOULD be a glass cannon unit, but they're all glass and no cannon.
Raveners should be different to Shrikes in that they should have lots more attack a lots more impact. So your enemy has to think: target the Shrikes if to get rid of synapse or target the Raveners so I don't get eaten in CC.
11860
Post by: Martel732
So the transport nerf does nothing? That's good to know.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Well, it makes any scoring unit dropped from the Vendetta more fragile due to not having as many bodies, but it's not like 10 Guardsmen were that sturdy to begin with...
53985
Post by: TheKbob
The change hits me a bit harder as I had more options when I used IG as allies to sisters. I feel like the transport capacity was unnecessary, just the price increase.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Well, it makes any scoring unit dropped from the Vendetta more fragile due to not having as many bodies, but it's not like 10 Guardsmen were that sturdy to begin with...
I can tell you that not even BA are not going to change their decisions based on 6 vs 10 guardsmen on an objective.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
It means you have to put Veterans in it instead of a regular Infantry squad, which you were probably doing anyway.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
It's still probably the best flyer in the game. Maybe the Night Scythe gives it a bit more of a run for it's money at this point, but seeing as you can still Chute out 3 Plasma Guns out of each of them...
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 PrinceRaven wrote:
It means you have to put Veterans in it instead of a regular Infantry squad, which you were probably doing anyway.
Actually Veterans are 10 models in a unit. So if you want to poop 3 plasmas out of a Vendetta, it's going to be a suicide special weapons squad. Not nearly as effective as dropping a suicide Vet unit.
30489
Post by: Trickstick
AllSeeingSkink wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:
It means you have to put Veterans in it instead of a regular Infantry squad, which you were probably doing anyway.
Actually Veterans are 10 models in a unit. So if you want to poop 3 plasmas out of a Vendetta, it's going to be a suicide special weapons squad. Not nearly as effective as dropping a suicide Vet unit.
Stick a Scion command squad with 4 melta in there. Much better than vets and can do orders too.
85001
Post by: Sihdhartha
Makumba wrote: Sihdhartha wrote:Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering the crap flyers my DA & Tau have I'll weep for you.... oh, no I won't!!
as if tau needed flyers with interceptor/skyfire riptides and buffmanders.
As if IG needed more help with AT weapons?
|
|
