Just as the title reads I am trying to wrap my head around the cost of the battlewagon and I can not.

For 32pts more an IG player can take a Leman Russ battle tank which comes standard with basically a range 72 2D6 S8 -2 D3 weapon and a heavy bolter not to mention T8 and a 3+ save. The only thing the Battlewagon has going for it that the Leman russ doesn't is that its a transport and it has 4 more wounds. I know that IG players love their battle tanks but I can't see a reason why I would ever use the Gun variant of the Battlewagon...ever. The bonebreaker variant has a purpose, however, it pays through the nose to be effective in CC. Realistically we are paying through the nose for a transport ability on a transport that also pays heavily to be okish in CC (Excluding bonebreaker variant) and even fully equipped its shooting is laughable at best.

So with that in mind, can someone please explain to me why the Battlewagon and its variants aren't significantly cheaper, 10-20pts minimum?

Basically, don't compare to a Leman Russ. They are well above the curve for their weight class.

Yep, if you start comparing stuff to Leman Russ tanks you'll never take any units.

Its also partly useful when combined with the "teleporta" stratagem.

though there is no logic, rhyme or reason to the point costs, GW over estimate the survivability of models and fail to consider the impact of BS: 5+

Normally when it comes to Orks being over cost I jump on the band wagon but right now I'm pretty happy with the wagon. I'd compare it more to a land raider (what it was originally based off of), basically a big transportation tank with a few special weapons on it. Decked out the wagon is expensive but you can have 4 rokkits/big gunz, a missle launcher type weapons and a lobba on a pretty tough nut to crack. If anything I think the wagon is pointed perfectly for what it does but the weapons on it are too expensive. People have realised the basic 120pts flat wagon can really soak up a lot of fire power and get mega nobz and elites to where they need to be.

So, in conclusion, while the russ is a great vechile that is cheap, it's nit really comparable to the wagon. However, the weapons on the wagon itself should be cheaper in my opinion for a vechile that has a BS of 5+.

It is because most of the IG stuff is hilariously undercosted. And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

 Crimson wrote:
It is because most of the IG stuff is hilariously undercosted. And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

It's also because everyone takes enough Lascannons to down Castellans, which makes medium vehicles like the Russ a bit of a liability, even if the Russ is the best of them!

I personally suspect it has to do with GW and it's fear of certain intended synergies.

F.e.marines need a pricedrop on various heavy and special weapons, if they don't field roboute.
Csm need the same if they don't field abbadon.
The potential there's two modells have on the Performance of other units is gigantic to the point that they fear to lower the points.

I also suspect this is why Boyz got a 1ppm pricehike but rather then rellying on charachters the threatining synergy stems from the tellyporta stratagem.

Compared to all three other armies, the IG codex has no such huge overlapping synergy and got away with lower point costs therefore.

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

 Crimson wrote:
And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

Down at the local clubs I've seen 3 or 4 of them basically wipe the table turn 1. This is the problem with them... a good tournament list will survive easily but the standard fluffy army can't survive two seconds.

SemperMortis wrote:
Just as the title reads I am trying to wrap my head around the cost of the battlewagon and I can not.

For 32pts more an IG player can take a Leman Russ battle tank which comes standard with basically a range 72 2D6 S8 -2 D3 weapon and a heavy bolter not to mention T8 and a 3+ save. The only thing the Battlewagon has going for it that the Leman russ doesn't is that its a transport and it has 4 more wounds. I know that IG players love their battle tanks but I can't see a reason why I would ever use the Gun variant of the Battlewagon...ever. The bonebreaker variant has a purpose, however, it pays through the nose to be effective in CC. Realistically we are paying through the nose for a transport ability on a transport that also pays heavily to be okish in CC (Excluding bonebreaker variant) and even fully equipped its shooting is laughable at best.

So with that in mind, can someone please explain to me why the Battlewagon and its variants aren't significantly cheaper, 10-20pts minimum?

Nobody knows, but GW hasn't ever really made Battlewagons particularly viable outside of things like Deffrolla spam, certainly never as a battle tank. Why that may be, who knows, but I can't recall any edition where Battlewagons were effective gun platforms. Certainly not since they reintroduced the kit about a decade ago.

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

This depends on what role/purpose we're putting the tank to, and lots of battle tanks in the game are fundamentally just bad. The Russ was bad before they updated Grinding Advance, the Fire Prism was too until they similarly buffed them, the Predator is actually really solid in a lascannon anti-tank role but pretty bad in an anti-infantry role, the Hammerhead isn't great either, etc. Even if you removed the Leman Russ from the game, most other equivalents in other forces still wouldn't be seen as particularly good

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

The basic leman russ, assuming Catachan, is roughly at the point where I feel "tanks should be like this". The predator just sucks, because it's stated as an APC with a turret and a light gun instead of transport. To be fair, that's also what it's model is, but also like, it really should be treated as a tank because otherwise there's no SM tank. Also, the basic leman russ if not Catachan is pretty underwhelming.

Back to the Battle Wagon:
Compared to a stock Leman Russ, the Gunwagon Battlewagon costs 3 points more, and has:
W16 versus W12. Not only does it have 4 more wounds, it's Ballistic Skill never degrades.
Identical Toughness.
-1 Save
Almost identical weapon. It shoots twice, for D6 shots each time, at S8, AP2. It has fixed 2 damage instead of D3, and 24" range instead of 72".
12 Transport Capacity, versus 0.
-1 Ballistic Skill.
Slightly better melee. Actually, it's a lot better relatively, but it's still nothing to write home about.
DakkaDakkaDakka

As a side note, it also explodes more often, which is situationally a benefit or detriment.


That seems pretty much fair, all things considered. 4 wounds and no degradation for -1 BS and -1 Save is basically what relevant in the trade, with the 12 transport and better melee added on [not for free, though, and I'm sure it would be solid if it didn't pay for the transport and didn't have it].
It does not have access to Catachan, but it does have access to re-rolled 1's to hit or access to +1BS, making it's BS equal to the Leman Russ.


As for upgrade potential
The Leman Russ can buy a Lascannon, and two sponson guns, of which you're going to pick Heavy Bolter, or maybe Plasma Cannon [though I'd stick to HB's and only take PC's on TC's]
The Gunwagon can buy a Lobba, a Stikkbomm Launcha, and 4 Big Shootas. None of those are Lascannons, but it's a solid array of upgrades to still have. Like the Leman Russ, additional guns do not benefit from the fire twice rule. It can also buy Grot Riggers, giving it healing, roughly equal to 1W per tun.


In terms of support:
Leman Russes are theoretically eligible for Tank Orders. In practice, they're not, because the orders are always more powerful when used on a TC.
Battle Wagons can be given an invulnerable save. Leman Russes can be given -1 to be hit, but only one.
Leman Russes have better supplemental material support and prospects for future support, because they're a core unit versus and auxiliary unit.
Both armies have easy protection from melee.




You shouldn't really be using the regular BattleWagon as a Leman Russ, because it's not one. In fact, it's not intended to be one, that's what a Gunwagon is. It's a big rhino, basically.

Also, that brings something up: What's the deal with the outcry over "no looted wagons!"? A Gunwagon is literally a Leman Russ in profile, wouldn't a looted Leman Russ just be a Gunwagon?

My guess is that it's a transport (which GW values very highly), and the melee is maybe better?

Does it have any grot gunners or is it strictly BS5+?

My suspicion is because GW have horrendously overcosted the ability to transport. They thought that transports would actually be able to survive a turn.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My suspicion is because GW have horrendously overcosted the ability to transport. They thought that transports would actually be able to survive a turn.

Surprisingly a lot of them can. They simply pay out of the nose for it and some of them do nothing BUT that.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, that brings something up: What's the deal with the outcry over "no looted wagons!"? A Gunwagon is literally a Leman Russ in profile, wouldn't a looted Leman Russ just be a Gunwagon?

Because way back when you literally got a Leman Russ profile, just with Ork BS. I also suspect that with the release of official kits for a lot of the ork stuff "counts as" has become less accepted as a result.

I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Uh.

Because it's got a transport capacity of 20 and open topped...? Like is this even a question? I can't put 20 anti tank models in a leman russ and have them just continuously shooting at things.

A gunwagon I agree is not as good as a Russ, but I'm perfectly willing to chalk the relatively small difference up to "Gunline faction VS hybrid melee/shooting faction". And even then, looking at the analysis above, it's only 3pts more for roughly the same durability (more, vs AP-4 or AP-3 weapons), a transport capacity of 12 as a small bonus, and a few other little details that leman russes would frigging kill for, I can definitely see why the battlewagon is where it is. I mean, an army trait where you can reroll the dice when determining your battlecannon shots is nice, but Orks have army traits that let them fall back and still shoot, and an upgrade that makes little squads that try to bumpercar the tank into mincemeat...if I could do that with my russes I'd be doing that EVERY GAME.

And for the 32 points you saved can be put towards a KFF that will make the BW more durable than the russ. Huzzah!

You cant compare 1 unit in 1 army to 1 unit in another army its like saying chalk and cheese (who cares if have same or similar unit totally different army... and play style) You prob got your answer before but I hate when people compare units to other units in another army (its a totally different army... )

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And for the 32 points you saved can be put towards a KFF that will make the BW more durable than the russ. Huzzah!

Lol. /thread

Spoletta wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Nah, I meant you have to do like 60-70 wounds in order to get through the 28 you need to kill the Knight.

 Horst wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Nah, I meant you have to do like 60-70 wounds in order to get through the 28 you need to kill the Knight.

Yep. 72 BS4+ lascannons to have an average chance of killing the Castellan in one round.

the_scotsman wrote:


A gunwagon I agree is not as good as a Russ, but I'm perfectly willing to chalk the relatively small difference up to "Gunline faction VS hybrid melee/shooting faction". And even then, looking at the analysis above, it's only 3pts more for roughly the same durability (more, vs AP-4 or AP-3 weapons), a transport capacity of 12 as a small bonus, and a few other little details that leman russes would frigging kill for, I can definitely see why the battlewagon is where it is. I mean, an army trait where you can reroll the dice when determining your battlecannon shots is nice, but Orks have army traits that let them fall back and still shoot, and an upgrade that makes little squads that try to bumpercar the tank into mincemeat...if I could do that with my russes I'd be doing that EVERY GAME.

I play against a deathskullz gunwagon all the time and it's such a pain in the ass.

Separate for a moment the main cannons:

The KK is 15 points.

7 * 1.167 * .333 = 2.72 hits or 5.5 points per hit

The BC is 22 points

7 * .4 = 3.5 hits or 6.3 points per hit

That means the KK without traits factored in is a better buy at BS5. So that means the real contention is in the base cost of the vehicles.

The LRBT is 122 for T8 W12 3+, grinding advance, smoke, and 3 WS6 S7 attacks.
The gun wagon is 140 for T8 W16 4+, periscope, DDD, 12 transport spots, 6 S8 WS5 attacks.

The LRBT pays 10.2 points per wound.
The Gun Wagon pays 8.75 per wound.

I'd call that pretty god damn fair.

Which is enough Lascannons to on average kill 5 Leman Russes! Which is why Russes and other medium vehicles struggle in this meta.

Obviously people aren't bringing 72 Lascannons, but they are bringing ways to deal with Castelans, and they just work even better on other vehicles.

I think GW somehow overvalues transport capacity and the mobility it provides, I suspect the point appraisal goes something like this:
Question: Does the faction have something scary to put inside that has low mobility?
-No: Ok they don't need transport, remove the unit.
-Yes: Nerf the feth out of that thing right now.

Similar effect can be seen with Marine drop pod and deep strike, assault marines currently pay effectively 2 point per marine for being able to move 12" a turn, deep strike and have Fly keyword. Now drop pod costs 65 points, just giving deep strike ability, which could have been somewhat ok with CA18 new progressive scoring missions but because the 1st turn deep strikes were prohibited this stuff just doesn't add up.

SemperMortis wrote:
The only thing the Battlewagon has going for it that the Leman russ doesn't is that its a transport and it has 4 more wounds.

You already figured it out, when you kill it 20 angry orks hop out. In addition those models are protected from fire while being able to fire themselves. It also moves farther then the russ.

Not sure why you are comparing the two, very different vehicles.

 Stux wrote:
Which is enough Lascannons to on average kill 5 Leman Russes! Which is why Russes and other medium vehicles struggle in this meta.

Obviously people aren't bringing 72 Lascannons, but they are bringing ways to deal with Castelans, and they just work even better on other vehicles.

I think people struggle with weapon density and how that applies to balance.

As it stands the LRBT and Gun Wagon are pretty well in parity.

Where people lose it is where they sit and thing how they can get a BC, LC, and 2 HB on a LRBT for 180. Then they look at a GW with KK and 4x BS for 175 and say how can that possibly be better. The thing is that guns are not priced for the density of the platform they'll get used on. That's why a predator pays to exist more than a razorback.

You can't look at the GW and LRBT above and come to a balance decision, because it ignores the other facets of the GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


A gunwagon I agree is not as good as a Russ, but I'm perfectly willing to chalk the relatively small difference up to "Gunline faction VS hybrid melee/shooting faction". And even then, looking at the analysis above, it's only 3pts more for roughly the same durability (more, vs AP-4 or AP-3 weapons), a transport capacity of 12 as a small bonus, and a few other little details that leman russes would frigging kill for, I can definitely see why the battlewagon is where it is. I mean, an army trait where you can reroll the dice when determining your battlecannon shots is nice, but Orks have army traits that let them fall back and still shoot, and an upgrade that makes little squads that try to bumpercar the tank into mincemeat...if I could do that with my russes I'd be doing that EVERY GAME.

I play against a deathskullz gunwagon all the time and it's such a pain in the ass.

Separate for a moment the main cannons:

The KK is 15 points.

7 * 1.167 * .333 = 2.72 hits or 5.5 points per hit

The BC is 22 points

7 * .4 = 3.5 hits or 6.3 points per hit

That means the KK without traits factored in is a better buy at BS5. So that means the real contention is in the base cost of the vehicles.

The LRBT is 122 for T8 W12 3+, grinding advance, smoke, and 3 WS6 S7 attacks.
The gun wagon is 140 for T8 W16 4+, periscope, DDD, 12 transport spots, 6 S8 WS5 attacks.

The LRBT pays 10.2 points per wound.
The Gun Wagon pays 8.75 per wound.

I'd call that pretty god damn fair.

You can't apples and oranges the KK, because its cost is only partly the points (which is why it costs the same as the much, much worse Kannon). The Kilkannon upgrade reduces transport capacity by 8 and removes the Open Topped rule, both things the BW pays for in its base cost and the gunwagon automatically gives up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, lol@whoever just said a kff was 30pts. That's like the cost of the upgrade itself, you have to buy a model attached to it. You might as well say "WTF blood angels pay 15pts for a weapon that kills knights in one round!!!" ignoring that that's a thunder hammer attached to a captain with a particular WL trait spending 7CP.

Ghorgul wrote:
I think GW somehow overvalues transport capacity and the mobility it provides, I suspect the point appraisal goes something like this:
Question: Does the faction have something scary to put inside that has low mobility?
-No: Ok they don't need transport, remove the unit.
-Yes: Nerf the feth out of that thing right now.

Not sure that's correct. The amount of weapons has a big effect on what the base cost is.

Cost per wound:
T8 invuln Castellan - 18.2 IK - 11.9 T8 no invuln LRBT - 10.2 GW - 8.8 T7 WaveSerp - 9.2 //shield Predator - 8.2 Hammerhead - 7.7 BW - 7.5 Dread - 7.5 Rhino - 7.0 Sky Ray - 6.2

Similar effect can be seen with Marine drop pod and deep strike, assault marines currently pay effectively 2 point per marine for being able to move 12" a turn, deep strike and have Fly keyword. Now drop pod costs 65 points, just giving deep strike ability, which could have been somewhat ok with CA18 new progressive scoring missions but because the 1st turn deep strikes were prohibited this stuff just doesn't add up.

It sits objectives and grants deepstrike to units that don't typically have that option. Is 65 too much? Maybe, but I'm not sure.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

You can't apples and oranges the KK, because its cost is only partly the points (which is why it costs the same as the much, much worse Kannon). The Kilkannon upgrade reduces transport capacity by 8 and removes the Open Topped rule, both things the BW pays for in its base cost and the gunwagon automatically gives up.

The trade off is already on the Gun Wagon, which pays a different base cost. You absolutely can compare the KK to the BC through cost. There is literally no reason for a KK on a BW.

Also, lol@whoever just said a kff was 30pts. That's like the cost of the upgrade itself, you have to buy a model attached to it. You might as well say "WTF blood angels pay 15pts for a weapon that kills knights in one round!!!" ignoring that that's a thunder hammer attached to a captain with a particular WL trait spending 7CP.

No one said that. I said it's points TOWARDS a KFF - the thing that literally every Ork army has kicking around and covers more than just one model.

Yeah, it's almost like the base cost of the Kilcannon is increased on the GW to account for the fact that it can't choose not to take it. Otherwise, you're paying 20pts for the ability to fire a 15pt gun twice if you moved under 6".

Gunwagons are crappy when compared to battlecannon russes, and they're extra crappy compared to tank commanders. Sure, they're about as durable, gunwagons are even a bit more durable as you pointed out against a lot of weapons (and you can give them a KFF, and they're one of the few units a Codex KFF can keep up with waddling around at M4") but I'm not sure where you're getting that their armaments are "roughly equal" - Russes do more damage much more safely.

A catachan russ hits 2.25 times on average with its BC, a Deffskullz Gunwagon hits 1.52 times with its reroll and DDD using its kilkannon. And wheras a russ has range = board with its BC, the gunwagon has range 24", and it only moves 6. It's trivial for an opponent to start their medium tanks out of its threat range, and if you're 24" from the enemy backline you're probably getting dangerously close to enemy chaff units that can shut off your shooting with melee.

All the supplemental weaponry you can get on a GW is garbage. A lobba is 18pts for an imperial guard mortar with worse ballistic skill. Big shootas put out less than half the damage of IG heavy bolters against anything with an armor save.

Gunwagons have pretty much been dismissed from minute 1 by ork players for good reason. They're cute for casual games, but they're pretty much Vindicator Tier in terms of a midrange combat vehicle. Battlewagons, which the thread seems to be about, I will defend until the cows come home because those things and Bonebreakas both have some serious value in them, mostly focused around the excellent deffrolla.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not sure that's correct. The amount of weapons has a big effect on what the base cost is.

Cost per wound:
T8 invuln Castellan - 18.2 IK - 11.9 T8 no invuln LRBT - 10.2 GW - 8.8 T7 WaveSerp - 9.2 //shield Predator - 8.2 Hammerhead - 7.7 BW - 7.5 Dread - 7.5 Rhino - 7.0 Sky Ray - 6.2

That Castellan point cost is dishonest to be presented like that, it has several weapons that come with the 'body' as the point cost for them is zero (0), the points per wound come close to rhino level when weapons are accounted for as comparison to roughly equivalent weapons.

On the rhino-predator comparison, other can buy weapons and its significantly more expensive (almost affording one lascannon) while the other has transport capacity but no weapon options in meaningful manner. So yeah, with rhino and predator it looks very much like Predator has to pay for the ability to buy weapons.
Waveserpent itself is just ridiculously good when compared against rhino and predator, free -1 to hit with right trait, damage reduction, fly, better movespeed. More durable than Land Raider to significant degree, and far cheaper cost.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, it's almost like the base cost of the Kilcannon is increased on the GW to account for the fact that it can't choose not to take it. Otherwise, you're paying 20pts for the ability to fire a 15pt gun twice if you moved under 6".

Gunwagons are crappy when compared to battlecannon russes, and they're extra crappy compared to tank commanders. Sure, they're about as durable, gunwagons are even a bit more durable as you pointed out against a lot of weapons (and you can give them a KFF, and they're one of the few units a Codex KFF can keep up with waddling around at M4") but I'm not sure where you're getting that their armaments are "roughly equal" - Russes do more damage much more safely.

A catachan russ hits 2.25 times on average with its BC, a Deffskullz Gunwagon hits 1.52 times with its reroll and DDD using its kilkannon. And wheras a russ has range = board with its BC, the gunwagon has range 24", and it only moves 6. It's trivial for an opponent to start their medium tanks out of its threat range, and if you're 24" from the enemy backline you're probably getting dangerously close to enemy chaff units that can shut off your shooting with melee.

All the supplemental weaponry you can get on a GW is garbage. A lobba is 18pts for an imperial guard mortar with worse ballistic skill. Big shootas put out less than half the damage of IG heavy bolters against anything with an armor save.

Gunwagons have pretty much been dismissed from minute 1 by ork players for good reason. They're cute for casual games, but they're pretty much Vindicator Tier in terms of a midrange combat vehicle. Battlewagons, which the thread seems to be about, I will defend until the cows come home because those things and Bonebreakas both have some serious value in them, mostly focused around the excellent deffrolla.

Being within 30" of something you want to shoot isn't a hard thing to do especially when the GW worries way less about getting stuck in combat.

I think your math is wrong.

(6 * 1.167 * .333) + (1 * 1.167 * .555) = 2.42 + 0.65 = 3.1 hits with the gun wagon

8 * .5 = 4 hits from the LRBT

So we're at 3.1 vs 4

Now - wounding something on 4s:

(2.1 * .5) + (1 * .75) = 1.8 wounds
4 * .5 = 2 wounds

The GW is 10% weaker here. The AP is the same. The GW does not vary on damage, which can be significant.

Wounds on 3s.

(2.1 * .666) + (1 * .888) = 2.3
4 * .666 = 2.7

The GW is 15% weaker here.

For being BS5 it's very marginally weaker. When you're looking at something that is more forward focused and more anti-infantry based then, yes, a LRBT with BC/LC seems way better.

The Big Shootas get 4.7 hits (no rerolls) for 20 points (4.3 per).
Two HBs get 3 hits for 16 points (5.3 per).

The HBs are 25% more points to score a hit and rightfully so as they have AP1.

So when you look at a GW at 175 and a LRBT with BC/LC and expect to measure them on the same battlefield role you're going to miss the big picture.

Yeah, you can't really separate the cost of guns and the platform they are on. Not fully. Makes the maths much harder to interpret, but that's how it goes!

Ghorgul wrote:
That Castellan point cost is dishonest to be presented like that, it has several weapons that come with the 'body' as the point cost for them is zero (0), the points per wound come close to rhino level when weapons are accounted for as comparison to roughly equivalent weapons.

On the rhino-predator comparison, other can buy weapons and its significantly more expensive (almost affording one lascannon) while the other has transport capacity but no weapon options in meaningful manner. So yeah, with rhino and predator it looks very much like Predator has to pay for the ability to buy weapons.
Waveserpent itself is just ridiculously good when compared against rhino and predator, free -1 to hit with right trait, damage reduction, fly, better movespeed. More durable than Land Raider to significant degree, and far cheaper cost.

It's not dishonest - that's the point as you noted vehicles pay for hard points.

Wave Serpent is better - ignoring traits - it pays more per wound regardless. I might argue that it's more durable without -1 to hit, but that's a whole other bag of cats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
That Castellan point cost is dishonest to be presented like that, it has several weapons that come with the 'body' as the point cost for them is zero (0), the points per wound come close to rhino level when weapons are accounted for as comparison to roughly equivalent weapons.

On the rhino-predator comparison, other can buy weapons and its significantly more expensive (almost affording one lascannon) while the other has transport capacity but no weapon options in meaningful manner. So yeah, with rhino and predator it looks very much like Predator has to pay for the ability to buy weapons.
Waveserpent itself is just ridiculously good when compared against rhino and predator, free -1 to hit with right trait, damage reduction, fly, better movespeed. More durable than Land Raider to significant degree, and far cheaper cost.

It's not dishonest - that's the point as you noted vehicles pay for hard points.

Wave Serpent is better - ignoring traits - it pays more per wound regardless. I might argue that it's more durable without -1 to hit, but that's a whole other bag of cats.

Well, hard to argue if you adopt that kind of logic.

Wave serpent pays significantly less for durability than Land Raider. Wave serpent soaks 13 BS 3+ Lascannon shots without -1 to hit trait, Land Raider soaks 15 BS 3+ Lascannon shots. So using this Lascannon scale Land Raider is 15% more durable, when Wave Serpent is not using it's -1 to hit Craftworld trait, and they are about equal when -1 to hit trait is in use. Land Raider however pays 12.5 points per wound (T8 2+), so that's 36% more expensive than Wave Serpent. Of course you can start going through all the weapons, but for example Autocannon is only marginally better against -1 to hit Wave Serpent than Land Raider (104 shots versus 108 shots), plasmaguns are far better against Land Raiders than Wave Serpents. So yeah, Wave Serpent is significantly cheaper pointwise than Land Raider, but I guess Land Raider also pays for the priviledge of having weapons. And of course Wave Serpent gets insane mobility and fly on top of everything else, because why not?

I don't think the gunwagon is that bad, I just think there are better things in the Ork Codex.

Kind of like base LRBTs.

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

This is true. Cadian Russes with +1 to hit stratagem are also very powerful.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

This is true. Cadian Russes with +1 to hit stratagem are also very powerful.

Problem is, if it ain't a knight with deep cp pockets, it ain't surviving.
Personally i feel that the shift to bigger and meaner stuff like knights etc was not really healthy for the meta.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

This is true. Cadian Russes with +1 to hit stratagem are also very powerful.

Problem is, if it ain't a knight with deep cp pockets, it ain't surviving.
Personally i feel that the shift to bigger and meaner stuff like knights etc was not really healthy for the meta.

Ehh - IMO most big units are okay. It's just a 3++ knight or a or a 0 + save Shadowsword that are problematic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

This is true. Cadian Russes with +1 to hit stratagem are also very powerful.

Problem is, if it ain't a knight with deep cp pockets, it ain't surviving.
Personally i feel that the shift to bigger and meaner stuff like knights etc was not really healthy for the meta.

Ehh - IMO most big units are okay. It's just a 3++ knight or a or a 0 + save Shadowsword that are problematic.

a 0 + save Shadowsword? What? I know you can get a 2+ save with Psychic Barrier, and it's TECHNICALLY possible to get a 1+ if you're also in cover, but that's pretty hard to actually claim. But how the hell do you reckon you get to a 0+ save?

What's sad in the comparison to the Leman Russ is that the Russ is considered garbage in a competitive list despite all the positives listed. But that's a whole other thread.

Ghorgul wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ghorgul wrote:
That Castellan point cost is dishonest to be presented like that, it has several weapons that come with the 'body' as the point cost for them is zero (0), the points per wound come close to rhino level when weapons are accounted for as comparison to roughly equivalent weapons.

On the rhino-predator comparison, other can buy weapons and its significantly more expensive (almost affording one lascannon) while the other has transport capacity but no weapon options in meaningful manner. So yeah, with rhino and predator it looks very much like Predator has to pay for the ability to buy weapons.
Waveserpent itself is just ridiculously good when compared against rhino and predator, free -1 to hit with right trait, damage reduction, fly, better movespeed. More durable than Land Raider to significant degree, and far cheaper cost.

It's not dishonest - that's the point as you noted vehicles pay for hard points.

Wave Serpent is better - ignoring traits - it pays more per wound regardless. I might argue that it's more durable without -1 to hit, but that's a whole other bag of cats.

Well, hard to argue if you adopt that kind of logic.

Wave serpent pays significantly less for durability than Land Raider. Wave serpent soaks 13 BS 3+ Lascannon shots without -1 to hit trait, Land Raider soaks 15 BS 3+ Lascannon shots. So using this Lascannon scale Land Raider is 15% more durable, when Wave Serpent is not using it's -1 to hit Craftworld trait, and they are about equal when -1 to hit trait is in use. Land Raider however pays 12.5 points per wound (T8 2+), so that's 36% more expensive than Wave Serpent. Of course you can start going through all the weapons, but for example Autocannon is only marginally better against -1 to hit Wave Serpent than Land Raider (104 shots versus 108 shots), plasmaguns are far better against Land Raiders than Wave Serpents. So yeah, Wave Serpent is significantly cheaper pointwise than Land Raider, but I guess Land Raider also pays for the priviledge of having weapons. And of course Wave Serpent gets insane mobility and fly on top of everything else, because why not?

Well, I said might, but it's pointless, because the damn thing almost is never without a -1. Also not everything is a lascannon. Armigers are quite plentiful and they'd rather shoot a WS (without -1 to hit).

Hard points are again an issue. We can even see their direction on with the LR variants.

Stock LR - 200 - THB, 2 TLC, transport 10
LR Crusader - 200 - TAC, 2x Hurricanes, transport 16
LR Redeemer - 180 - TAC, 2x Flamestorm, transport 12

As we can see transport capacity meant nothing between stock and the Crusader. The redeemer still went down in points, because it's way less useful to have 8" super flamers.

Stock LR doesn't cost just 200 points though, so the other LR variants. They have mandatory weapons that must be added so their starting value is not 200-180 points. The crusader for example costs 264, can't be cheaper than that.

The crusader is actually cheaper than the stock land raider.

 Horst wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

This is true. Cadian Russes with +1 to hit stratagem are also very powerful.

Problem is, if it ain't a knight with deep cp pockets, it ain't surviving.
Personally i feel that the shift to bigger and meaner stuff like knights etc was not really healthy for the meta.

Ehh - IMO most big units are okay. It's just a 3++ knight or a or a 0 + save Shadowsword that are problematic.

a 0 + save Shadowsword? What? I know you can get a 2+ save with Psychic Barrier, and it's TECHNICALLY possible to get a 1+ if you're also in cover, but that's pretty hard to actually claim. But how the hell do you reckon you get to a 0+ save?

I too would like to know.

0+ used to be possible untill I think it's take cover was reworked.

Psychic barrier, cover and strategum stacked for technically a 3+ sv on a d6+3.
But if you want to get real technical a shadowsword can still stack -1 to hit modifier with a 3+sv on a d6+2, which is still no push over

Ice_can wrote:
0+ used to be possible untill I think it's take cover was reworked.

Psychic barrier, cover and strategum stacked for technically a 3+ sv on a d6+3.
But if you want to get real technical a shadowsword can still stack -1 to hit modifier with a 3+sv on a d6+2, which is still no push over

In practice, it's a 2+ (1d6+1) since cover... Yeah, not happening.

But a 2+ with -1 hit is possible, for sure.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
0+ used to be possible untill I think it's take cover was reworked.

Psychic barrier, cover and strategum stacked for technically a 3+ sv on a d6+3.
But if you want to get real technical a shadowsword can still stack -1 to hit modifier with a 3+sv on a d6+2, which is still no push over

In practice, it's a 2+ (1d6+1) since cover... Yeah, not happening.

But a 2+ with -1 hit is possible, for sure.

Cover is definitely possible, does you list contain a russ park it infront of your track in cover baneblade and cover save, I can get cover on a knight you can easily do it on a shadowsword/baneblade, against anything at ground level.

You could maybe argue that isn't the intention of the cover rules, but they are so badly written in 8th I think GW just really should re write them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Separate for a moment the main cannons:

The KK is 15 points.

7 * 1.167 * .333 = 2.72 hits or 5.5 points per hit

The BC is 22 points

7 * .4 = 3.5 hits or 6.3 points per hit

That means the KK without traits factored in is a better buy at BS5. So that means the real contention is in the base cost of the vehicles.

The LRBT is 122 for T8 W12 3+, grinding advance, smoke, and 3 WS6 S7 attacks.
The gun wagon is 140 for T8 W16 4+, periscope, DDD, 12 transport spots, 6 S8 WS5 attacks.

The LRBT pays 10.2 points per wound.
The Gun Wagon pays 8.75 per wound.

I'd call that pretty god damn fair.

The only problem I see with your points break down is you don't take into account the range and the fact that the Gunwagon is not the Battlewagon, if you want to do a comparison for the gunwagon you will lose right off the bat because the Gunwagon is a worse platform than the Battlewagon.

Again, 1/3rd the range is pretty significant because it allows the LR to hide in cover the entire game without having to move and expose itself to return fire where as the BW or the GW for your breakdown HAS to move to get in range and to use its transport capacity. Also, the Killkannon nerfs the ability to transport for the battlewagon as well as removing open topped which is a huge negative and for some reason you didn't factor that into the cost, and you did your entire breakdown using Gunwagon stats not Battlewagon. A battlewagon gets D6 shots, not 2D6 like the Gun wagon, so the Wagon actually pays twice that amount per hit/wound.

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses. I am still not convinced the wagon is appropriately priced, however, as someone mentioned, it might be the gunz that are horribly over priced and not the base wagon by itself. I've always said the Big shoota should be 2 or 3pts not 5 and the rokkit should be 6-8 not 12 but it is what it is.

SemperMortis wrote:


The only problem I see with your points break down is you don't take into account the range and the fact that the Gunwagon is not the Battlewagon, if you want to do a comparison for the gunwagon you will lose right off the bat because the Gunwagon is a worse platform than the Battlewagon.

Again, 1/3rd the range is pretty significant because it allows the LR to hide in cover the entire game without having to move and expose itself to return fire where as the BW or the GW for your breakdown HAS to move to get in range and to use its transport capacity. Also, the Killkannon nerfs the ability to transport for the battlewagon as well as removing open topped which is a huge negative and for some reason you didn't factor that into the cost, and you did your entire breakdown using Gunwagon stats not Battlewagon. A battlewagon gets D6 shots, not 2D6 like the Gun wagon, so the Wagon actually pays twice that amount per hit/wound.

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses. I am still not convinced the wagon is appropriately priced, however, as someone mentioned, it might be the gunz that are horribly over priced and not the base wagon by itself. I've always said the Big shoota should be 2 or 3pts not 5 and the rokkit should be 6-8 not 12 but it is what it is.

LRBTs are so big they're almost impossible to hide and I've never had an issue getting at them in a game. The question isn't whether or not the GW can hit the LRBT back, but whether or not it uses it's gun effectively. More often than not there will be something within 30" for it to shoot.

BW / GW / BB usage comes down to the klan and the role you need to fill.

As stated before - the KK is NOT for the BW. I got on the GW tangent, because of a comment from someone else. Transport is a minor concern when your top priority is shooting twice.

The BW itself pays 7.5 points per wound. A rhino pays 7. The BW carries 20 open topped with 6 S8 WS5 attacks base and easy upgrades to boot, but at -1 armor. I'd consider the 7% increase marginal for those tradeoffs. Marines would kill to have such a transport.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Marines would kill to have such a transport.

And we orks would kill for many SM ranged weapons or loadout like 3++ invulns for 2pts. Not to mention the access to re-rolls.

To be honest I don't think SM would benefit that much from T8 transports with no shooting, it's basically the main reason why rhinos are avoided, despite being very good for their stats and points cost. Maybe they can make use of the naked T7 open topped model though, even if it's not that resilient at just T7 4+ save. They already have excellent platforms with a transport capacity of 16, the crusader and the big flyer.

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Marines would kill to have such a transport.

And we orks would kill for many SM ranged weapons or loadout like 3++ invulns for 2pts. Not to mention the access to re-rolls.

To be honest I don't think SM would benefit that much from T8 transports with no shooting, it's basically the main reason why rhinos are avoided, despite being very good for their stats and points cost. Maybe they can make use of the naked T7 open topped model though, even if it's not that resilient at just T7 4+ save. They already have excellent platforms with a transport capacity of 16, the crusader and the big flyer.

1, I'm pretty sure the flyer only carries 10 or 12, not 16, and 2, both it and the crusader are so crazybonkers expensive that it's not even in the same league as the battlewagon. 3, open topped is a huge fething deal, it's an immensely flexible rule in 8th edition and the amount it's being waved off here is nuts to me. If I could take all the guns off a LRC, pay the same price for the chassis and run it open topped it would be in EVERY marine list I ever ran.

Ghorgul wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not sure that's correct. The amount of weapons has a big effect on what the base cost is.

Cost per wound:
T8 invuln Castellan - 18.2 IK - 11.9 T8 no invuln LRBT - 10.2 GW - 8.8 T7 WaveSerp - 9.2 //shield Predator - 8.2 Hammerhead - 7.7 BW - 7.5 Dread - 7.5 Rhino - 7.0 Sky Ray - 6.2

That Castellan point cost is dishonest to be presented like that, it has several weapons that come with the 'body' as the point cost for them is zero (0), the points per wound come close to rhino level when weapons are accounted for as comparison to roughly equivalent weapons.

On the rhino-predator comparison, other can buy weapons and its significantly more expensive (almost affording one lascannon) while the other has transport capacity but no weapon options in meaningful manner. So yeah, with rhino and predator it looks very much like Predator has to pay for the ability to buy weapons.
Waveserpent itself is just ridiculously good when compared against rhino and predator, free -1 to hit with right trait, damage reduction, fly, better movespeed. More durable than Land Raider to significant degree, and far cheaper cost.

How are we doing the math ?
WS is 139 pts for 13 wounds = 10.69 pts for wound. Generally you are adding over 3 wounds because of shield, but you can get 0 extra wound because of the shield.
The points is eldar bring WS not because it have amassing wound per point value. WS is amassing part of the army, that is viable against many opponents.
Wagons and rhinos according of the players, don`t provide enough value, not because they have bad pts per wound ratio.

Marin wrote:
How are we doing the math ?
WS is 139 pts for 13 wounds = 10.69 pts for wound. Generally you are adding over 3 wounds because of shield, but you can get 0 extra wound because of the shield.
The points is eldar bring WS not because it have amassing wound per point value. WS is amassing part of the army, that is viable against many opponents.
Wagons and rhinos according of the players, don`t provide enough value, not because they have bad pts per wound ratio.

But it's silly to count price of wounds while adding up price of weapons etc on the models. You aren't paying X per wound but wound, speed, weapons etc etc etc.

Whole idea of calculating pts/wound is silly to begin with. Or just looking at damage/pts paid. Both are just attempt to make formula to see balance/what's broken when any formulas are automatically doomed to fail.

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is because most of the IG stuff is hilariously undercosted. And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

It's also because everyone takes enough Lascannons to down Castellans, which makes medium vehicles like the Russ a bit of a liability, even if the Russ is the best of them!

AGREED
gotta be honest here and as a necrons player .. most of my "competitive" lists have enough firepower (in DDA form) to down a knight or equivalent if I have to!

played vs a triple wagon list a while back and I blew them all off the table mostly in T1. then your boyz are taking shanks's pony from the starting line!
I think the same can be said of most armies now though .. Chaos with Berzerkers in rhinos and most other stuff is suffering in a meta where knights are the norm or to be expected

I have to caveat that I wasn't being TFG .. we had arranged a cheese match where he bought some options to test for a tourney upcoming and see what Orks could do .
the answer was .. die! ... in droves

but warboss on bike is a menace if you let it get to fight first ... nasty little bugger ...

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Marines would kill to have such a transport.

And we orks would kill for many SM ranged weapons or loadout like 3++ invulns for 2pts. Not to mention the access to re-rolls.

To be honest I don't think SM would benefit that much from T8 transports with no shooting, it's basically the main reason why rhinos are avoided, despite being very good for their stats and points cost. Maybe they can make use of the naked T7 open topped model though, even if it's not that resilient at just T7 4+ save. They already have excellent platforms with a transport capacity of 16, the crusader and the big flyer.

Oh please, the 3++ spam only exists for Deathwatch, and you know darn well it'll be a while before they show up to a tournament as nobody has that many SB/SS models around.

Also SW can spam 3++ quite efficiently. WG on foot, on bike, on terminator armour and wulfen have 3++ for just 2pts. TWC still have the expensive ones but they're going to be fixed soon. Characters also can have 3++ and some of them even come with stock 4++. Dreads have 4++.

Pretty much the entire army barring troops and vehicles have good invulns

All the units that can have multiple loadouts are magnetized in my SW collection and I can field 20+ SS/SB.

It should be harder to field 20 grotesques or 18 harlequins bikes and yet at very competitive levels they do show up. Like those 5 stormravens back in the 2017 summer. Spamming SB/SS is way easier even in a full WYSIWYG meta.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh please, the 3++ spam only exists for Deathwatch, and you know darn well it'll be a while before they show up to a tournament as nobody has that many SB/SS models around.

You'd be surprised what motivated tournament players can cobble together through second hand purchases. I imagine we'll see at least two or three such lists at LVO and we'll get a real accounting of their strength.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Marines would kill to have such a transport.

And we orks would kill for many SM ranged weapons or loadout like 3++ invulns for 2pts. Not to mention the access to re-rolls.

To be honest I don't think SM would benefit that much from T8 transports with no shooting, it's basically the main reason why rhinos are avoided, despite being very good for their stats and points cost. Maybe they can make use of the naked T7 open topped model though, even if it's not that resilient at just T7 4+ save. They already have excellent platforms with a transport capacity of 16, the crusader and the big flyer.

1, I'm pretty sure the flyer only carries 10 or 12, not 16, and 2, both it and the crusader are so crazybonkers expensive that it's not even in the same league as the battlewagon. 3, open topped is a huge fething deal, it's an immensely flexible rule in 8th edition and the amount it's being waved off here is nuts to me. If I could take all the guns off a LRC, pay the same price for the chassis and run it open topped it would be in EVERY marine list I ever ran.

Open topped is amazing! of course not so much for orkz...you know....since we don't have any ranged shooting worth a damn that can ride in it. The only unit I can think that is decent at shooting and hides in the back of a battlewagon would be Flashgitz and they are overpriced and extremely short ranged.

Tankbustas would be good, but are only exceptional if you spend CP on them...something you can't do from a vehicle. Lootas are good in them....but they also require CP to be anything other than crap.

So for Space Marine armies and other armies with good shooting an open topped vehicle with T7 would be amazing, but for an army that has nothing but crap shooting, its nothing more than a small buff.

Imagine a rhino for orks, nobz would definitely love it over a trukk. 74 points for T7 3+ 4/8 shots at BS3+? Deal. Also units like wyches would definitely prefer it over a raider even if the skimmer is considered superior (and in fact it is) than a rhino.

Open topped for orks work only for two units, tankbustas and flash gitz. Both of them prefer a trukk over a BW. Lootas have long range and can exploit the grot shield stratagem better than anyone else because they just need to sit in a corner while it's harder to get the key positioning of shielding gretchins for units that want to be closer to the action.

You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

except nobz aren't that great right now anyway, boyz are still better on average vs most targets.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

except nobz aren't that great right now anyway, boyz are still better on average vs most targets.

Maybe point for point, but not model per model. You can't fit 10 tank busters and 20 boyz in a battlewagon. The nobs allow for better concentration of force.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

Nah, two trukks are more resilient than a single T7 wagon and also way more versatile as you can rush the melee unit of nobz and just find the best spot for the bustas trukk. BWs ONLY with the T8 upgrades, otherwise they're a waste of points. With trukks you can also fit the best loadout for both units which include ammo runts and bomb squigs, impossible to fit on a single BW.

Also SW can spam 3++ quite efficiently. WG on foot, on bike, on terminator armour and wulfen have 3++ for just 2pts. TWC still have the expensive ones but they're going to be fixed soon. Characters also can have 3++ and some of them even come with stock 4++. Dreads have 4++.

Pretty much the entire army barring troops and vehicles have good invulns

And yet I see them doing so well on the Tourney Scene. I guess if the platform is too expensive a cheap 3++ isn't enough.

Justyn wrote:

Also SW can spam 3++ quite efficiently. WG on foot, on bike, on terminator armour and wulfen have 3++ for just 2pts. TWC still have the expensive ones but they're going to be fixed soon. Characters also can have 3++ and some of them even come with stock 4++. Dreads have 4++.

Pretty much the entire army barring troops and vehicles have good invulns

And yet I see them doing so well on the Tourney Scene. I guess if the platform is too expensive a cheap 3++ isn't enough.

The problem is the soup here, not the platforms. AM and kights are so overpowered and undercosted that they're by far the best imperium units. Even if some SM units could be good they're not gonna be broken, hence they're out from the most competitive imperium lists. Time limitations also affect tournament lists quite significantly and low count armies performs even worse than in regular games as horde lists have a huge boost if the game actually lasts only 3 turns. In real metas things are very different, the tournament scene isn't the typical common 40k.

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

Nah, two trukks are more resilient than a single T7 wagon and also way more versatile as you can rush the melee unit of nobz and just find the best spot for the bustas trukk. BWs ONLY with the T8 upgrades, otherwise they're a waste of points. With trukks you can also fit the best loadout for both units which include ammo runts and bomb squigs, impossible to fit on a single BW.

A fair point, but it's also possible to bring Nobz, their grot screen, and support characters in a BW. A grot rigger is also pretty handy.

I'm not convinced that Nobs are bad and Orks I've seen have not had trouble with knights in the slightest.

So, three pages of this and everyone keeps ignoring how the LRBT can shoot 72" and a killkannon is only 24"? If that's not worth anything, let's limit all Astra Militarum guns to 24" and see how that goes.

Also, the gunwagon is not open topped and can't take a deff rolla. Because of that Gunwagons do not want to be near any front lines, while any passengers you would want to put into a closed transport do. The transport capacity might as well not exist.
Being able to fall back and shoot is part of the worst kulture in the codex and means losing any kind of competitive game since you basically decided to play without a kulture. Very few units are moving forward towards orks. My orks are blood axe, so believe my I have plenty of experience with that. I get to use the trait about once per game if I'm lucky.

Adding big shootas to any ork model makes it less efficient at shooting, so might as well not do it.

@Daedalus: Your math is taking into account the optimal kulture for the gunweagon, but no regiment bonus at all for the LRBT. You also ignored how almost every model in the game has an armor save for the comparison for heavy bolters vs big shootas. Still the LRBT comes out 15% ahead while costing less.

In general, the battlewagon(transport for shooty units) and the bonebreaker(transport for choppy units) seem to be properly costed (+-10) but suffer from knights existing like any heavy armor. The gunwagon which very much plays like a battletank is horribly overcosted for it's limited and short-ranged shooting and worthless transport capacity. It would be better at T7 with open topped and should not cost a single point more than a battlewagon. Who on earth thought that an additional shot from a 15 point gun was worth 20 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

Nah, two trukks are more resilient than a single T7 wagon and also way more versatile as you can rush the melee unit of nobz and just find the best spot for the bustas trukk. BWs ONLY with the T8 upgrades, otherwise they're a waste of points. With trukks you can also fit the best loadout for both units which include ammo runts and bomb squigs, impossible to fit on a single BW.

A fair point, but it's also possible to bring Nobz, their grot screen, and support characters in a BW. A grot rigger is also pretty handy.

I'm not convinced that Nobs are bad and Orks I've seen have not had trouble with knights in the slightest.

In my experience putting all that in one transport just means everything inside is dead by turn 2. Literally no army has trouble taking out 1-2 battlewagons per turn, meaning the wagon and everything that was inside. Wagon pops, then all passengers get gunned down by all non-anti-tank guns.
"Power-Armored nobz" sound awesome until you realize that they are just primaris at that point, which aren't that awesome either.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, three pages of this and everyone keeps ignoring how the LRBT can shoot 72" and a killkannon is only 24"? If that's not worth anything, let's limit all Astra Militarum guns to 24" and see how that goes.

Also, the gunwagon is not open topped and can't take a deff rolla. Because of that Gunwagons do not want to be near any front lines, while any passengers you would want to put into a closed transport do. The transport capacity might as well not exist.
Being able to fall back and shoot is part of the worst kulture in the codex and means losing any kind of competitive game since you basically decided to play without a kulture. Very few units are moving forward towards orks. My orks are blood axe, so believe my I have plenty of experience with that. I get to use the trait about once per game if I'm lucky.

Adding big shootas to any ork model makes it less efficient at shooting, so might as well not do it.

@Daedalus: Your math is taking into account the optimal kulture for the gunweagon, but no regiment bonus at all for the LRBT. You also ignored how almost every model in the game has an armor save for the comparison for heavy bolters vs big shootas. Still the LRBT comes out 15% ahead while costing less.

In general, the battlewagon(transport for shooty units) and the bonebreaker(transport for choppy units) seem to be properly costed (+-10) but suffer from knights existing like any heavy armor. The gunwagon which very much plays like a battletank is horribly overcosted for it's limited and short-ranged shooting and worthless transport capacity. It would be better at T7 with open topped and should not cost a single point more than a battlewagon. Who on earth thought that an additional shot from a 15 point gun was worth 20 points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You don't need to fill it with TBs.

10 TBs and 10 Nobz. When the Nobz get out and make a wall that lets the TBs push up and get full rerolls to hit and wound (Deathskullz, anyway). If it blows up then you have power armor Nobz.

Nah, two trukks are more resilient than a single T7 wagon and also way more versatile as you can rush the melee unit of nobz and just find the best spot for the bustas trukk. BWs ONLY with the T8 upgrades, otherwise they're a waste of points. With trukks you can also fit the best loadout for both units which include ammo runts and bomb squigs, impossible to fit on a single BW.

A fair point, but it's also possible to bring Nobz, their grot screen, and support characters in a BW. A grot rigger is also pretty handy.

I'm not convinced that Nobs are bad and Orks I've seen have not had trouble with knights in the slightest.

In my experience putting all that in one transport just means everything inside is dead by turn 2. Literally no army has trouble taking out 1-2 battlewagons per turn, meaning the wagon and everything that was inside. Wagon pops, then all passengers get gunned down by all non-anti-tank guns.
"Power-Armored nobz" sound awesome until you realize that they are just primaris at that point, which aren't that awesome either.

Good points.

Also, the power armored nobz now cost more than a space marine, lack ranged firepower/leadership but are good in melee and have 2 wounds each instead of 1. If nobz came with a 3+ base than they would be worth taking at 15ppm, at 14ppm and 4+.....nah, they die to easy.

Nobz with a 3+ save are basically melee primaris which also cost 1 CP How good are primaris? Imagine melee ones

To be fair, nobz are a lot better than primaris. I just dislike the hyperbole of "they get power armor, which basically means they are invulnerable!". Especially when it comes from space marine players.

Lets not forget that the gunwagon has the added limitation of exploding on 4+.who would really risk having this in your army? It will probably explode on turn one and do d6 mortal wounds to the rest of your army. So to adapt you can deploy it alone on the flanks,but then it's short range guns become an issue... As much as I like the idea of a tank with a huge cannon the gun wagon is scizofrenic in it's abilities. Short range, slow if double tapping, transport, explodes, much dakka. How to use this monstrosity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe if we telaport the gunwagon in (would this count as moving less than half? ) , unleash hell, strategem charge. Then if it dies in enemy turn let them suffer all the mortal wounds. Stuff it with nobz to cause more trouble after it dies?

To be worthy the killkannon should be something like 2D6 shots S10 AP-3 D6 range 36'' or 48'', not the crappy weapon that it currently is. Still not broken for a 160 points platform with BS5+ but at least legit to consider.

The gun wagon is designed to be a suicide vindicator. It trundles forward into your enemies assault troopers shooting, draws fire and explodes. I really think it is an entry for 'cinematic gamers'.

Quirky units tend to be slightly over pointed to avoid them moving from narrative plot hooks into spammed gimmicks.

Think of it as the bomb bearer Orc at Helms Deep.

eh.. comparing a BW to a LR is a bit off, different roles rules, strategems, etc.

I do think most of the LR variants are better than the BW variants for the points taken as a whole, but GW has always overvalued transport, but that does not mean LR are broken, they are good for the points sure, but not game breathtakingly so. The BW is pretty good, and can be worked into lists, but you need to use the transport capacity to make it worth it. throwing a tank busta squad realluy can make a BW pretty powerful, and 10 boys inside with nob and big choppa means if something is getting close you have a answer/deterant. late game those same boys can drop out of the BW and snag an objective.

are BW bash lists going to pull off surprise tournament victories like they did in 5th... no. but they can still be thrown into a list and do well.

I am curious what the Stompa would cost if it lost the transport capacity.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
eh.. comparing a BW to a LR is a bit off, different roles rules, strategems, etc.

I do think most of the LR variants are better than the BW variants for the points taken as a whole, but GW has always overvalued transport, but that does not mean LR are broken, they are good for the points sure, but not game breathtakingly so. The BW is pretty good, and can be worked into lists, but you need to use the transport capacity to make it worth it. throwing a tank busta squad realluy can make a BW pretty powerful, and 10 boys inside with nob and big choppa means if something is getting close you have a answer/deterant. late game those same boys can drop out of the BW and snag an objective.

are BW bash lists going to pull off surprise tournament victories like they did in 5th... no. but they can still be thrown into a list and do well.

I am curious what the Stompa would cost if it lost the transport capacity.

I compare it to the LR because they can both be T8 with decent saves and can serve as heavy support. BW's just suck as gunwagonz and I am honestly not found of the regular battlewagon, though I do love the Bonecrusha variant...just wish it was cheaper.


As for the stompa? well since GW seems to think Stompa's are amazing thanks to Reece....I don't know. Personally, I don't ever even consider their transport capacity because its useless in the extreme. At the moment I think a Stompa should be about 500pts maybe 600, take away that transport capacity and subtract 50pts or so I would guess. But anything more than 600 and its no longer competitive but still possible in for fun games, at 900+ its just a useless chunk of plastic collecting dust on the shelf. The fact that a 350-400pt knight is better in almost every way says it all.

A LR has a 2+ save an a lot of non-trivial shooting. The only gun worth putting on a battlewagon is the killkannon.

SemperMortis wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
eh.. comparing a BW to a LR is a bit off, different roles rules, strategems, etc.

I do think most of the LR variants are better than the BW variants for the points taken as a whole, but GW has always overvalued transport, but that does not mean LR are broken, they are good for the points sure, but not game breathtakingly so. The BW is pretty good, and can be worked into lists, but you need to use the transport capacity to make it worth it. throwing a tank busta squad realluy can make a BW pretty powerful, and 10 boys inside with nob and big choppa means if something is getting close you have a answer/deterant. late game those same boys can drop out of the BW and snag an objective.

are BW bash lists going to pull off surprise tournament victories like they did in 5th... no. but they can still be thrown into a list and do well.

I am curious what the Stompa would cost if it lost the transport capacity.

I compare it to the LR because they can both be T8 with decent saves and can serve as heavy support. BW's just suck as gunwagonz and I am honestly not found of the regular battlewagon, though I do love the Bonecrusha variant...just wish it was cheaper.


As for the stompa? well since GW seems to think Stompa's are amazing thanks to Reece....I don't know. Personally, I don't ever even consider their transport capacity because its useless in the extreme. At the moment I think a Stompa should be about 500pts maybe 600, take away that transport capacity and subtract 50pts or so I would guess. But anything more than 600 and its no longer competitive but still possible in for fun games, at 900+ its just a useless chunk of plastic collecting dust on the shelf. The fact that a 350-400pt knight is better in almost every way says it all.

I like my orks fast and up front. the majority of my ork army is bikers. but I do think the points difference is GW really overvaluing transport capacity this edition. look what they did with space marine drop pods. Eldar also feel this with the Falcon which is a pretty good tank but overcosted because it can hold 5 models.

Also the Xeno tax is real this edition (for non-eldar) it was more extreme at index where our obviously worse trukk cost what a much better rhino did and the space marine bike being just better in almsot every way cost the same as an ork biker. The ork codex blunted the tax but it still exists.

Honestly on the Stompa I hear a lot of pushback on it having 40 wounds, but when a normal knight has 24 wounds and a 5++ it effectively has 32 stompa equivilant wounds as the stompa does not get a 5++ and just has to eat all incoming wounds. I have put my stompa across from single knights before and it usually loses because it is crippled before it can ever reach close combat, the wound track on it is so bad, it slows down then starts degrqading weapons skill every 10 wounds. GW should at the very least have just given it 3 degrading stats at 40-25, 24-10, and 10-0. Against a Castellan 1v1 it died before ever reaching close combat and barely chipping the paint of the Castellan

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh please, the 3++ spam only exists for Deathwatch, and you know darn well it'll be a while before they show up to a tournament as nobody has that many SB/SS models around.

You'd be surprised what motivated tournament players can cobble together through second hand purchases. I imagine we'll see at least two or three such lists at LVO and we'll get a real accounting of their strength.

That's why I said a while. I'll give it until near the end of March before we start really seeing 3++ spam.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


Honestly on the Stompa I hear a lot of pushback on it having 40 wounds, but when a normal knight has 24 wounds and a 5++ it effectively has 32 stompa equivilant wounds as the stompa does not get a 5++ and just has to eat all incoming wounds. I have put my stompa across from single knights before and it usually loses because it is crippled before it can ever reach close combat, the wound track on it is so bad, it slows down then starts degrqading weapons skill every 10 wounds. GW should at the very least have just given it 3 degrading stats at 40-25, 24-10, and 10-0. Against a Castellan 1v1 it died before ever reaching close combat and barely chipping the paint of the Castellan

Yea... just taking a quick look at it's stats / cost, I'd start out giving it a better degrading statline, and Toughness 10, so to crack it open you need SERIOUS firepower, like Volcano Lances / Cannons, or Demolisher Cannons. For its points cost it needs to be much harder to kill.

I don't think anything you can reasonably take in a 2k game should be above T8. I don't know if there are any FW options in that range, but the fact they've restricted that in core GW is a very good move on my opinion.

Forcing your opponent to take niche weapons like Volcano Cannons (that some armies don't even have access to!) Is not the solution to improve durability.

Some FW T9 models but they are T9 in the 22-26 wound bracket 2+ save and are 700 to 1k points each. And are 1 per detachment due to relic rules.
T10 is jumping the shark and also is way out of charictor for ork vehicals.

I am not advocating T9 or T10 for the stompa. Maybe mke the larger gargants have a higher toughnes, I just want the points to match the model. As standing it is the most overpoints costed model 2 editions running (and it has never been good). Its actual value is below a castellan and above a bone stock knight, actual value would be around 500-550 points

The stompa should be 500ish points, the castellan 800ish.

Stompa is just the trash version of a weak knight so it must be a bit cheaper than the cheapest knight.

 Blackie wrote:
The stompa should be 500ish points, the castellan 800ish.

Stompa is just the trash version of a weak knight so it must be a bit cheaper than the cheapest knight.

A Stompa is not a trash version of a weak knight, it's got more weapons, self repairs D3 wounds per turn, has a transport capacity of 20, gives out a moral reroll, has more attacks at higher strength, benifits from err,we go, dakkax3 and clan cultures.
It might not be 900+ points but it's not 500 points or even close to 300 points it's 100points, (200 tops) overcosted A castellen is 700 points, without 4ppm guardsmen.

Ice_can wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The stompa should be 500ish points, the castellan 800ish.

Stompa is just the trash version of a weak knight so it must be a bit cheaper than the cheapest knight.

A Stompa is not a trash version of a weak knight, it's got more weapons, self repairs D3 wounds per turn, has a transport capacity of 20, gives out a moral reroll, has more attacks at higher strength, benifits from err,we go, dakkax3 and clan cultures.
It might not be 900+ points but it's not 500 points or even close to 300 points it's 100points, (200 tops) overcosted A castellen is 700 points, without 4ppm guardsmen.

Is this a joke? The Stompa is evidently vastly overcosted. It is one of the only units in the game that is literally priced so poorly it can't even be taken in friendly games. It should be 600-700 pts tops. With wargear. It has no invulnerable save. You get that yea? So if you want an invulnerable you add 120 pts of KFF Mek. Also no clan traits if taken in super heavy aux detachment.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The stompa should be 500ish points, the castellan 800ish.

Stompa is just the trash version of a weak knight so it must be a bit cheaper than the cheapest knight.

A Stompa is not a trash version of a weak knight, it's got more weapons, self repairs D3 wounds per turn, has a transport capacity of 20, gives out a moral reroll, has more attacks at higher strength, benifits from err,we go, dakkax3 and clan cultures.
It might not be 900+ points but it's not 500 points or even close to 300 points it's 100points, (200 tops) overcosted A castellen is 700 points, without 4ppm guardsmen.

Is this a joke? The Stompa is evidently vastly overcosted. It is one of the only units in the game that is literally priced so poorly it can't even be taken in friendly games. It should be 600-700 pts tops. With wargear. It has no invulnerable save. You get that yea? So if you want an invulnerable you add 120 pts of KFF Mek. Also no clan traits if taken in super heavy aux detachment.

It's like people constantly forget that Suprrme comand detachment has a LoW slot.
A Castellen without 4ppm guardsmen isn't the same powerhouse it currently is, 5ppm guard does back it down to less offensive soup.
As they are costed at 4ppm a castellen is easy 800 point plus.

Ice_can wrote:

It's like people constantly forget that Suprrme comand detachment has a LoW slot.
A Castellen without 4ppm guardsmen isn't the same powerhouse it currently is, 5ppm guard does back it down to less offensive soup.
As they are costed at 4ppm a castellen is easy 800 point plus.

So to be accurate it has clan traits if you take a minimum of what, 120 pts of HQ units as well as the 920 pointed Stompa? Got it.

5ppm Guard make absolutely no difference to the power of the Castellan. The Castellan outperforms similarly costed super heavies and those that are more expensive without considering the literal codex worth of stratagems, warlord traits and relics that make it even better.
RIS is the most obvious and biggest problem, but there are others. None of which are related to the cost of guardsmen (though Guardsmen at 4ppm are obviously too cheap).

E-sp.

Yeah, the loyal 32 costing 30 points more makes aost no difference to the power of a Castellan. Would 30pts extra on the Castellan itself fix it? I really don't think so, and this effectively the same thing.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, the loyal 32 costing 30 points more makes aost no difference to the power of a Castellan. Would 30pts extra on the Castellan itself fix it? I really don't think so, and this effectively the same thing.

The 32 should be minimum 5ppm Guardsmen and 50 point commanders, it's adding 70 points to that list on top of moving the castellen to 700 so anothrr 100 points added.
Take a stompa down to 700 points and that match up probably still favours a castellen, which is designed to shoot enemy LoW vrs a stompa which is way more effective against a standard tac list.

But that is about a fair points cost for 40 T8 wounds with +D3 per turn.

Unlimited CP is an issue but everyone seams set on overcosting every model that benifits instead of fixing the CP system.

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah, the loyal 32 costing 30 points more makes aost no difference to the power of a Castellan. Would 30pts extra on the Castellan itself fix it? I really don't think so, and this effectively the same thing.

The 32 should be minimum 5ppm Guardsmen and 50 point commanders, it's adding 70 points to that list on top of moving the castellen to 700 so anothrr 100 points added.
Take a stompa down to 700 points and that match up probably still favours a castellen, which is designed to shoot enemy LoW vrs a stompa which is way more effective against a standard tac list.

But that is about a fair points cost for 40 T8 wounds with +D3 per turn.

Unlimited CP is an issue but everyone seams set on overcosting every model that benifits instead of fixing the CP system.

None of us are fixing anything here, just shouting into the void!

Realistically, nothing fundamental will change to the CP system until the edition rolls over.

Ice_can wrote:

A Castellen without 4ppm guardsmen isn't the same powerhouse it currently is, 5ppm guard does back it down to less offensive soup.
As they are costed at 4ppm a castellen is easy 800 point plus.

Lol, a stompa on his own is absolutely terrible, way less efficient than a single castellan without supporting units. You clearly never played or faced it.

Having no invuln and BS5+ is a huge handicap. Its close combat abilities worth nothing if the walker never reaches combat as it will be dead or higly damaged after a single round of shooting. You basically just need 10 lascannons that succed the hit and wound rolls, not that hard if the opponent has re-rolls. Or a combination of other anti tank weapons.

Oh, its main weapon can also be out of ammo for the rest of the game since turn 1. But even at full strenght that BS5+ means the stompa will never kill much comparing to a standard knight.

I'd cap it at 600 points only if the weakest knight becomes 650 points. With the current state of 40k it should be 550 at most. I wouldn't take it either at that price.

Truth is, if you take 600 points of mek gunz or lootas+gretchins you get way more firepower and more resilient units that a stompa. 18 smasha gunz cost 560ish points and you get 108W T5 divided into 18 bodies that become single units after deployment, which means potential overkill and wasted shots that went through saves from the opponent.

Fun fact on how terrible the stompa is:
It is less survivable and worse at shooting against every possible target than the same amount of points spent on Rukkatrukk Squigbuggies.

Ice_can wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The stompa should be 500ish points, the castellan 800ish.

Stompa is just the trash version of a weak knight so it must be a bit cheaper than the cheapest knight.

A Stompa is not a trash version of a weak knight, it's got more weapons, self repairs D3 wounds per turn, has a transport capacity of 20, gives out a moral reroll, has more attacks at higher strength, benifits from err,we go, dakkax3 and clan cultures.
It might not be 900+ points but it's not 500 points or even close to 300 points it's 100points, (200 tops) overcosted A castellen is 700 points, without 4ppm guardsmen.

A stompa is aboslutely a trash version of a weak knight, its got more weapons, but they hit 50% less, its got more wounds and D3 repair but it doesn't have an invuln save, Has a transport capacity of 20....but who the feth cares, I can take an overpriced Battlewagon for 120pts and have the same capacity as well as 16 T8 wounds. Morale reroll for orkz is utterly useless. Either we pass morale by having bodies or we are dead to the last boy... there is very little if any middle ground. Benefits from Ere we go...just like knights benefit from their army special rules. Also Klan Kulture? Really? You have to buy another 120ish pts worth of HQ's to take hte supreme command detachment on top of the 920pts for the stupid stompa. I think it would be fairly priced at 600pts if it gained BS4, or could take a Git Finda for 20-30pts or something, because as it stands, it sucks at shooting and never reaches CC because it gets killed to quickly.

But back to the original point, a Battlewagon at 120pts is crap compared to most armies tanks