As it stands, for around 150 pts, this thing can pump out 43 s5 shots at bs 3+, and has T7 14 wounds. That alone makes quad rapiers and models with massed anti-infantry shooting completely redundant (for Imperium, and with a WAAC mindset). I'm hoping that the next FAQ for the FWAM will bump up it's price tag (it's not far off a Fire Raptor statline for less than half the points).
Lancelot185 wrote: As it stands, for around 150 pts, this thing can pump out 43 s5 shots at bs 3+, and has T7 14 wounds. That alone makes quad rapiers and models with massed anti-infantry shooting completely redundant (for Imperium, and with a WAAC mindset). I'm hoping that the next FAQ for the FWAM will bump up it's price tag (it's not far off a Fire Raptor statline for less than half the points).
It's 4+ to hit, +1 vs non-fly, -1 for firing heavy weapons after moving.
Too good? Quite probable. Against a normal unit of Marines it will kill about 5-7 a turn, earning its cost back in 2 to 3 turns. What I think broke it was that previously it was just twin-linked, but it didn't really benefit much as twin-linking units with high-ish BS would not give a tremendous increase in firepower. However, now it has almost doubled.
I guess it could survive an increase to 180-200 points to begin with anyway.
It could either do with a price bump, or a loss of durability. Even when hovering, it's tougher than a predator, and almost as tough if not tougher than a Leman Russ (more wounds, but 1 less toughness - which means less in this edition) whilst outputting more firepower and being cheaper. Not every twin-linked weapon got it's shots doubled - and some even stayed the same, so I'm not sure what compelled them to give it 40 punisher shots.
Desubot wrote: Actually i honestly think the predator was a mistake
it should be T8 considering it was AV13 in the previous edition.
Whats the vultures armor save?
The predator does feel quite lacking, but I guess they justify it because it had weaker side and rear. The vulture is 3+, so same as russ and predator.
Vehicle T and W is very odd this edition. Flyers like the Valkyrie and Vulture ended up tougher than Leman Russ tanks, which are only very minorly more resilient than Chimeras, while Land Raiders have about as great a resiliency advantage over a Russ as the Russ does over a Trukk...
Desubot wrote: Actually i honestly think the predator was a mistake
it should be T8 considering it was AV13 in the previous edition.
Whats the vultures armor save?
The predator does feel quite lacking, but I guess they justify it because it had weaker side and rear. The vulture is 3+, so same as russ and predator.
it was the same as the vindicator but it gets the T8
Surprised the vulture is a 3+
figured it would be a 4+ since it doesnt seem nearly well armored.
Vaktathi wrote: Vehicle T and W is very odd this edition. Flyers like the Valkyrie and Vulture ended up tougher than Leman Russ tanks, which are only very minorly more resilient than Chimeras, while Land Raiders have about as great a resiliency advantage over a Russ as the Russ does over a Trukk...
Agreed. The fact that a Lascannon wounds T5 exactly the same way as T8 is ridiculous. 3 venoms would work out to be harder to kill by lascannons than a land raider. Even when ignoring their innate -1 to hit.
I agree with Vakathi; the way GW has done the durability of vehicles is bizarre.
As for the Vulture - unfortunately it's durability is tied down. It's a Valkyrie with a slightly different loadout, so I'm sure FW just copied the Valkyrie and altered the loadout, while replacing the transport capacity with strafing run.
Vaktathi wrote: Vehicle T and W is very odd this edition. Flyers like the Valkyrie and Vulture ended up tougher than Leman Russ tanks, which are only very minorly more resilient than Chimeras, while Land Raiders have about as great a resiliency advantage over a Russ as the Russ does over a Trukk...
Agreed. The fact that a Lascannon wounds T5 exactly the same way as T8 is ridiculous. 3 venoms would work out to be harder to kill by lascannons than a land raider. Even when ignoring their innate -1 to hit.
Yes, this is actually really odd. I think the wound chart could have used more granularity.
But back to this gunship: this is stupidly undercosted, but what do you expect from FW at this point in 8th ed, they didn't test anything.
The issue isn't it's firepower so much as its durability. As a general rule flyers seem way too durable this edition. T6 and t7 everywhere with wounds over ten.
As far as I'm concerned nothing with the Fly keyword should ever be tougher then t6, with hard-to-hit models maxing out t5.
BlaxicanX wrote: The issue isn't it's firepower so much as its durability. As a general rule flyers seem way too durable this edition. T6 and t7 everywhere with wounds over ten.
As far as I'm concerned nothing with the Fly keyword should ever be tougher then t6, with hard-to-hit models maxing out t5.
Storm ravens have fine durability. Their base cost is very high - on par with a land raider - and they're weaker in wounds and toughness. What makes them tough is the fact that they can't be bogged down in assault. If Land Raiders could ignore melee and keep driving / shooting, and had a better move (current move is so slow), they'd be seeing play.
But a comparable unit in cost to the Vulture is the Storm Talon, which has a tiny fraction of the firepower, worse toughness (as you mentioned it should be), and less wounds.
BlaxicanX wrote: The issue isn't it's firepower so much as its durability. As a general rule flyers seem way too durable this edition. T6 and t7 everywhere with wounds over ten.
As far as I'm concerned nothing with the Fly keyword should ever be tougher then t6, with hard-to-hit models maxing out t5.
I wouldn't say that everything with the fly keyword (Daemons, nids etc), but a lot of them do need to be toned down to give land-based vehicles a chance.
T5 storm ravens would get curb stomped off the board in seconds. There's a reason AM are one of the winningest armies in this edition, and why storm ravens are so popular. They're the only thing that can survive their shooting and have a chance at dealing damage.
Marmatag wrote: T5 storm ravens would get curb stomped off the board in seconds.
By what?
Literally every shooting attack.
Grav guns would have a field day, assault cannons wounding on 3s, auto cannons, lascannons unchanged, pick off damage with unovercharged plasma, heavy boltguns and flamers wounding on 4s.
the only things that dont change are weapons that are ST8 or better. and str 4 bolters.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, it gets to choose between being harder to hit or hitting well, it can't do both.
To price it as though it could do both simultaneously is an error.
That said, I think it is too early to tell - I'd like to buy one and play with it before I declare it OP.
Every one I've played against has been rather easily swatted off the table, so make of that what you will.
Now what if you left it in reserve then used it as a finisher move less likely to get hit and do more dmg. Wait for the opening then deploy it in the right spot.
Now your adversary knows this right and it will distract them the whole game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, it gets to choose between being harder to hit or hitting well, it can't do both.
To price it as though it could do both simultaneously is an error.
That said, I think it is too early to tell - I'd like to buy one and play with it before I declare it OP.
Every one I've played against has been rather easily swatted off the table, so make of that what you will.
Now what if you left it in reserve then used it as a finisher move less likely to get hit and do more dmg. Wait for the opening then deploy it in the right spot.
Now your advisory knows this right and it will distract them the whole game.
Unless I'm mistaken, you can't leave things in reserve anymore. It has to have a specific rule that allows you to (e.g: any of the deep-strike variations).
There are advantages and disadvantages for taking punisher vs a vulture. Both are pretty solid choices.
1) It is almost impossible to ever get cover or hide a vulture since it flys so high. This will result it being killed very quickly every game. (Most likely why they gave flyers more wounds/toughness to offset this.
2) The vulture cannot get the benifit of orders. In addition, Punishers can use auras from Yarrick and Harker to help boost damage if within 6"
3) Most AT weapons (other than lascannons) are STR 8. So that one point of toughness on the punisher makes a massive diffrence when facing most armies. Autocannons, meltas, lances, plasma, etc. are all crazy good against toughness 7
4) The vulture is limited by only being capable of turning 90-degrees and must move at least 20" each turn to maintain its -1 to hit. This combined with the punisher gun having a 24" range makes it hard to get into position at times especially with an enemy smart enough to spread out.
5) The vulture will struggle to hit units on a 5+ with the fly keyword such as assault marines, other flyers, crisis suits, most DE units, the list goes on.
6) A vulture can fly off the board
7) The punisher Heavy Support role helps it fill out formations giving valuable command points. A flyer doesn't give any benefits.
It is way to early to start calling the vulture broken or overpowered. I can think of many reasons to take punishers, artillery and other units over a vulture in any AM army. Pask in a Punisher puts a vulture to shame (yes I know Pask costs more). At most if the vulture was determined to be broken it would need a 5-15 point increase. If you are losing games because of that many points you were not likely going to win anyways.
A Vulture /w Twin Punisher Gatling Cannon and a Heavy Bolter and a Leman Russ /w Punisher Gatling Cannon and a Heavy Bolter are the exact amount of points. Let's do some mathhammer.
Offensive capabilities:
Spoiler:
Shooting against GEQ's:
LR (standing still).
PGC: 20 shots, 10 hits, 6,66 wounds, 4,44 after saves.
HB: 3 shots, 1,5 hits, 1 wound, 0,83 after saves.
Total: 5,27 wounds.
The Leman Russ.
6,66 hits, 3,33 wounds, 2,22 x3,5 = 7,77 wounds inflicted out of 12 after saves.
The Vulture (hover).
6,66 hits, 4,44 wounds, 2,96 x3,5 = 10,36 wounds inflicted out of 14 after saves.
The Vulture (flying).
5 hits, 3,33 wounds, 2,22 x3,5 = 7,77 wounds inflicted out of 14 after saves.
10 BS4+ Lascannons shooting against:
The Leman Russ.
6,66 hits, 4,44 wounds, 3,7 x3,5 = 12,95 wounds inflicted out of 12 after save. LR is DEAD!
The Vulture (hover).
6,66 hits, 4,44 wounds, 3,7 x3,5 = 12,95 wounds inflicted out of 14 after saves. Vulture is ALIVE.
The Vulture (flying).
5 hits, 3,33 wounds, 2,78 x3,5 =9,72 wounds inflicted out of 14 after saves.
TLDR
A Vulture that stands still and shoots at non Fliers deals more than twice the damage of the Leman Russ.
A Vulture that moves or shoots and Fliers deals almost twice the damage of the Leman Russ.
A Vulture that moves and shoots at Fliers deals slightly more damage than the Leman Russ.
A Vulture that flies takes either less or the same amount of damage as the Leman Russ, never more damage.
A Vulture that hovers takes more damage from Krak Missiles and Autocannons, but the same amount of damage from everything else. This is to be expected as the LR's T8 kicks in against S7 and S8 attacks, but means nothing against S6- and S9+ attacks.
Conclusion: The Vulture will always deal more damage than the Russ, even if it moves and shoots at other Fliers, and if it Flies it is on average also tankier than the russ.
Sounds exceptionally powerful from how you folks are describing it. Generally I do think flyers should be capped at toughness 6 or something (give them more wounds if you're concerned about longevity) and should be priced quite high.
Has someone done some math? The Vulture will kill on average with its main weapon : 8.7 guardsmen (6.6 guardsmen in cover). 4.4 marines (2.2 marines in cover). Even at bs3 when remaining immobile, it's only +16,6% of effectiveness. I see nothing outstanding here. Just an average unit that may make its point back after turn 3. But yes, you can compare it with LR, one of our worst units, to make it appear very good.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that comparing a Vulture to a Russ Punisher is like comparing RKO to Steven Hawking in a wrestling match.
Leman Russes are arguably the worst heavy support unit in the guard codex, at least if you believe the guard tactica threads.
Then compare it to a Dakkajet. Similar cost, similar role. The vulture spits out twice the amount of damage and can absorb twice the amount of shooting.
Luckily it is a forgeworld model, and it can only be played with your opponents permission.
Yeah, the Russ tank itself needs a tremendous amount of help. Russ tanks got some of the least friendly weapons transitions to 8E (Exterminator Autocannon not doubling its shots the way most other TL guns did, Battlecannons being starkly poor weapons, Demolisher cannon having a very weak profile, etc) and the fact that they're functionally only very minorly more resilient than ostensibly far less heavily armored units (a formerly AV14 Russ tank now has grand total of +1T and +2W over a formerly AV11 Rhino) makes for a very poor unit option unfortunately.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, the Russ tank itself needs a tremendous amount of help. Russ tanks got some of the least friendly weapons transitions to 8E (Exterminator Autocannon not doubling its shots the way most other TL guns did, Battlecannons being starkly poor weapons, Demolisher cannon having a very weak profile, etc) and the fact that they're functionally only very minorly more resilient than ostensibly far less heavily armored units (a formerly AV14 Russ tank now has grand total of +1T and +2W over a formerly AV11 Rhino) makes for a very poor unit option unfortunately.
Most models or weapon profiles that fired a template in 7th is weak in 8th. It is simply something that GW needs to address down the line.
But that does not excuse the extreme brokeness of the vulture win-button.
Blacksails wrote: I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.
I think more resilient vehicles should have been T9. Most tanks are now either T7 or T8, but with the S9 lascannons being so common, it doesn't matter much as it wounds both with equal ease.
Blacksails wrote: I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.
I think more resilient vehicles should have been T9. Most tanks are now either T7 or T8, but with the S9 lascannons being so common, it doesn't matter much as it wounds both with equal ease.
There is a LOT of S7 and especially S8 firepower out there. The difference between T7 and T8 is huge. The problem is not that Russes and baneblades are T8, it is that rhinos and vultures are T7, when they should probably have been T6 with a 4+ save on the vulture.
I look at the problem like this: for every shot it makes, 4/9 will hit and wound if it stands still. That results in about 18 wounds. Marines will save two thirds, resulting in 6 dead marines (78 points without upgrades) while 12 guardsmen will die (48 points without upgrades). So against Marines, it will earn it's points back after 2 turns of straight shooting or so. Since it might have to move some, and it might die during the game, I find that if it could earn it's points back after maybe 4 turns it could be balanced. This would mean a doubling of the cost. Against guardsmen, it takes about 3-4 turns for it to make its points back, sot it is also balanced in this way. A good solution would be a rebalance that targets its ability to fight heavier infantry (Marines etc) instead of its ability against every target. Reducing the strength to 4 would give some of this, as it deals the same damage to T3 but less to everything T4 and up. This could be coupled with an increase in points, a reduction in toughness, wounds or save, but not one as drastic as those 100+ pts people are talking about.
But yes, something should most likely be done to the Vulture as well as other offenders.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that comparing a Vulture to a Russ Punisher is like comparing RKO to Steven Hawking in a wrestling match.
Leman Russes are arguably the worst heavy support unit in the guard codex, at least if you believe the guard tactica threads.
Then compare it to a Dakkajet. Similar cost, similar role. The vulture spits out twice the amount of damage and can absorb twice the amount of shooting.
Luckily it is a forgeworld model, and it can only be played with your opponents permission.
The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.
T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.
I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.
I'm not going to say the LR is garbage, because it's not that bad, but.... yeah just about every other option in our Heavy Support section is more efficient than it to varying degrees.
For example, if you're thinking of taking one of the blast Russes, you should seriously consider taking a Basilisk or Manticore instead. You'll pay roughly 2/3 of the price, get nearly the same durability, and get way more shooting out of them at the same AP, same damage, and higher strength (9/10 vs 8).
Another thing to keep in mind when comparing the Vulture to the Punisher Russ though (and something that kind of applies to LRs in general) is it really doesn't pay all that much for any of its guns. Because it has so many turret options, every single one of its turret options is pointed... which means we know exactly how much a naked LRBT costs: 132 points.
And we know none of those turret options are splitting their cost with the hull (or at least they shouldn't be), because we can put lascannons in the turret and it doesn't get a discount on them. Note to GW: if you did split the costs of the turret weapons with the hull, you should probably undo that to avoid shafting the lascannon turret.
So while a minimally equipped Punisher Russ costs 160 points, 132 points of that is hull and only 28 points is weapons. For a mere 22 more points it can also raise its shot total from 23 to 32 (3 shots each from two heavy bolters and a heavy stubber). This shows that the cost of the Vulture's extra firepower is actually fairly small. Roughly 20-40 points, certainly not 100 or 150 (I mean come on, at 310 points it would cost almost as much as some Baneblade variants).
Though, I also note that the Vulture pays full price for each of its Punishers. A Punisher is 20 points, it pays 40 points for 2 of them. Is the Punisher itself a bit underpriced? Maybe.
I don't really know of any other S5 AP0 weapon to compare it to (because pulse rifles are 0 points, not a very useful comparison). At 20 for 20 it is 1 point per shot though, while a S5 AP-1 heavy bolter is 8 for 3, 2.7 points per shot. Depends on how much -1AP, 12" of extra range, and the ability to split-fire in groups of 3 are worth. A S4 AP0 heavy stubber is 4 for 3, 1.25 points per shot, but it has 1 less strength on the one hand and 12" more range on the other.
Or maybe the LRBT just needs its hull discounted a little bit, which would help it compare more favorably with the Basilisk and Manticore too.
We might just have to wait to see what happens when the codexes come out.
I mean, in general they probably should have spent a lot more time thinking about how to balance tanks and anti-tank weapons. It's sort of bizarre that Lascannons don't care about toughness at all, that Bright/Dark Lances are better than Lascannons against T7 3+ transports and worse against T8 3+/2+ battle tanks instead of the other way around, and that Meltaguns are only marginally better than Lascannons against T8 even inside half range (and that's when there's no invulnerable save). And of course plasma is pretty silly.
Hard to Hit T7 is basically always going to be better than regular T8. Even against BS3+, HtH is like a 25% save, so HtH T7 is just as good as T8 against BS3+ S8. It's 12% more vulnerable to S7 and more durable against all other strengths.
Crimson wrote: I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.
I've been thinking about this a lot since 8th dropped. My best conclusion is that GW was a bit hesitant to go too crazy out of the gate. We know that things go over 10 now for values, but how many weapons or statlines do we have that actually take advantage of that fact?
Most of the "over 10" values have been Wounds with a smattering of weapons here and there. I can't help but think that maybe GW was playing it safe at launch but as codices come out and they've had a chance to see feedback/the game "out in the wild" things will change.
I would not be surprised to see, with the example of the Leman Russ, things like Extra Armour or Reinforced Hulls making a comeback and bumping up their Toughness or Save values.
Well, a lot of the problems comes with how weirdly the Leman Russ turrets have been gives stats. The Twin Lascannon is 40 points and slightly better than a Battle Cannon against vehicles, but the weapon costs almost double the points, so it results in it only being a few percent more efficient when you include hull costs etc. The Vanquisher is just terrible and worse than both in all metrics. But things get weird, because not only is the Battle Cannon one of the best against vehicles, it's dramatically worse against infantry. Against Marines, every shot it gets will result in an unsaved wound less than a third of the time. So even if it gets 6 shots, it would result in about 2 dead marines/turn and it could perhaps just make its points cost back in 6 turns of standing still and shooting a unit of them. The Punisher deals more than double the damage against MEQ-targets, because even though it has a 1/9 chance of dealing the same number of wounds, on average it has more than five times the amount of shots the Leman Russ has. But even that it barely makes its cost back in the best case scenario, barring extreme rolling!
I think they might need to go back to the drawing board entirely with the Leman Russ weapons and actually try to make each them efficient in its own niche. Make the Twin Lascannon and Vanquisher good against vehicles, make the Punisher good at killing lighter infantry (and decent at medium-heavy). Make the Battle Cannon a real jack of all trades, with more shots but perhaps less damage per shot.
I would not be surprised to see, with the example of the Leman Russ, things like Extra Armour or Reinforced Hulls making a comeback and bumping up their Toughness or Save values.
The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.
The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.
No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.
It's not really any different from TSons getting a 2+Sv against D1 weapons.
I would like to see Extra Armor become a way to buy extra T or Sv. It's exactly what it says on the tin! And maybe Dozer Blade can cover whichever one Extra Armor doesn't, since difficult terrain (its former purpose) doesn't exist anymore. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind Dozer Blade being +1WS and a melee weapon.
People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.
Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...
I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.
The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.
No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.
"We want more flavour!" "We want less flavour!" "This model's rules are overly complicated!" "This model's rules are too bland!"
I will never understand people. The rule itself seems fine, it halves all damage done to it by light weapons, seemingly addressing the issue some folk had with lasguns being able to penetrate heavy armour. It's way better than extra toughness for those cases. Do you want everything to have no rules and a set statline which cannot be modified in any way?
MinscS2 wrote: People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.
Or maybe they just feel that since GW saw fit not to use bespoke rules to add survivability, they'd rather see the easy route of higher Toughness taken?
Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable ammo types it has access to.
If we want Missile Launchers to be better, they need a points bump. Sorry.
I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.
You can't really compare Russes to Land Raiders aside from AV though. Land Raiders are one-shot choices, while Leman Russes get squadroned. Russes are meant to destroy things while Raiders are meant to carry things and provide fire support to boot.
"We want more flavour!" "We want less flavour!" "This model's rules are overly complicated!" "This model's rules are too bland!"
I will never understand people. The rule itself seems fine, it halves all damage done to it by light weapons, seemingly addressing the issue some folk had with lasguns being able to penetrate heavy armour. It's way better than extra toughness for those cases. Do you want everything to have no rules and a set statline which cannot be modified in any way?
I frankly don't want FW try to add flavour rules, they're bad at it. Lasguns killing Russes is not a problem to begin with, so it doesn't need fixing. And why would this one type of Russ be twice as resilient agains small arms anyway? The chassis do not seem that much different.
Now, that is quite harmless 'flavour' rule, but look at FW's traitor guard rules. By adding their 'flavour rules' (the random LD being the worst offender) they have managed to turn one of the most solid factions (IG) into nigh unplayable mess.
Crimson wrote: I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.
Those values have been used. Look at the other armies...
Blacksails wrote: I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.
Its probably because a lot of not impirum armies cap out at ST8 or have very limited access to higher ST weapons.
tons of wounds + only 5s to wound is going to be a nightmare to balance for every single army.
You're definitely not wrong, but its also the kind of work I expect a large, multi-million dollar company with decades of experience able to successfully manage. If an army's primary source of high S anti-tank is in S8 weaponry, I expect GW to have figured out that army should either have a lot of them, make them cheap, or give them a special rule to compensate somehow. This isn't rocket appliances, GW.
The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.
The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.
But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.
Blacksails wrote: T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.
No way
At best only vehicles that were 360 AV14 should be T10...
Altho this isn't me saying LRs should be T10 NOW...
Just that if it had happen, Russes should not have been T10
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.
I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.
Blacksails wrote: T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.
No way
At best only vehicles that were 360 AV14 should be T10...
Altho this isn't me saying LRs should be T10 NOW...
Just that if it had happen, Russes should not have been T10
The benefit of the new statline is that there are now three values to tweak the durability of a vehicle. Making Russes T10 but Sv3+ while LRs are T10 but Sv2+ (with more wounds too) is definitely appropriate and equally as justifiable as Russes being T9. Regardless, I think most people agree T8 is too low.
The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.
The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.
But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.
Alright, thanks. I don't know much about Orks, and I guess they could stand to be buffed quite a lot then.
I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.
It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.
Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles
If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5
The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.
The Dakkajet is the best flyer in a group of rather mediocreof Ork fliers. You see it in many lists.
But the point was not about the Dakkajet or the Leman Russ. The point was that the Vulture is absurdly overpowered and breaks the game.
Alright, thanks. I don't know much about Orks, and I guess they could stand to be buffed quite a lot then.
The Orks are fine, and they have access to some hillariously imba Forgeworld units themselves. The lifta cannon hits automatically, has 48" range and causes D6 mortal wounds, and it is a 39 point addition to a battlewagon. The Kill tank pretty much has the statline of a Leman russ, can transport 12, and has more wounds.
The Leman Russ needs a few extra wounds and a price decrease. It is an iconic unit for Guard and it needs to be in the game.
MinscS2 wrote: People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.
Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...
I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.
The Land Raider already has a 2+ save to create a similar effect, if it got T9 I would want it to be bumped down to a 3+ save and maybe lop off a couple wounds (so that it'd be +2 wounds tougher than a LR, not +4 wounds and +1Sv tougher).
As far as the LR, sure a lot of S8 AT weapons would have to be rolling 5 to wound them, but once they do they can lop off up to half its health in a single hit. On average you only need 4 unsaved wounds with an AT weapon to take down a LR, so it's actually not much different from the old AV14 and 3 hull points it had before. In fact it's easier on S8 than AV14 was: S8 could only glance AV14 on 6+.
As far as factions having weapons to deal with them:
Tau have plenty of S9/10.
Eldar have plenty of S9/10. D-cannons, D-scythes, wraith stuff, even S12 on the fire prism.
Orks have deff kannons, zzap guns and shokk guns (two of which can even do mortal wounds), plus they're a choppy army so they'll probably be able to rely on power klaws anyway.
Chaos has copies of most of the Imperium arsenal, plus their abundance of psykers give them plenty of options for mortal wounds.
Necrons, like Tau, have plenty of S9/10.
All the various Imperium armies have plenty of S9/10, especially with how easily they ally now.
The only two factions I know of that have a hard time putting high-S shooting on the table are Tyranids and Dark Eldar.
The Tyranids make up for it with crushing claws on MCs, being a choppy army. Though they do have the venom cannon.
Dark Eldar just have the void lance, which is basically just a lascannon with extra AP. I don't know why it doesn't have any rules to help it at half range though, since I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the point of lances (much like melta). Dark Eldar are just kind of bad at AT in general, though giving lances an actual lance special rule would probably fix that. Seriously why did lances lose their special rule.
I will say though, I honestly think it would be more appropriate if the melta rule was roll 2d6 pick highest to wound instead of for damage. After all, the point of melta was supposed to be extremely reliable wounding at close range, not gambling for a big payoff.
Now, even with all that yes it does mean that a T9 LRBT would be difficult for the vast majority of weapons in the game to take down, especially weapons that don't do D6 damage. But... that's kind of the point of having a LRBT in the first place. It's supposed to be a pain to kill.
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.
I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.
To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.
Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage
Both are 20 points.
Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.
I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.
To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.
Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage
Both are 20 points.
Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.
Versatility is nice, but Lascannons really should be 5 points more than a Missile Launchers
I have a real problem with this T9/T10 LR gak. Lots are posting that it "should be" T9 without any substantive reason other than that's what they think. Landraiders are not dying in droves.
Missile Launchers aside -- as they pay for versatility -- a change in toughness would unbalance weapon costs. Such a change would make multi-meltas (a well known tank killing weapon) 10% weaker than a lascannon. I can't even begin on how absurd it would be to make it T10 for S5 weapons.
A simple change of predator from T7 to T8 would affect the lascannon in no way, while dropping the multi-melta by 24%. Right now MM is better all around than LC at T7 3+ as it should, because it is 24". This would make it almost strictly worse.
Aside from FW points the core rules offer meaningful choices for weapons and durability. Let's not gak on that for a gut feeling.
=======================================
Currently, per point LC, MM, and MM at half are .042, .036, and .046 respectively. The average of the multi-melta is .041.
.042 versus .041(98%)
If you made the land raider T9 then it becomes
.031 versus .028 (90%)
Vaktathi wrote: I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.
It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.
Afew things worth noting when comparing Leman Russes to Land Raiders;
1)
Leman Russes used to be AV 14/13/11(10) 3HP, Land Raiders used to be AV 14/14/14 4HP.
Landraiders should be significantly tougher than a Leman Russ, and they currently are (Due to better save and +4 wounds.)
2)
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?
If you want a Heavy Tank for IG which is on par with the Land Raider (both pts-wise, defensive-wise and offensive-wise) I recommend one of the Malcador Heavy Tank-variants instead.
The Malcador Annihilator for instance, boasts 4 Lascannons (same as the Land Raider) and a Demolisher Cannon. It's "only" 320 pts as well, and has 2 more wounds than the Land Raider.
It doesn't have a 2+ save nor is it a transport, but it's alot closer to a Land Raider than a Leman Russ, in all aspects.
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.
I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be).
I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.
To put things into perspective here:
Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.
Missile Launchers are dual profile.
Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage
Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage
Both are 20 points.
Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon.
If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.
I'm honestly not sure what you're on about.
I've never stated that the ML should be on par with the LC when it comes with dealing with heavy vehicles.
I just stated that if T9 becomes the norm for heavy vehicles, you'd see even fewer ML's than you do currently, as there would be no point in them anymore. It's currently pretty versatile between decent anti-tank and decent anti-infantry, but if it stopped being decent at anti-tank (which it would be against T9), it would become pointless.
Talamare wrote: Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles
If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5
Av = Front + Side + Rear
So, I really like this idea.
But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.
I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.
Eldar have plenty of S9/10. D-cannons, D-scythes, wraith stuff, even S12 on the fire prism.
Actually both Tau and Eldar have VERY LITTLE S9 guns, but they do have a decent amount of S8 and S10.
Altho it was incredibly disappointing to see the insanely Iconic Lance rule die.
Should have been enemies with Toughness values greater than 8, are treated as if their toughness values are 8.
Missile launchers are more or less equal to lascannons in the T5-T7 range, which covers light and medium vehicles. They also both get to 2+ wounding at the same time, at T4, but honestly at that point the ML is probably going to switch to frag.
Missile launchers only start to fall off at T8 and T9. Which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be the lascannon's niche anyway.
Keep in mind the vast majority of vehicles in the game would still be in the T5-T7 range, only a small handful of heavy vehicles hit T8/T9, generally vehicles that were AV14 before. You know, that AV14 that missile launchers used to need a 6+ against. 5+ is still less punishing than 6+.
Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable.
I'm fine with ML's being worse than LC's (they should be). I'm not fine with them being pretty much *useless* at dealing with heavy vehicles, wich they would be if they started wounding things on 5+.
To put things into perspective here: Lascannons are 48" Heavy 1 S9 AP-3 D6 damage.
Missile Launchers are dual profile. Heavy D6 S4 AP0 1 damage Heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D6 damage
Both are 20 points.
Not seeing the problem here. If you want a dedicated vehicle killer, then you pay 20 pts for a Lascannon. If you want a weapon that can thin out hordes and deal with vehicles almost as well as a Lascannon...then you go Missile Launcher.
I'm honestly not sure what you're on about. I've never stated that the ML should be on par with the LC when it comes with dealing with heavy vehicles. I just stated that if T9 becomes the norm for heavy vehicles, you'd see even fewer ML's than you do currently, as there would be no point in them anymore. It's currently pretty versatile between decent anti-tank and decent anti-infantry, but if it stopped being decent at anti-tank (which it would be against T9), it would become pointless.
MinscS2 wrote: People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.
Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...
I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them. They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.
That's what you stated. If you think that a difference of 1 more point of Toughness is going to somehow make them useless, you're crazy.
I'm "on about" the fact that there is not a huge difference that exists, currently, between the Missile Launcher and Lascannon to begin with. There's a point of Strength and AP. That's all.
Blacksails wrote: I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.
Its probably because a lot of not impirum armies cap out at ST8 or have very limited access to higher ST weapons.
tons of wounds + only 5s to wound is going to be a nightmare to balance for every single army.
You're definitely not wrong, but its also the kind of work I expect a large, multi-million dollar company with decades of experience able to successfully manage. If an army's primary source of high S anti-tank is in S8 weaponry, I expect GW to have figured out that army should either have a lot of them, make them cheap, or give them a special rule to compensate somehow. This isn't rocket appliances, GW.
true and actually that IS how a lot of non imperial anti tank weapons are. Bright and dark lances capping out at 8, with anything higher than that being single shots on EXPENSIVE platforms or at super heavy levels (do we really want more apoc on tables? maybe maybe not) im not sure what nids get. Tau only having the hammer head orks getting boned again.
T9 would make it unfairly difficult for these armies to deal with the lemon as it is. it would require quite a price hike
otherwise they really should nut up and just make them 2+ armor save native. giving them a 6+ against -4 ap. its already paying out the ass for high durability low damage output.
i think GW might also need to take applied rocket science because their missile weapons in general are pretty lacking. was really hoping missile launchers would get like a +1 to hit against flying mode (flak) maybe st 7 ap 2 d3 damage instead of the heaver hitting crack.
That's what you stated. If you think that a difference of 1 point of Toughness is going to somehow make them useless, you're crazy.
Going from wounding on 4+ to wounding on 5+ on a quite expensive weapon makes a big difference on it's performance.
Its performance would remain relatively unchanged. You don't take Missile Launchers to deal with heavy vehicles en masse or to guarantee kills on them. You take Missile Launchers for the flexibility they offer you against both vehicles/monsters and infantry.
Also please refrain from ad hominem, or I'll have to report you. Let's keep this civil.
I've been civil.
You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.
It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.
Just adds granularity in balancing options.
But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.
Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.
Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.
It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.
Just adds granularity in balancing options.
I don't have the Eldar book and haven't memorized Brightlances off the top of my head--but I'm genuinely opposed to Lascannons getting better than S9 unless they're on a vehicle or a structure.
I will totally agree that Multi-Meltas need something better to differentiate themselves from the standard Meltagun though.
It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.
Just adds granularity in balancing options.
But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.
Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.
Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.
The Autocannon and Missile Launcher have a home in the game. Autocannons just aren't scattered all over a great many armies.
Guard have easy access to them for infantry and vehicles while Marines and Mechanicus can get Autocannons(and/or variant Autocannons as well) on vehicles only.
Missile Launchers are basically available everywhere but, well....they're missile launchers. They're the Ultramarines of Heavy Weapon options. Everyone has them at one point or another, but nobody wants to admit it or keep taking them after getting mocked for it.
It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.
Just adds granularity in balancing options.
But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.
Well, no not exactly. Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.
Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game. They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.
So nerf reliable dedicated anti tank weapons to make light anti tank weapons more appealing?
im getting visions of parking lots all over again.
the only thing melta weapons have going for it is the half range better damage (should of just been 3+ d3 or straight 6) and AP-4
Talamare wrote: Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles
If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5
Av = Front + Side + Rear
So, I really like this idea.
But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.
I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.
The game has a Ton of S10 weaponry, it makes no sense that they would have little benefit over S9 weaponry.
So, capping at T8 just seems really biased towards Lascannon.
Also, I'm a highly against devastating "On/Off" Scenario... It would basically be like a minor form of the previous Instant Death Rule.
A granular version of that S = AP seems better. For every S2 above your target you get +1 AP?
Seems decent, but a little math intensive for a fast game. It would also mean a need to heavily nerf a lot of base AP values.
You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.
You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).
I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".
Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.
It's not a big deal to potentially see MLs, MMs, LC, BL, RG, etc see a +1 S increase.
Just adds granularity in balancing options.
But that just defeats the purpose of having the extra T.
Well, no not exactly.
Super Anti Tank Weapons would only perform best against Super Heavy Tanks
but there would be more room balance wise for Middle Anti Tank Weapons and Middle Tanks to exist.
Stuff like the Auto Cannon and Missile Launcher would find more of a home in the game.
They would just need to further increase the cost of Tanks and Super Anti Tank weaponry.
So nerf reliable dedicated anti tank weapons to make light anti tank weapons more appealing?
im getting visions of parking lots all over again.
Yes, and No
You would nerf anti tank, but you would also further increase the cost of Tanks to compensate.
The idea is to have the BEST Anti Heavy Tank too expensive to spam, but also incredibly devastating.
As well as incredibly efficient by comparison against those Heavy Tanks.
The REAL problem I see is the Lasgun...
Eventually if Tanks and Anti Tank becomes too expensive, then the Lasgun becomes the best Anti Tank Weapon.
You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.
You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).
I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".
Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.
I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."
And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.
when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks
when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks
We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing
You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.
You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).
I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".
Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.
I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."
And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.
But it's not just Missile Launchers, it's every S8 anti-tank weapon that would get affected if T9 became a norm for heavy tanks.
(And there are, quite afew "dedicated" AT weapons which are S8.)
There are plenty of armies who wouldn't be able to handle massed T9 tanks, since most of their AT is limited to S8.
Factions with easy access to Lascannons (or any S9+ anti-tank weapon really) wouldn't be nearly as affected.
You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.
You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).
I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".
Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.
I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."
And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.
But it's not just Missile Launchers, it's every S8 anti-tank weapon that would get affected if T9 became a norm for heavy tanks.
(And there are, quite afew "dedicated" AT weapons which are S8.)
There are plenty of armies who wouldn't be able to handle massed T9 tanks, since most of their AT is limited to S8.
Factions with easy access to Lascannons (or any S9+ anti-tank weapon really) wouldn't be nearly as affected.
Ah, I see. If that's truly a problem, then give them lascannon statlines - unless, like Orks, the weakness to heavy tanks is a deliberate design decision.
Anti-heavy-tank weapons should be in the realm of lascannons, not missile launchers, is his point. The problem right now is that most are in the realm of missile launchers, and even worse, that's okay because most heavy tanks aren't 'heavy' at all!
So buff the heavy tanks to be actually tough, and then buff the heavy-anti-tank weapons to fulfill their role in the armies where they are inadequate (and increase their points costs appropriately) except for where it's a design decision (e.g. orks).
Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed
unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.
but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)
Anti-heavy-tank weapons should be in the realm of lascannons, not missile launchers, is his point. The problem right now is that most are in the realm of missile launchers, and even worse, that's okay because most heavy tanks aren't 'heavy' at all!
So buff the heavy tanks to be actually tough, and then buff the heavy-anti-tank weapons to fulfill their role in the armies where they are inadequate (and increase their points costs appropriately) except for where it's a design decision (e.g. orks).
Agreed.
Right now S8 AT-weapons aren't a problem because T8 is the norm for heavy tanks.
If this changes to T9 however, then many dedicated AT-weapons need a redesign, or at the very least a increase in strenght.
Desubot wrote: Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed
unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.
but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)
To be fair... There is already arguments for making Hammerheads and Fire Prisms into 2d6.
Both Eldar and Tau would be fine.
Nids and Orks I agree would be insanely weak against Heavy Tanks at long range, but they should be given tools needed to deal with them at short range. Which makes sense for the army.
I'm not familiar with Drew Carey line of Anti Tank, but I'm completely for Lance Weaponry gaining back the Always Wounds on a 4+
when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks
We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing
They're not going to do that. Sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed
unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.
but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)
Honestly, my solution to a lot of the Leman Russ issues in 7th was that they should have just classed them as Superheavy Vehicles.
Vaktathi wrote: I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.
It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.
Afew things worth noting when comparing Leman Russes to Land Raiders;
1)
Leman Russes used to be AV 14/13/11(10) 3HP, Land Raiders used to be AV 14/14/14 4HP.
Landraiders should be significantly tougher than a Leman Russ, and they currently are (Due to better save and +4 wounds.)
Thats only comparing them to the previous paradigm, back in RT/2E Russ tanks were just as well armored and better in some cases, and even in the previous edition that armor difference largely only mattered for CC (shots to Russ Tank rear armor typically were extremely rare).
Either way, the Russ should be a more resilient platform than it is, and the gulf in resiliency between a Land Raider and a Leman Russ is dramatcially higher than between say, a Russ and a Rhino, which doesnt make any sense. I can live with the Leman Russ being squishier than the Land Raider, but it's wayyyyy too squishy for the role it is supposed to fill. Not just from a competitive standpoint but a fluff one as well.
2)
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?
I'm not saying that either unit is necessarily costed appropriately or that there arent changes to be made in pricing as well, or that the Russ needs ro absolutely be on identical par with the Land Raider, but they need to be closer.
Likewise, the Land Raider's weaponry has improved *dramatically* over previous editions, while the Russ tank's have either stayed the same or worsened (the latter in most cases), and the Raider has an event better move+shoot rule and a transport capacity to boot.
Desubot wrote: Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed
unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.
but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)
Honestly, my solution to a lot of the Leman Russ issues in 7th was that they should have just classed them as Superheavy Vehicles.
Desubot wrote: Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed
unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.
but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)
To be fair... There is already arguments for making Hammerheads and Fire Prisms into 2d6.
Both Eldar and Tau would be fine.
Nids and Orks I agree would be insanely weak against Heavy Tanks at long range, but they should be given tools needed to deal with them at short range. Which makes sense for the army.
Well, to be fair Orks and Nids both have a couple of options against Heavy Tanks at longer range. They just aren't reliable ones--which I'm okay with, personally.
I'm not familiar with Drew Carey line of Anti Tank, but I'm completely for Lance Weaponry gaining back the Always Wounds on a 4+
Lance could simply be set up like this:
This weapon always gets to utilize its Armor Penetration modifier against Vehicles and Monsters.
ross-128 wrote: Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.
With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.
I would keep Meltas as is.
They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.
ross-128 wrote: Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.
With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.
I would keep Meltas as is.
They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.
Iv netted quite a few 6 rolls that way vs a few 1-3s
ross-128 wrote: Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.
With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.
I would keep Meltas as is.
They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.
Well, it's mostly a matter of putting them in different roles. Both are a good bonus to have, but if it's on to-wound it means you can very reliably put wounds on stuff, particularly heavy armor. Where as on damage it's less likely to wound and more focused on medium armor, but is devastating when it does.
So it's a tradeoff between being reliable or being punchy, either is a valid preference.
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?
The toughness of a vehicle is not the vehicle cost plus weapons. It is the base vehicle cost alone. That is how the values are balance and why weapons are separate. The base cost includes abilities and basic melee profiles, which are roughly similar here.
A Russ is 132 for 12W 3+.
A LR is 239 for W16 2+
--181% the cost of a Russ
12 * 1.666 = 19.9
16 * 1.833 = 29.3
--147% the damage of a Russ
That makes a difference of 38 points.
So there is a discrepancy. Why? The Land Raider is also a transport. It has 6 S8 attacks instead of 3 S7.
Does that make up for all 38 points? I don't know, but I do know that making it T9 would be fairly obscene.
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?
The toughness of a vehicle is not the vehicle cost plus weapons. It is the base vehicle cost alone. That is how the values are balance and why weapons are separate. The base cost includes abilities and basic melee profiles, which are roughly similar here.
A Russ is 132 for 12W 3+.
A LR is 239 for W16 2+
--181% the cost of a Russ
12 * 1.666 = 19.9
16 * 1.833 = 29.3
--147% the damage of a Russ
That makes a difference of 38 points.
So there is a discrepancy. Why? The Land Raider is also a transport. It has 6 S8 attacks instead of 3 S7.
Does that make up for all 38 points? I don't know, but I do know that making it T9 would be fairly obscene.
40 points for it's transport capabilities sounds about correct, altho that math seems suspect
Shouldn't it be
12 / (1/3) = 36
16 / (1/6) = 96
(266%)
Or in other words, a Auto Hit, Auto Wound, AP0 1D weapon would require that many shots to kill each target.
Perhaps AP0 is unfair? Since Anti Tank Weapons have AP values.
AP-1
12 / (1/2) = 24
16 / (1/3) = 48
(200%)
AP-2
12 / (2/3) = 18
16 / (1/2) = 32
(177%)
AP-3
12 / (5/6) = 14.4
16 / (2/3) = 24
(166%)
AP-4
12 / ... 1 = 12
16 / (5/6) = 19.2
(160%)
Most Anti Tank Weapons have AP-3 or AP-4, and those are pretty close at around 160%
132 * 1.63 = ~215
Making the cost of the Transport at around 25 points.
If you look at the Vulture against a plain LRBT it will lose most of the time in terms of firepower. As I said a LRBT is better at surviving due to cover, can be concealed, can be upgraded with more weapons cheaply, is better against STR 8 and above weapons, can be given orders, can receive benefits from character auras.
What really should be considered is that as many have said the LRBT is one of the worst offensive units in the AM list. If you want an even better comparison of points look at HWT w/heavy bolters. For the same points as a vulture you can get 12 HWTs which give out a whooping 36, Str 5, -1 AP shots. These units can also be given orders, use aura's, use cover, be concealed, have better range, and are much harder to kill. This outclasses a vulture hands down.
Instead of asking to nerf the Vulture we should be asking how we can improve the LRBT to make it more competitive. I have seen some serious nonsense of people saying Vultures should cost 100-150 more points. This would instantly result in them never ever being used which is what many bitter people want to happen. In reality if anything the Vulture should get a 5-15 points increase maximum to remain playable.
Did no one even notice that the conquerer Leman Russ tank was only 110ponts base? It is now 25 points cheaper than a normal Leman Russ. Maybe this is an incoming change to all LRBTs in the future and would easily make the Vulture/LRBT costs balanced out.
Talamare wrote: Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles
If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5
Av = Front + Side + Rear
So, I really like this idea.
But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.
I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.
The game has a Ton of S10 weaponry, it makes no sense that they would have little benefit over S9 weaponry.
So, capping at T8 just seems really biased towards Lascannon.
Also, I'm a highly against devastating "On/Off" Scenario... It would basically be like a minor form of the previous Instant Death Rule.
A granular version of that S = AP seems better. For every S2 above your target you get +1 AP?
Seems decent, but a little math intensive for a fast game. It would also mean a need to heavily nerf a lot of base AP values.
The problem with increasing toughness to higher proportions is that it also increases the relative value of weaker weaponry, since everything can wound everything.
Marmatag wrote: T5 storm ravens would get curb stomped off the board in seconds.
By what?
Literally every shooting attack.
I uhhhh, I don't think that's the case.
Strengths 1-4 and 8+ would be completely unchanged in a lowering from T7 to T5, and strengths 5-7 have only a 17% damage increase.
It would take on average 19 autocannon shots to wreck a T5 Stormraven, for example, and that's being nice and assuming that the autocannons are hitting on 3's and not the more likely 4s or 5s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Vehicle T and W is very odd this edition. Flyers like the Valkyrie and Vulture ended up tougher than Leman Russ tanks, which are only very minorly more resilient than Chimeras, while Land Raiders have about as great a resiliency advantage over a Russ as the Russ does over a Trukk...
The problem is that they created all this granularity by allowing strength and toughness to go over 10 and then didn't use. 90% of vehicles in the game are bunched in around T6 to T8, with only outliers like the LR going to T10+.
What makes matters worse is that they went to all this trouble to allow S and T to go above ten, and then changed the wound rules so you need double the characteristic to wound on 2's or 6's. So they introduced this massive range and then made it so that heavy weapons are wounding almost everything or 4's to 3's.
If you want an even better comparison of points look at HWT w/heavy bolters. For the same points as a vulture you can get 12 HWTs which give out a whooping 36, Str 5, -1 AP shots. These units can also be given orders, use aura's, use cover, be concealed, have better range, and are much harder to kill. This outclasses a vulture hands down.
You make a decent point there, but it sort of throws the balancing mechanic on it's head. GW clearly had a formula in mind for weapons e.g. 20 point LC for IG and 25 point LC for SM. They didn't see fit to point weapons on vehicles differently.
There is a basic trade off that holds mostly true - more weapons or less weapons, but more durability. Space marines could spam HBs, but they would get less of them comparatively. So, yes, you have more power in those HWTs, but they're way more fragile and you'll start losing HBs very quickly to the TPGC.
The TPGC is not appropriately costed for this dynamic. It does seem like FW used SOME form of formula, but they were way too rushed and didn't spot check their work. TPGC is mathematically about twice as good as the equivalent points in HBs. You can likely also fit more TPGCs in a list than HWTs.
Marmatag wrote: The problem with increasing toughness to higher proportions is that it also increases the relative value of weaker weaponry, since everything can wound everything.
when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks
We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing
Lasguns are the only real concern here
Bolters and other S4 guns aren't saturated enough to be an issue.
Feel like this discussion has gotten way off topic, and delved deep into something that sounds more like a drastic reinvention of 8th edition for vehicle's sake - not sure how realistic or productive a discussion that might be, but regardless would ask that become a new discussion while we focus on OP's original point.
As to the Vulture, while I won't necessarily join the chorus screaming OP, it does lend strongly to the continued notion that Forgeworld rules/units/data sheets are poorly balanced/playtested.
Still, one thing to note beyond sterile mathhammer conjecture is that the 24" of the twin punisher gatling cannons make it a bit more difficult to better/more safely position the Vulture compared to a Leman Russ, for example, without going into hover. Harder to quantify outside of anecdotes and conjecture but it may have an impact on the Vulture's actual effectiveness on the battlefield.
My personal opinion - Forgeworld remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Forgeworld designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.
ross-128 wrote: Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.
With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.
Dark Lances being so abundant, Assault weapons, and having -4AP makes them more than powerful enough. They do not need to tweak them at all unless they recieved a massive points increase.
GhostRecon wrote: My personal opinion - Forgeworld remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Forgeworld designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.
My personal opinion - Games Workshop remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Games Workshop designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, why are we crying over the fact that STR 8 weapons might be mediocre anti-tank if LRBTs get a toughness boost? It's a heavy tank, it's supposed to be difficult to kill! STR 8 weapons were weak against AV 14 in all previous editions, why should they suddenly become effective LRBT killers in 8th? This attitude is just a symptom of the dumbing down and over-homogenization of 8th, the idea that everything should be able to hurt everything and you should never be punished too severely for bringing the wrong weapon/unit choices.
Are we really sure this is even a Forgeworld's fault? Certainly I am not the only one to notice that space marine list composed of nothing but flyers have been winning game tournaments. Not FW flyers, but regular, standard GW codex flyers. Perhaps it is not FW that is at fault, but the balancing of the flyers themselves.
One of my biggest problems with flyers ever since they have been introduced is that they have been terribly balanced, and it's not just flyer vs non-flyer balance, but flyer vs flyer as well, and arguably the latter situation is worse. Ever since flyers have been introduced Imperial flyers have been far stronger than their non-Imperial counterparts with only a few exception, namely 100 point nightscythes and heldrakes in 6e, and possibly wraithfighters currently. Imperial flyers are better armed and better armored then their xenos counterparts and tend to come with twin-linked on all their weapon systems along with hover standard. They also tend to get additional benefits such as transport capacity, strafing run, grav chute depolyment, PotMS, etc. in addition to the aforementioned benefits. And outside the Stormraven/Stormwolf line of flyers they don't even seem to pay any additional points for any of these benefits. They are just plane better for no clear reason, which is especially odd considering that before flyers where introduced large flying shooting things were kind of Tau and Eldar's hat, but Tau have been thoroughly shafted in this regard while Eldar do ok.
In any case, flyers were held back in 7e because of numerous rules. They had to start in reserve and didn't come in until turns 2-4, not good in such a alpha strike heavy game. Limited maneuverability plus firing arcs meant that often couldn't be used to good effect once they did come on the table. Hover provides a workaround but shed a flyer's primary defense of forcing snap shots, and without said defense they were vehicles that suffered the dual liabilities of both hull points and the damage table. And they couldn't score while flying. 8e has eliminated all of these disadvantages. Flyers now start on the table and are as resilient as any other vehicle with an extra -1 to hit when fired upon to boot. They are durable enough that hovering is no longer a major risk, which makes hover capable flyers essentially better than regular vehicles in every way. If they want to stay in the same spot they can, if they want to cross the board in one turn they can. And thanks to twin-linked weapons becoming simply two weapons, they tend to be much better armed than normal vehicles as well. They are basically over-sized versions of the scatter bikes from last edition, stupidly fast while maintaining massive amounts of firepower, and they don't seem to be paying for these advantages. It is a convergence of the old Imperial vs. non-Imperial flyer imbalance of the past two editions with a new flyer vs. non-flyer imbalance of the current edition, and this unholy union has created some severely overpowered units without the aid of Forgeworld.
And the Vulture gunship is consistent with the precedents established by the "main GW" index books.
No, it isn't. FW is most definitely a rush job and it's hard to say what was lost in translation.
It absolutely is. The stat line (its supposed "excessive durability") is inherited from the Valkyrie, and its double punisher cannons are a direct result of the GW precedent of twin-linked weapons becoming double shots in 8th. It's exactly what you would expect if you translated the 7th edition Vulture according to the rules set by "main GW" for turning 7th edition units into 8th edition units.
It absolutely is. The stat line (its supposed "excessive durability") is inherited from the Valkyrie, and its double punisher cannons are a direct result of the GW precedent of twin-linked weapons becoming double shots in 8th. It's exactly what you would expect if you translated the 7th edition Vulture according to the rules set by "main GW" for turning 7th edition units into 8th edition units.
The rules are consistent. The points are not. A Valkyrie is 130 base. The Vulture is 112.
The TPGC is double the point efficiency for a weapon of it's type - assuming hover.
The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).
Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.
ross-128 wrote: The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).
Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.
Perhaps. The durability of the base Vulture isn't so much the problem as the TPGC in my mind.
I'm not certain that transport holds the value. I think it might actually be hard points. I counted one shot and non-sponson/turret weapons as secondaries. A turret usually carries a much larger weapon.
Now a Vulture is 112 with 4 hard points, but to get the TPGC it has to trade in 3 of them to get it. So, maybe it's a fair trade? Gut feeling says it's edging the line a little too much.
ross-128 wrote: The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).
Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.
The Vendetta does have to pay for more expensive weapon options - even downgrading to hellstrikes still costs you 80pts in required weapons. I feel as if that's the real problem with the Vulture in specific; several other twin-weapons had their points costs adjusted in some places (up or down) and upping the twin Punisher Gatling canons cost would be a very easy fix.
As to fliers as a whole, I feel that's more a problem with having a dedicated detachment for fliers available - feel as if the Super-Heavy and Air Wing detachments (the 3-5 LoW and Flier detachments respectively) should not be allowed in Matched Play/ITC format play. That leaves flyer slots in other detachments, obviously, but at least there they aren't the required/mandatory choice so a points tax would exist for a flyer-centric list.
The thing about the twin punisher though, is that its cost is directly in line with the regular punisher. A Punisher is 20 points, a twin punisher is 40 points, exactly twice as much. Is the base Punisher underpriced too? Well it is one of the stronger options on the LRBT I guess, but I don't know if that's saying much.
Maybe the best thing to compare the Vulture to is the Vendetta. They have identical hulls for identical costs, but one boats 120 points' worth of lascannons and the other boats 48 points of S5 dakka. One has a 12 model transport capacity, the other has a +1 against ground targets.
So I guess it comes down to a couple of questions.
1: is a 12 model transport capacity worth as much as a +1 against ground targets?
2: Can 40 S5 AP0 shots make their points back against their ideal targets as easily as 6 S9 AP-3 shots?
I guess an in-depth side by side analysis of the Vendetta and Vulture would be interesting to see.
ross-128 wrote: The thing about the twin punisher though, is that its cost is directly in line with the regular punisher. A Punisher is 20 points, a twin punisher is 40 points, exactly twice as much. Is the base Punisher underpriced too? Well it is one of the stronger options on the LRBT I guess, but I don't know if that's saying much.
Maybe the best thing to compare the Vulture to is the Vendetta. They have identical hulls for identical costs, but one boats 120 points' worth of lascannons and the other boats 48 points of S5 dakka. One has a 12 model transport capacity, the other has a +1 against ground targets.
So I guess it comes down to a couple of questions.
1: is a 12 model transport capacity worth as much as a +1 against ground targets?
2: Can 40 S5 AP0 shots make their points back against their ideal targets as easily as 6 S9 AP-3 shots?
I guess an in-depth side by side analysis of the Vendetta and Vulture would be interesting to see.
Because another part of something's point cost is the platform?
Which is why you wouldn't be okay with Devastators/Havocs getting Punishers as a Heavy Choice.
ross-128 wrote: The Vulture is 110, though presumably the 20 point difference is because of the fact that they have identical hulls, but the Valkyrie has a 12-model transport capacity, and transport capacity has a point cost now (though we don't know exactly what that cost is supposed to be).
Though the Vendetta is 110 points too, despite also having an identical hull and 12-model transport capacity. So not sure what's going on there.
Perhaps. The durability of the base Vulture isn't so much the problem as the TPGC in my mind.
I'm not certain that transport holds the value. I think it might actually be hard points. I counted one shot and non-sponson/turret weapons as secondaries. A turret usually carries a much larger weapon.
Now a Vulture is 112 with 4 hard points, but to get the TPGC it has to trade in 3 of them to get it. So, maybe it's a fair trade? Gut feeling says it's edging the line a little too much.
To add to that, most turrets are roughly twice the cost and twice the effectiveness of a similar heavy weapon, so you could think of a turret as 2 hard points.
Demolisher cannons are slightly better than 2 lascannons, both cost 40 points.
Exterminator autocannons are exactly 2 autocannons at a 5 point discount.
Executioner is nearly as effective as 2 plasma cannons, etc..
The PGC is roughly equal to 5 heavy bolters at half the cost. Sure, you could argue that heavy bolters are not the same caliber as other heavy weapons so being 5 times as effective isn't overpowered relative to other turrets, but there's still no reason the PGC should also be half price.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.
So the problem is still GW.
Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.
There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.
So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.
So the problem is still GW.
Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.
There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.
So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?
They could have up costed it, yes. But I don't see why they would - they simply followed the pricing guidelines set up by Games Workshop for how weapons work.
It's also worth noting that shield-generators are not weapons - in every case a weapon exists that I can think of, it's twin version is either double the cost or actually even slightly cheaper than double the cost. This means, to me, that Forge World simply followed the pricing format for every other weapon in this edition of 40k, and so I can forgive them the error. Perhaps it will be changed when something comes out that is more detailed than the basic, obviously rushed indecies - or, perhaps, we are making mountains out of molehills and it won't be a s big of a problem when everything finally falls into place.
To add to that, most turrets are roughly twice the cost and twice the effectiveness of a similar heavy weapon, so you could think of a turret as 2 hard points.
Demolisher cannons are slightly better than 2 lascannons, both cost 40 points. Exterminator autocannons are exactly 2 autocannons at a 5 point discount. Executioner is nearly as effective as 2 plasma cannons, etc..
The PGC is roughly equal to 5 heavy bolters at half the cost. Sure, you could argue that heavy bolters are not the same caliber as other heavy weapons so being 5 times as effective isn't overpowered relative to other turrets, but there's still no reason the PGC should also be half price.
Let's make an assumption that the value of a T7 3+ wound is 6.5 points (rounding up). Wait why is that cheaper than a T4 3+ marine?! Because you can take several marines per org slot.
This puts us at :
The Hammerhead and the Predator have the same hard points and are within 3 points of each other.
If we make the assumption that 1 hard point = 8 points and 1 secondary = 3.5 points this is the result.
Now this is just guess work, but to me it feels like there is something there and it's pretty close. Rounding will mess with the end result some. The Hellhound I can only guess was under costed by GW since it is restricted to short range selections (or it was a mistake).
If we apply this logic to a Battle Wagon (even though it is 4+):
Actual cost is 161. If a deffrolla isn't a true hard point it would be 160.
This cements my belief that transport is not given a point value (since you have to buy a unit to use it anyway). It also may indicate that they don't care about the armor save as much, but that could come down to rounding, too. The cost per wound could be lower and other abilities like smoke luanchers carry a value. Hard to tell either way.
A wave serpent --
Actual cost....107
This would also mean they ignore abilities like rhino repair or serpent shield, which may be why wave serpents seem undercosted.
126 or 127 points? For 14 wounds, 4 hard points, and 1 secondary? If I remember the vulture loadout correctly.
With punisher cannons though (since they prevent other hardpoint weapons being taken) it should be 110 or 111 points, right around where it is, and then plus weapons.
If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
Dionysodorus wrote: If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
That's exactly what GW did...
Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?
Dionysodorus wrote: If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
That's exactly what GW did...
Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?
You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
126 or 127 points? For 14 wounds, 4 hard points, and 1 secondary? If I remember the vulture loadout correctly.
With punisher cannons though (since they prevent other hardpoint weapons being taken) it should be 110 or 111 points, right around where it is, and then plus weapons.
Yea, possibly. It's close on it's base cost. It's just the TPGC that is a bit under.
Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).
That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:
So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Perhaps the Punisher is undercosted, but it's taken directly from Games Workshop's costing for the cannon, not Forge World's.
So the problem is still GW.
Except the baseline Punisher can only be taken by a Leman Russ, costing you a minimum of 160pts for 1 Punisher cannon and 1 Heavy Bolter. Compare to a baseline battle Cannon - only 2 pts more than the Punisher, getting you the rough equivalent of D6 missile launcher shots. If I remember the mathhammer analysis, while both options are considered the better ones for a Leman Russ, most mathhammer theorists maintain the Leman Russ is not the most cost-efficient/competitive slot for an AM heavy support choice - the opposite from decrying a Punisher-Russ as 'OP'.
There is nothing that says FW couldn't have raised the price of the twin Punisher - and in fact there exists several precedents where twin weapons have different points costs and aren't precisely 2x the cost of their single variant in the 'base GW' books. In addition, there are many cases where a piece of wargear or weaponry is priced differently internal to a specific army for different units - shield generators in the Tau index being a perfect example, costing 8pts normally yet 40pts for some units.
So it really remains FW's fault. Would we even have this discussion if FW had 'up-priced' a twin Punisher Gatling cannon to 60-80pts?
Honestly, strictly speaking that's not true. The Russ isn't the only thing that can take a Punisher. Why? Because the twin Punisher isn't its own weapon anymore. It is literally two Punishers. And I'd say this isn't an extreme enough case to justify giving it a different cost on one specific model.
Still, if the Punisher itself turns out to be the problem, I suppose one possible solution would be to raise the Punisher to 30 points, and reduce the LRBT's hull to 122 points (and take 10 points off all other LRBT hull variants to match).
This would keep the LRBT Punisher in the same place, give all the other Russ variants a much-needed boost, put the Punisher's points-per-shot ratio in between a Heavy Stubber and a Heavy Bolter, and increase the cost of a twin Punisher by 20 points (to 60).
For reference, here's a comparison with some other weapons similar to the Punisher:
Punisher: S5 AP0 24" 20 shots for 20 points, 1 point per shot
Heavy Stubber: S4 AP0 36" 3 shots for 4 points, 1.3 points per shot
Heavy Bolter: S5 AP-1 36" 3 shots for 8 points, 2.6 points per shot
Taurox Punisher: S4 AP0 24" 20 shots for 18 points,, 0.9 points per shot
Storm Bolter: S4 AP0 24"/12" 2/4 shots for 2 points, 1/0.5 points per shot
Nerfed Punisher: S5 AP0 24" 20 shots for 30 points, 1.5 points per shot
Obviously I'm sure there is much discussion that can be had about just how much the differences between those weapons are worth. I think the relationship between the Heavy Stubber and the Storm Bolter might be informative when comparing the Punisher and Heavy Bolter though.
Technically raising the base Punisher to 40 would give them the exact same ratio between them (1.3:1 vs 2.6:2), but I think that would be going too far because a Heavy Bolter has -1AP and the Heavy Stubber doesn't, so the Heavy Bolter's premium (per shot) over the Punisher should be higher than the Heavy Stubber's over the Storm Bolter's. I can't say precisely how much higher the ratio should be, just that the -1AP has to be worth something.
Also, a much smaller note, that comparison suggests that maybe the Taurox Punisher should be 20 points flat instead of 18. A difference of 2 points might not really be a big deal either way though.
Dionysodorus wrote: If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
Could you elaborate more? All the of weapons are divided from the base cost aside from the aforementioned units where they are the only unit that can take said weapon.
Forgeworld kept some of that dynamic and left some of it out in places. The TGPC is undercosted, but it also consumes 3 hard points. Is that fair? I'm not certain it is, but it may not need a massive point increase either.
You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!
Dionysodorus wrote: If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
That's exactly what GW did...
Unless you think that a 20 point Punisher cannon and 8 Pt heavy bolter are included in the base price of a Leman Russ punisher somehow, but in that case I'll just pay my 132 points for the tank's base price and bring the punisher and bolter without paying their points. After all, it's included, right?
You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
I'm not sure what you're on about; perhaps I'm failing to understand your words (that happens a lot with me :( ).
From what I've seen, the only weapons that are 0 priced are ones that come on one and only one platform and only if that platform has no options to replace them. Other weapons within the same army have exactly the same cost across the board and regardless of platform; e.g. a lascannon is the same whether on a Russ or a Sentinel or a Heavy Weapons Team. A twin-linked heavy bolter is the same cost whether on a Shadowsword or a Baneblade, and is exactly twice the cost of a single heavy bolter on a Leman Russ or a Heavy Weapons team.
Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.
Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.
Daedalus81 wrote: Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).
That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:
So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.
The Rhino transports 4 more guys than the Razorback - I suspect that capacity is factored into the cost somehow.
You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!
So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?
Dionysodorus wrote: If FW was actually just applying a formula and trying to price models' bodies independently of their weapon options, then they are even more incompetent than even their harshest critics on this forum have made them out to be, and obviously there should be a strong presumption that anything in a FW index is horribly unbalanced such that probably FW models should be treated as essentially the same thing as someone's homebrew rules that they want to play with.
Could you elaborate more? All the of weapons are divided from the base cost aside from the aforementioned units where they are the only unit that can take said weapon.
Forgeworld kept some of that dynamic and left some of it out in places. The TGPC is undercosted, but it also consumes 3 hard points. Is that fair? I'm not certain it is, but it may not need a massive point increase either.
I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense. As you increase a unit's offensive capabilities you make it relatively easier for an opponent to shut down all of that offense. Even if a Hellhound could take an unlimited number of heavy flamers, it would be very stupid to give it very many. And of course there are also synergies between different capabilities (like high movement or deep striking tends to work better with short-ranged guns).
Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.
Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.
Very true. Perhaps where it becomes a bigger issue is when the Vulture gets +1 to hit for strafing and doesn't seem to pay a cost for such an ability.
Now it is a fairly short ranged weapon and it does typically have to move and be in danger to use it. It also sacrifices 2 hard points (16 points by my fuzzy math) to have it.
So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?
Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.
I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense.
Totally disagree.
The guns are costed with consideration to who can use them (IG lascannons are 20; SM lascannons are 25), but stand on their own as to their capabilities.
And as such you are making a decision in list building. Do I deploy my heavy weapons on more durable platforms or do I get more heavy weapons, but risk losing them more quickly?
You're confusing splitting the cost of something across a body and its weapons with attempting to balance those components independently of each other. You'll note that in most cases GW seems to have tried to shift points into bodies and out of weapons (this is why boltguns cost 0, and why almost all weapons which are unique to and mandatory on single units also cost 0). In many cases they clearly gave weapons the minimum point cost possible consistent with their being available on multiple units with different options. There's some necessary imbalance that creeps in when they want to make the same-priced weapon options available across a very large number of units, but mostly they don't do a whole lot of this except for a few of the traditional widely-available heavy weapons like lascannons. You'll note that they're definitely willing to give the same guns different costs in different army lists, where they're available to very different units.
Indeed. The LR turret weapons are costed based on the assumption that one tank will have only one of such weapon. You cannot just add more weapons and assume it will be balanced. I'm sure we can next expect FW model with hundred bolters which it can take for free, because single bolter costs zero points!
So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?
They've done the costs like this because they think it makes it easier to adjust prices later, or something like that. There's a cost to this, though, which is that the costs they have aren't appropriate for all units, even though they're obviously restricting which units can take which options to some extent already. But yes, probably lascannons should be priced differently for heavy weapon squads than for Russes, and heavy weapon teams in infantry squads should obviously be paying a different price than heavy weapon teams in heavy weapon squads. I mean, there's a reason that people pretty much automatically put lascannons in their infantry squads and then put cheaper ones in their heavy weapon squads with maybe one lascannon in a squad.
Using the same logic for Punisher Cannons that the AM index does for Heavy Bolters, then 1) A PGC should cost the same whether it is on a Russ or a Heavy Weapons Team (if it were an option for those) and 2) a TPGC should cost twice what a PGC does, and should cost the same whether it was on a Vulture, Russ, Baneblade, or Infantry Squad.
Both of those things are true - forge world is merely following GW's logic.
Very true. Perhaps where it becomes a bigger issue is when the Vulture gets +1 to hit for strafing and doesn't seem to pay a cost for such an ability.
Now it is a fairly short ranged weapon and it does typically have to move and be in danger to use it. It also sacrifices 2 hard points (16 points by my fuzzy math) to have it.
Yes, but Leman Russ tank commanders have +1 to hit and don't pay extra for the weapons. They do on their base hull, so again, I can see that the Vulture should be higher priced at its base, though it's worth noting that the LRBT tank commanders may actually be paying for their ability to give orders, as there is no indication the damage increase from BS3+ went into the points paid - it is a far higher damage output increase than it pays for, according to math in the Astra Militarum thread.
So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?
Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.
That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently. How do we know they didn't future-proof in this way, and furthermore, why wouldn't they? It seems like the obvious reason to make the cost separate.
If they priced Leman Russ weapons the way you suggest, it'd probably look more like the cheapest weapon is 0 points (since it can only be taken by a Russ, and therefore should be included in the base cost) and the other weapons should all be slightly more expensive (perhaps exactly as many points more expensive as they are now, with the cheapest weapon becoming the 0 value.).
I mean, it's just obviously stupid and terrible game design to try to work out how much a given body is worth on its own, and then try to work out how much some gun is worth on its own, and then get the cost for a unit by adding together the independently-derived costs for its body and guns. The actual value of a unit is simply not additive like this. In general there are diminishing returns to offense and to defense.
Totally disagree.
The guns are costed with consideration to who can use them (IG lascannons are 20; SM lascannons are 25), but stand on their own as to their capabilities.
And as such you are making a decision in list building. Do I deploy my heavy weapons on more durable platforms or do I get more heavy weapons, but risk losing them more quickly?
I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.
So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?
Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.
Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)
Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).
As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.
That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.
Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.
Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)
Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).
As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.
Those other units are not in the Astra Militarum part of the Index Imperium 2, and thus are really not a problem of the person who wrote that book.
Daedalus81 wrote: Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).
That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:
So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.
The Rhino transports 4 more guys than the Razorback - I suspect that capacity is factored into the cost somehow.
You could instead assume:
wound = 6 points
hard point = 9 points
transport capacity = 1 point per
Rhino would be 60+10 = 70
Predator would be 66+36 = 102
Razorback is still under-costed by 2 hardpoints though
Guard vehicles likely use a slightly different formula due to BS 4+, something like:
wound = 5 points
hard point = 6
transport = 1
I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.
Let's take this one step at a time.
In this scenario *why* is a lascannon on a leman russ more valuable than one on a HWT?
That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.
Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.
Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.
Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)
Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).
As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.
Those other units are not in the Astra Militarum part of the Index Imperium 2, and thus are really not a problem of the person who wrote that book.
What about the Baneblade and the Hellhammer? Both are in that exact section, both have Demolisher cannons.
Also, FW units are definitely relevant as long as they're still part of the IG. Because the cost basis is relevant to the entire faction: a battle cannon is a battle cannon no matter which book it's in. The battle cannon doesn't magically become a better weapon just because it's in a FW book.
That's pretty feasible as well. There are still some issues with built in abilities, but those would be relatively minor. I think the biggest take-away is that the majority of units are costed to a formula. Whether or not it's the right formula is up for debate, but as long as it gets consistently applied makes it good enough for now. Things like the Razorback will eventually get tagged, i'm sure.
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.
I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.
Let's take this one step at a time.
In this scenario *why* is a lascannon on a leman russ more valuable than one on a HWT?
Wait, which kind of HWT? The one in a heavy weapon squad? Because a heavy weapon squad with more than one lascannon in it is widely understood to not be a good choice. I'm really not even a big fan of taking even a single lascannon in a HWS. It shoots okay but it's going to die as soon as anything looks at it, and the shooting doesn't make up for the fragility given its cost. It should be cheaper. Meanwhile a LRBT without any add-ons is extremely durable and not at all shooty, and no one would want to take one. It's an easy call to give it some extra heavy weapons, if you're taking one at all.
But, regardless, you're just asking the wrong question. It's kind of silly to get really concerned with what a weapon should cost on a specific unit, and often there will not even be a single correct answer since that might depend on other options the unit takes. What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?". And: "How many points should a Heavy Weapon Squad with 3 lascannons cost?". And then you should be trying to make those combinations of choices cost as near as possible to the right amounts given the constraints of your system (the main one here being that weapons cost the same for all units that can take them).
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.
Forge World is GW.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
What about the Baneblade and the Hellhammer? Both are in that exact section, both have Demolisher cannons.
True. Still only one demolisher cannon per model. And there doesn't seem to be a problem with the cost of those units.
Also, FW units are definitely relevant as long as they're still part of the IG. Because the cost basis is relevant to the entire faction: a battle cannon is a battle cannon no matter which book it's in. The battle cannon doesn't magically become a better weapon just because it's in a FW book.
It might become better if the platform is better. Or if there is multiple of them.
Seriously, the point costs were written for the units in the index, and applying them blindly for other units will obviously cause problems. You don't need to be a genius to realise this.
The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.
For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HBHWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LCHWS...
You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.
The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.
For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HBHWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LCHWS...
You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.
Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.
Forge World is GW.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.
Dionysodorus wrote: What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".
Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.
There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.
As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).
You're not criticizing forge world at this point, your issue is clearly with GW.
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.
Forge World is GW.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.
And saying Forge World = GW is absurd, and false.
No but I have been to Warhammer World and asked that very question. They're the same company. Their paychecks both are deposited by GW PLC and their employer is GW PLC on tax forms.
So no, it's not false. At some level, they even have the same bosses. Just two design teams under one roof.
Dionysodorus wrote: What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".
Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.
...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?
First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.
Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?
A company called golden gate capital owns Red lobster and olive garden. They use the same payroll company. Does Red Lobster = Olive Garden? No - Red lobster sucks and olive garden is usually pretty amazing.
Dionysodorus wrote: What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".
Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.
...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?
First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.
Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?
I'm not sure that you're understanding the point.
Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.
They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?
There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.
FW unit.
As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).
Leman Russ Turret weapons are priced based on assumption that you can have only one per vehicle! I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand, either for you or to FW.
Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.
They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?
So, supposing we want to come up with an appropriate point cost for each of these choices that make them viable but not overpowered, we follow what seems to me to be the obvious process. We compare them to similar sorts of units. We ask ourselves if we'd be happy taking them in a list if they cost X points. Throughout, we're doing a lot of math to see how they perform against different targets and how durable they are against different kinds of weapons. We don't want them to be killing 100% of their cost in a single volley, etc. Generally we want the HWS to be significantly more efficient as a source of firepower, because it's going to be a lot less durable. And then we playtest them, and we see if they perform significantly better or worse than we'd expected, and if so we adjust their costs some more.
Like, this is literally how you'd balance anything. This is how everything in the books was balanced, presumably, just with the constraint that they were going to use the same costs for each weapon no matter how many units could take it or how many times they could take it.
Dionysodorus wrote: The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.
For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HBHWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LCHWS...
You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.
Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.
Dionysodorus wrote: What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".
Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.
...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?
First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.
Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?
The thing is, if the total cost of the combination is anything other than the sum of the components, that means those components must have a different effective cost in each combination.
So if you want each possible combination to be uniquely costed, you've got to multiply the number of point entries by the number of combinations.
Unless you create a formula that approximates how those combinations interact, and ask your players to calculate the result of that formula each time they finish building a unit. But you ruled that out in that post, preferring to individually price each loadout by "intuition". That means each loadout needs its own, separate entry in the point list. Let me tell you, there are a loooot of loadouts (even if quite a few of them never see play).
Or you remove the combinations by making each loadout a separate unit with no options. Then you can price the unit as a whole, because none of its components can be added or removed. Though unless you remove a lot of possible loadouts in the process, you'll then end up with a number of units equal to the number of possible combinations (which is a lot).
Dionysodorus wrote: The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.
For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HBHWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LCHWS...
You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.
Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.
Dionysodorus wrote: What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".
Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.
...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?
First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.
Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?
The thing is, if the total cost of the combination is anything other than the sum of the components, that means those components must have a different effective cost in each combination.
So if you want each possible combination to be uniquely costed, you've got to multiply the number of point entries by the number of combinations.
Unless you create a formula that approximates how those combinations interact, and ask your players to calculate the result of that formula each time they finish building a unit. But you ruled that out in that post, preferring to individually price each loadout by "intuition". That means each loadout needs its own, separate entry in the point list. Let me tell you, there are a loooot of loadouts (even if quite a few of them never see play).
Or you remove the combinations by making each loadout a separate unit with no options. Then you can price the unit as a whole, because none of its components can be added or removed. Though unless you remove a lot of possible loadouts in the process, you'll then end up with a number of units equal to the number of possible combinations (which is a lot).
I think you've misunderstood what I'm doing. I'm not saying that I want it to be the case that there are like 3^5 different possible point costs for a HWS. I'm just demonstrating that obviously there's a drawback to GW's approach, which is that you're going to have lots of unbalanced choices. Personally, I like the way they used to do it, where each unit had its options priced independently, although generally not in such a way that different combinations of options required different costs for each option. I think it would be a better game if heavy weapon squads had their own prices for each heavy weapon, but a worse game, due to the additional complexity, if every possible combination of HWTs had a different price. But I haven't really been advocating that here so much as I've been pointing out that it's just silly to think that you can do this one-cost-fits-all system and not pay any price for it.
There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.
FW unit.
As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).
Leman Russ Turret weapons are priced based on assumption that you can have only one per vehicle! I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand, either for you or to FW.
Because nothing else is priced that way, even on the same unit. I don't know why you don't understand why that might be confusing or a break with the rest of the game's logic.
Still, that would rather massively increase the number of entries. Even if it's only a different price per unit instead of a different price per loadout, you'd have:
Lascannon in a HWS Lascannon in an infantry squad
Lascannon on a LRBT Lascannon on a Valkyrie
Lascannon on a Vendetta
Lascannon on a Baneblade (possibly multiplied by the number of baneblade variants: does the Shadowsword's bonus against Titans make its lascannons more expensive?)
Lascannon in a Command Squad
Lascannon in a Veteran Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon on an Armored Sentinel
Lascannon on a Scout Sentinel
That's just one weapon, just in the index. And it's not even something as ubiquitous as a Heavy Bolter. Adjusting at the faction level is perhaps the best we can do, and even that is not something GW does very often. The difference between SM and IG heavy weapon costs seems to be the exception more than the rule.
ross-128 wrote: Still, that would rather massively increase the number of entries. Even if it's only a different price per unit instead of a different price per loadout, you'd have:
Lascannon in a HWS Lascannon in an infantry squad
Lascannon on a LRBT Lascannon on a Valkyrie
Lascannon on a Vendetta
Lascannon on a Baneblade (possibly multiplied by the number of baneblade variants: does the Shadowsword's bonus against Titans make its lascannons more expensive?)
Lascannon in a Command Squad
Lascannon in a Veteran Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon on an Armored Sentinel
Lascannon on a Scout Sentinel
That's just one weapon, just in the index. And it's not even something as ubiquitous as a Heavy Bolter. Adjusting at the faction level is perhaps the best we can do, and even that is not something GW does very often. The difference between SM and IG heavy weapon costs seems to be the exception more than the rule.
I mean, they used to do this no trouble. Where a unit's options are listed there'd be a parenthetical point cost, just like it now does with unit size and power rating. For most of those units you can probably get away with using a single price without it being too bad, so you just refer to a heavy weapons list (that will have prices). And then for the HWS you make their wargear options two lines instead of one and you say "Each model must take a lascannon (+15 points), a mortar (+8 points)..." and so on. And really this isn't even that much text if you just do something like that for all of the units -- it's an extra line of wargear options. It generally won't add any lines for things that can take more limited selections, like units that have the option to just take a heavy bolter. You just add "(+X points)" after "heavy bolter" in their wargear options.
Because nothing else is priced that way, even on the same unit. I don't know why you don't understand why that might be confusing or a break with the rest of the game's logic.
A lot of stuff that only one specific unit can take is discounted or free. Also, why you think combi-bolter costs more than two bolters or combi-weapons in general cost more than their constituent parts? Why does hurricane bolter cost more than six bolters?
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.
There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.
As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).
You're not criticizing forge world at this point, your issue is clearly with GW.
And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.
No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.
Forge World is GW.
If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.
It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."
If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.
This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.
Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.
And saying Forge World = GW is absurd, and false.
No but I have been to Warhammer World and asked that very question. They're the same company. Their paychecks both are deposited by GW PLC and their employer is GW PLC on tax forms.
So no, it's not false. At some level, they even have the same bosses. Just two design teams under one roof.
Yet they haven't. Why is the base hull for a Leman Russ Conqueror 110pts when it has exactly the same stats profile as a normal Leman Russ? In fact, it gets the co-axial rule that applies to its 'only' turret option, the conqueror cannon, which makes it a much better choice than the regular battle cannon - so the conqueror is cheaper while receiving an additional ability.
LR battle tank from the core book with a HB and battle cannon costs you 162pts. Same exact loadout on a LR conqueror - HB + Conqueror cannon and co-axial Stormbolter - costs you 145pts. Why is the FW option cheaper when the only difference is the co-axial rule and range? Is 72" really worth another 17pts compared to +1 to hit within 24"?
And as others have stated, just because the overall business - greater GW - is the same in no way allows anyone to just hand wave away that FW and 'mainstream GW' have different design teams by saying "but they're both GW". To pile on with the examples pointing out the untenable nature of such logic - HBO and CNN are owned by Time Warner. As such HBO and CNN are, according to your logic, exactly the same. They're Time Warner! Untenable at best; ridiculous at worst.
The Vulture Gunship is literally the only unit that can take a 'twin Punisher gatling cannon' at the moment; there is no reason whatsoever it couldn't have been given a separate points cost from 'the formula' to accommodate its relative power. By comparison, a Vulture w/mandatory HB, two hellstrikes, and a twin lascannon costs 200pts. Why, other than blind application of 'the formula' without regard to playtesting or balance, would a Vulture with TPGC cost 160pts by comparison?
FW's design team =/= GW's design team, and it is blatantly evident that FW's design team only blindly applied the points principles that GW's design team created without regard to balance or playtesting. That GW took the effort to integrate some formerly FW options and did not integrate FW into its mainstream rules or even its mainstream online shop - keeping the solidly divided, in fact - only makes this clearer.
FW is not balanced and should not be allowed in ITC/Matched Play tournaments. One can point out balance problems in mainstream GW's rules, and they exist, but FW adds an even greater degree of imbalance only exacerbated by the FW design team's unfortunate lackadaisical application of the 8th ed points value system.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".
To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.
But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".
To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.
But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.
I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".
To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.
But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.
I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.
So if there is trouble, ban the trouble, don't ban a category. If you don't like Vultures with TPGCs but think the Vulture is an awesome model, then ban taking TPGCs on a Vulture. Frankly, I think that's too much effort, but banning things like Vaylund Cal (the Sons of Medusa special character) because Vultures with TPGCs are a problem is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".
To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.
But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.
I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.
So if there is trouble, ban the trouble, don't ban a category. If you don't like Vultures with TPGCs but think the Vulture is an awesome model, then ban taking TPGCs on a Vulture. Frankly, I think that's too much effort, but banning things like Vaylund Cal (the Sons of Medusa special character) because Vultures with TPGCs are a problem is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I would agree if it was just Vultures w/TPGCs, but it isn't - by far.
Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.
They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?
So, supposing we want to come up with an appropriate point cost for each of these choices that make them viable but not overpowered, we follow what seems to me to be the obvious process. We compare them to similar sorts of units.
We compare them to units that also have no point costs? You have to start somewhere.
We ask ourselves if we'd be happy taking them in a list if they cost X points.
Someone that may be more than "happy" to take just tactical squads is not a method of balance.
Throughout, we're doing a lot of math to see how they perform against different targets and how durable they are against different kinds of weapons.
You have hundreds of units and likely millions of combinations between weapons, platforms, and targets. Removing the weapons lets you analyze their effectiveness against all potential targets with complete clarity.
We don't want them to be killing 100% of their cost in a single volley, etc.
That's really a nonsense metric, because enough inexpensive fire power can do just that.
9 HW lascannons can kill a rhino in one salvo - 250 or so points.
Our mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons takes over 570 points to do the same thing.
Generally we want the HWS to be significantly more efficient as a source of firepower, because it's going to be a lot less durable. And then we playtest them, and we see if they perform significantly better or worse than we'd expected, and if so we adjust their costs some more.
A HWS *IS* more efficient, BECAUSE it is on a less durable platform that costs less and can take MORE weapons for the overall cost.
Both these units do the *same* damage. Ergo this makes the weapon *completely* removable from the equation. Then you're tweaking the balance based on the durability of a unit.
Now the point you seem to be driving at is why would you take HWS when they can die so easily and you spent points on their expensive weapons?
If I took a near equivalent number of lascannons with CSM Havocs it would cost 330 points. That's 10 T4 3+ wounds compared to 18 T3 5+.
- Slightly less fire power
- Fewer, but more durable wounds
- An 80 point difference that can be filled by almost 30 conscripts
Sure HWS are going to die a lot. Just like devastators will. They're a softer target than a tank. So you make a decision on how much you're willing to risk in a softer unit to gain a benefit if you get to shoot first or if they don't die. If you were to make lascannons 10 points on HWS to make up for the ill perception of their weakness you'd wind up with 18 lascannons in 324 points. If you took it to 15 then it's 18 in 414. If you cut HBs to 4 you'd see 18 of those for 144 points. Throw them into 4 spearheads with some commissars and conscripts...yea..good luck.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.
It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.
It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.
It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.
It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.
It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".
And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.
It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".
Based on the analysis earlier in this thread, that doesn't seem to be a fair trade-off.
FW is not balanced and should not be allowed in ITC/Matched Play tournaments. One can point out balance problems in mainstream GW's rules, and they exist, but FW adds an even greater degree of imbalance only exacerbated by the FW design team's unfortunate lackadaisical application of the 8th ed points value system.
But why should we draw the line at Forge World? Is there a reason we should just arbitrarily ban some publications, and allow others? Eldar vs Orks has a massive powergap in previous editions, but I never saw any call for for banning Eldar entirely even though they very clearly were T1. Or Dark Angels with Space Wolves.
Yes, some FW options may lead to certain T1 teams being better than others because FW gives better options (Skathach vs normal WK is one comparison people have used), but when the gap is even larger between Eldar and Orks, should we not just ban Eldar, because evidently, GW cannot balance?
I have never understood why people just outright ban everything because a few things are bad. Especially when they are not in any position of power whatsoever. Why should ITC or tournament organisers listen to you instead of making their own, informed decision?
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.
It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.
It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".
And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.
Why would putting 40 points of weapons into the turret be OP, if we can already do that with the Demolisher cannon without sacrificing sponsons? Of course whether a Demolisher cannon is worth 40 points in the first place might be debatable, but "the Demolisher is fine as long as it's underpowered anyway" doesn't sound like a good argument.
And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.
It would be ok, but not as strong as the vulture since it's a 24" weapon and wouldn't have +1 to hit.
On the move it'd kill...3 marines. Stationary 4.4. Or 6 to 9 guardsmen. Not a lot to write home about there.
ross-128 wrote: A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.
It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.
It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".
And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.
Why would putting 40 points of weapons into the turret be OP, if we can already do that with the Demolisher cannon without sacrificing sponsons? Of course whether a Demolisher cannon is worth 40 points in the first place might be debatable, but "the Demolisher is fine as long as it's underpowered anyway" doesn't sound like a good argument.
I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.
I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.
What matters is whether or not the options available make sense and offer legitimate choices. If the LRBT could take both it would be stupid to never take the TPGC.
Because the weapon costs are separate and the cost is tied to the general BS of the army then what you pay for the weapon is the average effective cost of it overall. The TPGC and the PGC might be a little undercosted. This is the PGC versus marines as compared to 8 bolter shots (roughly 20 points worth). I can't think of other weapons that could perform as well for that class.
The PGC *should* be better than it's simple equivalent in HBs, but probably a bit less than it is now.
I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.
What matters is whether or not the options available make sense and offer legitimate choices. If the LRBT could take both it would be stupid to never take the TPGC.
Because the weapon costs are separate and the cost is tied to the general BS of the army then what you pay for the weapon is the average effective cost of it overall. The TPGC and the PGC might be a little undercosted. This is the PGC versus marines as compared to 8 bolter shots (roughly 20 points worth). I can't think of other weapons that could perform as well for that class.
The PGC *should* be better than it's simple equivalent in HBs, but probably a bit less than it is now.
I did bring up much earlier the possibility that the Punisher itself might be a bit underpriced, but because the LRBT's hull is overpriced we haven't really noticed until it was put on a different unit. Or more accurately, instead of seeing "underpriced gun on an overpriced hull", we were seeing "the Punisher Russ is the most viable and the rest of the turret weapons are poor".
I think a 30-35 point PCG probably would be pretty reasonable, and bring it more in line with the rest of the turret weapons while addressing the Vulture at the same time.
However, I would take those 10-15 points off the hull of the LRBT at the same time. That will keep the Punisher Russ in the same place overall, but make the other turret options (such as the battle cannon) more viable. That should put the Russ in a relatively good spot overall, though the Executioner plasma cannon and Vanquisher cannon would still need a bit of tweaking to fix their relationship with the battle cannon.
ross-128 wrote: I think a 30-35 point PCG probably would be pretty reasonable, and bring it more in line with the rest of the turret weapons while addressing the Vulture at the same time.
However, I would take those 10-15 points off the hull of the LRBT at the same time. That will keep the Punisher Russ in the same place overall, but make the other turret options (such as the battle cannon) more viable. That should put the Russ in a relatively good spot overall, though the Executioner plasma cannon and Vanquisher cannon would still need a bit of tweaking to fix their relationship with the battle cannon.
I'm reluctant to say a T8 platform is overcosted. Let's look at the BC though.
Now this graph is sort of reversed from the other one. This is chance to kill a rhino in x rounds so the further to the left the curve is the better.
Ignore this one
Spoiler:
So this is 3 BC vs 3 LC and LC definitely get the edge statistically, because of the variable nature of the BC. Though it comes down to the role we define the BC as playing. It's not quite anti-tank and would probably overperform against T2/3W models.
Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.
Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.
ross-128 wrote: Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.
Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.
I do think the HH might be one of those that falls outside the norm, because of it's limited options and range. T8 offers some pretty solid defense under the proper conditions.
ross-128 wrote: Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.
Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.
If the earlier estimates for the cost of hard points and wounds on T7 are accurate enough, then the vindicator suggests around 8 pts/wound for T8 BS3+.
So T8 BS4+ would likely be around 7 pts/wound, and the LRBT with 5 hard points "should" be 114 points, plus whatever value you want to assign to Grinding Advance.
The idea of +15 points to the PGC and -15 points to the LRBT seems pretty reasonable IMO.
A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.
Aenarian wrote: A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.
Think of it different way... You're paying 8 points for the additional wound and 1.8 points per wound to bring them up to T8. Or something like that.
Take plasma -- it loses 33% effectiveness at S7 and 25% at S8. Yes, it means nothing to S6 and down or S9 and up, but there are quite a few weapons in the S7/8 space. Yet T8 is also immune to being wounded on 2s by all but the very strongest models.
A contemptor in melee can average 7 versus a rhino and 5.5 versus a LRBT for example.
Im a tad bit confused by all the mathhammer going on here.
Vulture is a flying vehicle that must move 20" and has a heavy 40 weapon that is hitting on 5+ if it moved.
If it does not want to move and hover, it is now a sitting duck for HWT and any weapon doing dX damage.
You are paying for a supersonic death trap the second you want to "effectively" fire that heavy 40 cannon at a 4+ (which btw you cant modify). 160 Points seems to be pretty good cost to replace everything for a chassis heavy bolter and flying punisher cannon
Rickels wrote: Im a tad bit confused by all the mathhammer going on here.
Vulture is a flying vehicle that must move 20" and has a heavy 40 weapon that is hitting on 5+ if it moved.
If it does not want to move and hover, it is now a sitting duck for HWT and any weapon doing dX damage.
You are paying for a supersonic death trap the second you want to "effectively" fire that heavy 40 cannon at a 4+ (which btw you cant modify). 160 Points seems to be pretty good cost to replace everything for a chassis heavy bolter and flying punisher cannon
It is hitting on a 4+ if shooting at anything on the ground. The punisher vulture should be priced upwards at 250-300 points, right around the price of two dakkajets. As it is now, it is simply wildy OP. And tha is no surprise, as the ForgeWorld bozos clearly has done zero playtesting of anything in the 8th edition. They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW. They dont sell games, they sell lumps of cured thermosetting resin.
pismakron wrote: They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW.
No they aren't. Forge World is a brand name used by GW for some of their product lines. At no point has FW ever been an independent company.
And sure, FW didn't playtest for 8th. The rest of GW didn't either, as demonstrated by the extensive day-one FAQs on things that were spotted by the community within minutes of getting the rules.
pismakron wrote: They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW.
No they aren't. Forge World is a brand name used by GW for some of their product lines. At no point has FW ever been an independent company.
And sure, FW didn't playtest for 8th. The rest of GW didn't either, as demonstrated by the extensive day-one FAQs on things that were spotted by the community within minutes of getting the rules.
Forgeworld is not a brand-name. It is different people sitting in different buildings while clearly never communicating with each other.
And yes, 8th edition has been playtested extensively, but only with GWs units. None of Forgeworlds stuff has been playtested or even proofread by either company. The bizarre vulture win-button is a great testament to both ForgeWorlds skill at model-making as well as their careless attitude when it comes to their rules. In a better world the responsibility for making rules for ForgeWorlds stuff would reside at GW proper, but sadly this is not the case.
pismakron wrote: Forgeworld is not a brand-name. It is different people sitting in different buildings while clearly never communicating with each other.
So is everything else at GW. That's how large companies work, products get broken up and allocated to various teams. The FW writers are a separate team, the WD writers are a separate team, the model designers are a separate team, the marketing department is a separate team, etc. And yes, there is communication between those teams, FW included. This should be obvious from the fact that the FW index books were released so soon after the rest of 8th edition. The lead time required for print books is far longer than the week or so between release dates, so FW indisputably had the 8th edition rules and was working on 8th edition products long before they were public.
And yes, 8th edition has been playtested extensively, but only with GWs units. None of Forgeworlds stuff has been playtested or even proofread by either company. The bizarre vulture win-button is a great testament to both ForgeWorlds skill at model-making as well as their careless attitude when it comes to their rules. In a better world the responsibility for making rules for ForgeWorlds stuff would reside at GW proper, but sadly this is not the case.
FORGE WORLD IS NOT A SEPARATE COMPANY.
Stop saying things like "either company" that have nothing to do with reality. Forge World is a brand name used by GW. The products are sold by GW, the copyrights on all of the books are owned by GW, the employees working on the FW product line are all paid directly by GW, etc.
And no, 8th was not extensively playtested. Extensive playtesting doesn't give you balance problems and day-one FAQs like 8th has, and that's on top of the fact that the rules are a dumpster fire of over-homogenization and clumsy game design. The Vulture is a "win button", IG conscripts are a "win button", Eldar scatter laser jetbikes and invisible death stars in 7th were "win buttons", etc. Nothing GW produces is adequately playtested, and it's absurd to pick out single unbalanced units as a sign that some GW writers are the only problem.
The current FW is essentially a charade maintained by GW. Its primary purpose is to allow them to split codices into multiple books. Its secondary purpose is as a sort of "beta testing" area, where they can put models that are either a WIP or considered not "mainstream" enough for the main codex, but they're not terribly consistent about which models get put there.
For example the Vendetta was FW in 5th, GW in 6th, GW in 7th, and is back to FW in 8th.
The Baneblade was FW in 5th, but has been GW since 6th. Same with Tank Commanders.
Most of the Space Marine and Ork flyers started in FW, then moved to GW.
Look at the Chaos fireraptor. You can pay more for reaper autocannons... and never do more damage or even as much until you fire at something T10, but after T13 that goes away (all the T10-13 out there). Every other scenario the Quad HB are better... and cheaper. Things aren't even thought out. I didn't have to do any math at all to know the wild imbalance there (I have since). But S7 6 shots vs S5 12 shots isn't tough to figure out at all.
Aenarian wrote: A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.
Think of it different way... You're paying 8 points for the additional wound and 1.8 points per wound to bring them up to T8. Or something like that.
Take plasma -- it loses 33% effectiveness at S7 and 25% at S8. Yes, it means nothing to S6 and down or S9 and up, but there are quite a few weapons in the S7/8 space. Yet T8 is also immune to being wounded on 2s by all but the very strongest models.
A contemptor in melee can average 7 versus a rhino and 5.5 versus a LRBT for example.
A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.
A Leman Russ wound is worth 11 points, compared to ~9.2 for a Predator. T8 is better than T7 as S8 is 33% more efficient, S7 is 50% more efficient and S4 is twice as efficient (although I probably wouldn't be worried in this case). I guess I would be worried about Plasma, Melta and some Xenos weapons, which a less than 20% points cost could be good against.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that the price per wound and toughness is not exactly clear and if we go by the Predator as a baseline, I would agree with you. But right now, I see a unit I can replace with more efficient options from the Index itself, not even counting the FW options (of course, I would take Earthshaker Carriages with crew anyway now that they're weaker but cheaper Basilisks). Even then, I would right now gladly pay Predator price for a Leman Russ with T7 and W11....
Also I don't even know why I wrote this. I'm getting tired. Anyway, I agree and disgaree with you.
ross-128 wrote: For example the Vendetta was FW in 5th, GW in 6th, GW in 7th, and is back to FW in 8th.
Not true. The conversion kit to build the Vendetta model was always sold by FW, but the rules were first created in the GW 5th edition IG codex and were published in a FW book for the first time in 8th (likely due to the "no units in the codex without a plastic kit" policy). The Vendetta's history of being an overpowered unit is entirely on "main GW".
The Baneblade was FW in 5th, but has been GW since 6th. Same with Tank Commanders.
Correct in sequence, but wrong in editions. The Baneblade was a FW unit way back in 3rd edition (where it was much weaker, none of the 10" blast templates existed back then) and was turned into its current form in the 4th edition GW Apocalypse book to go with the new plastic kit. It was put into "normal" 40k in the 6th edition Escalation book, and then into the 7th edition IG codex. Since 4th edition the Baneblade rules that have appeared in FW books have just been a copy/paste of the GW rules.
Most of the Space Marine and Ork flyers started in FW, then moved to GW.
Nope. None of those units were ever FW models, they are entirely new plastic kits (and, in the case of the marine flyers, suffer badly from not using the far superior FW designs).
A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.
Whirlwind had fewer hard points than the predator. Vindicator has cannon baked in unfortunately. I'll peek at Hunter/Stalker in a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, so, Whirlwind is consistent with Predator sans a couple hard points.
Hunter / Stalker are two hard point tanks - maybe one, but we'll assume two. LRBT is a 5 hard point tank. If we assume the same 8 points as before it's 108 vs 90. For 18 points you then have an extra wound and grinding advance (if they point it). It might be "off" depending on the real formula, but it isn't off by a lot.
A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.
Whirlwind had fewer hard points than the predator. Vindicator has cannon baked in unfortunately. I'll peek at Hunter/Stalker in a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, so, Whirlwind is consistent with Predator sans a couple hard points.
Hunter / Stalker are two hard point tanks - maybe one, but we'll assume two. LRBT is a 5 hard point tank. If we assume the same 8 points as before it's 108 vs 90. For 18 points you then have an extra wound and grinding advance (if they point it). It might be "off" depending on the real formula, but it isn't off by a lot.
Grinding Advance is worse than BS3+ in every way, so I guess we can assume that they at worst equal eachother. But yes, based on that particular assumption, I guess it works.
Nevertheless, the general consensus seems to be that Leman Russes are an unattractive option, but it might just be because of unfamiliarity with other factions and their costs. I guess actually playing with it will determine if it's good or not.
koooaei wrote: It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.
That's a nice house rule you have. Under my house rules you are illegal, so you should probably turn yourself in to GW for conversion into a gun servitor to be a meatshield for my DKoK tanks.
koooaei wrote: It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.
That's a nice house rule you have. Under my house rules you are illegal, so you should probably turn yourself in to GW for conversion into a gun servitor to be a meatshield for my DKoK tanks.