Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I think the reasoning for this (and why almost all "twin" weapons are cheaper than 2 single weapons) is because 2 single weapons can fire at 2 separate targets. Twin weapons must fire at the same target, as they are 1 weapon.
I applaud GW for realizing this, even if single Lascannons are still a bit much. 20ppm seems better, with TwinLas being about 35ppm. But at any rate, we a far closer to decent point values for Marine wargear.

Still very bitter that Melta is more expensive than Plasma, but that's not for this thread.

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

-

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
TL las and missile dreads got a nice cutt for all marine armies. Like...no clue why anyone would EVER consider a preditor now. Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I mean it's 10 points less for quad laspred. And you can still take HBs. It just makes twin las a little more competitive with the pred AC and helps units with fixed TLC.

HB on a pred is a complete waste. Preds for some reason pay more point for their hull than other units with the exact same profile. If that wasn't the case you could just throw on some sponson HB NP. Just look and see what those HB cost you compared to a Razorback with twin las.

GK, Necrons and Admech did win this CA, but they won the battle, not the war. Are they better now? Yes, that is mathematically objective, they cost less points while other factions didn't get any significant buff (only buffs related to internal balance...and tank commanders).

This means that i can take a full GK list and hope to win a GT? Not in the least.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I think the reasoning for this (and why almost all "twin" weapons are cheaper than 2 single weapons) is because 2 single weapons can fire at 2 separate targets. Twin weapons must fire at the same target, as they are 1 weapon.
I applaud GW for realizing this, even if single Lascannons are still a bit much. 20ppm seems better, with TwinLas being about 35ppm. But at any rate, we a far closer to decent point values for Marine wargear.

Still very bitter that Melta is more expensive than Plasma, but that's not for this thread.

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

-

Yeah this has been pretty consistent for twin link weapons but no where has it been so absurd as a 5 point per weapon discrepancy. Plus like you said - LC should be 20 points anyways it basically splits efficiency with a BL against a host of popular targets - should be same price. Or maybe a LC could be 21 or 22 because of the range but really -

Also - anyone notice the 40 point lastalon not getting a point drop? Same cost as twin las - it's literally 2 lascannons with half the range. This was the first thing that popped into my head with the TLLC drop - "oh tastalons must also be going down then" NOPE. Head scratcher.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
TL las and missile dreads got a nice cutt for all marine armies. Like...no clue why anyone would EVER consider a preditor now. Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I mean it's 10 points less for quad laspred. And you can still take HBs. It just makes twin las a little more competitive with the pred AC and helps units with fixed TLC.

HB on a pred is a complete waste. Preds for some reason pay more point for their hull than other units with the exact same profile. If that wasn't the case you could just throw on some sponson HB NP. Just look and see what those HB cost you compared to a Razorback with twin las.

Not quite sure what you're saying there, but with split fire HB sponsons are never a waste if you need anti-infantry.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
TL las and missile dreads got a nice cutt for all marine armies. Like...no clue why anyone would EVER consider a preditor now. Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I mean it's 10 points less for quad laspred. And you can still take HBs. It just makes twin las a little more competitive with the pred AC and helps units with fixed TLC.

HB on a pred is a complete waste. Preds for some reason pay more point for their hull than other units with the exact same profile. If that wasn't the case you could just throw on some sponson HB NP. Just look and see what those HB cost you compared to a Razorback with twin las.

Not quite sure what you're saying there, but with split fire HB sponsons are never a waste if you need anti-infantry.

Base cost of a pred is 90
Base cost of razorback is 70. You are paying 20 points just for the ability to carry 2 more heavy weapons and +1 wound. It makes no sense to do that ever really - it's part of the reason preds suck. It really makes no sense to take HB's with that though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Base cost of a pred is 90
Base cost of razorback is 70. You are paying 20 points just for the ability to carry 2 more heavy weapons and +1 wound. It makes no sense to do that ever really - it's part of the reason preds suck. It really makes no sense to take HB's with that though.

Gotcha - I don't have razorbacks available so I don't think about them, but paying 20 to carry two more weapons can be worth it if your only other option is to pay 26 points for 2 marines to carry them.

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

But Guard is better without GK.
So no need for a Guard player to field a detachment of GK, maybe the other way around.

Marines in general were not helped by this.

The Vigilus Detachments could help, if Marines could generate CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

But Guard is better without GK.
So no need for a Guard player to field a detachment of GK, maybe the other way around.

For all the crap that people talk about ITC, the reason you see GK on the table is because you can still win best in faction playing a garbage army. Take away ITC and there would probably not be any Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Necrons, in tournaments, period.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I think the reasoning for this (and why almost all "twin" weapons are cheaper than 2 single weapons) is because 2 single weapons can fire at 2 separate targets. Twin weapons must fire at the same target, as they are 1 weapon.
I applaud GW for realizing this, even if single Lascannons are still a bit much. 20ppm seems better, with TwinLas being about 35ppm. But at any rate, we a far closer to decent point values for Marine wargear.

Still very bitter that Melta is more expensive than Plasma, but that's not for this thread.

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

-

Yeah this has been pretty consistent for twin link weapons but no where has it been so absurd as a 5 point per weapon discrepancy. Plus like you said - LC should be 20 points anyways it basically splits efficiency with a BL against a host of popular targets - should be same price. Or maybe a LC could be 21 or 22 because of the range but really -

Also - anyone notice the 40 point lastalon not getting a point drop? Same cost as twin las - it's literally 2 lascannons with half the range. This was the first thing that popped into my head with the TLLC drop - "oh tastalons must also be going down then" NOPE. Head scratcher.

There's like only one unit that uses the Lastalon. If the platform is cheap enough to accommodate it, it evens out.

That's why the complaints about Hurricane Bolters being too cheap is silly. They come on on how many platforms?

 Marmatag wrote:
Marines in general were not helped by this.

The Vigilus Detachments could help, if Marines could generate CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

But Guard is better without GK.
So no need for a Guard player to field a detachment of GK, maybe the other way around.

For all the crap that people talk about ITC, the reason you see GK on the table is because you can still win best in faction playing a garbage army. Take away ITC and there would probably not be any Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Necrons, in tournaments, period.

I hope they do get rid of that award. It's so dumb that we see "Hey a GK made it to the top 30!" then we go and open up the list and see it is literally at least 40% IG.

 Quickjager wrote:

I hope they do get rid of that award. It's so dumb that we see "Hey a GK made it to the top 30!" then we go and open up the list and see it is literally at least 40% IG.

Kind of how I look at Thousand Sons and see that it was just Ahirman, DPs, and some Tzaangors?
Or how those top BA lists a while back were mostly IG?
Or how "Catachans" are backed up by a Castellan?
Or all the DE lists with the requisite Farseer?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Single lascannons costing 25 is just laughable when you can get 2 for 40.

I think the reasoning for this (and why almost all "twin" weapons are cheaper than 2 single weapons) is because 2 single weapons can fire at 2 separate targets. Twin weapons must fire at the same target, as they are 1 weapon.
I applaud GW for realizing this, even if single Lascannons are still a bit much. 20ppm seems better, with TwinLas being about 35ppm. But at any rate, we a far closer to decent point values for Marine wargear.

Still very bitter that Melta is more expensive than Plasma, but that's not for this thread.

Grey Knights getting hefty points drops is nice....except so did Guard and DE did not get the increases they needed on their weapons. So GKs are between the same and worse overall.
GKs will still rely heavily on Guard allies, maybe even more so since they got cheaper. And DE will still remove several GK units per turn.
So who really is the "big winner" for CA? I'd say it's a tie between Guard and DE, but not even close to GKs

-

Yeah this has been pretty consistent for twin link weapons but no where has it been so absurd as a 5 point per weapon discrepancy. Plus like you said - LC should be 20 points anyways it basically splits efficiency with a BL against a host of popular targets - should be same price. Or maybe a LC could be 21 or 22 because of the range but really -

Also - anyone notice the 40 point lastalon not getting a point drop? Same cost as twin las - it's literally 2 lascannons with half the range. This was the first thing that popped into my head with the TLLC drop - "oh tastalons must also be going down then" NOPE. Head scratcher.

There's like only one unit that uses the Lastalon. If the platform is cheap enough to accommodate it, it evens out.

That's why the complaints about Hurricane Bolters being too cheap is silly. They come on on how many platforms?

Stormhawks and Repulsors can take lastalons in the same build with twinlascannons.... It's also a very strange way of thinking..."it's only bad for this one unit or two units...so who cares?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

I hope they do get rid of that award. It's so dumb that we see "Hey a GK made it to the top 30!" then we go and open up the list and see it is literally at least 40% IG.

Kind of how I look at Thousand Sons and see that it was just Ahirman, DPs, and some Tzaangors?
Or how those top BA lists a while back were mostly IG?
Or how "Catachans" are backed up by a Castellan?
Or all the DE lists with the requisite Farseer?

The key difference here is the GK players know they have .0001% chance of winning at best.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The key difference here is the GK players know they have .0001% chance of winning at best.

Maybe previously. We'll have to wait to see what CA and potential FAQs do.

Their biggest problem might be how compelling their mechanics are over other factions, which relegates them to existing players who....are pretty unwilling to give it a go.

Either way it doesn't change that most armies run soup and it's not some sort of venereal disease to be avoided at all costs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

I hope they do get rid of that award. It's so dumb that we see "Hey a GK made it to the top 30!" then we go and open up the list and see it is literally at least 40% IG.

Kind of how I look at Thousand Sons and see that it was just Ahirman, DPs, and some Tzaangors?
Or how those top BA lists a while back were mostly IG?
Or how "Catachans" are backed up by a Castellan?
Or all the DE lists with the requisite Farseer?

Oh please none of those lists exist because its a weak faction being propped up by another. All of those lists are strong factions backing each other.

The TSons? Congrats you have viable units used as lynchpin units in soups, GK don't have that; in either case you're truly are dumb for saying "I put up with it! You should too!" Na just feth off with that logic. It is almost like you don't pay attention to the countless posts of people complaining about the state of soup or the fact that no one enjoys that their faction is literally being stripped down to one unit a la Smash-captain w/ IG dressing. How about you write an email about it instead of telling everyone to put up with it?

Those DE lists? They have a farseer because they're taking -1 to hit units with the -1 to hit Craftworld to camp objectives, along with the Hemlock fighters (Which are you know, -1 to hit and have the Craftworld trait). Guess what people don't really want anymore.

Congratulations you touched on every issue in the game people want fixed! Sorry I don't think just because some people put up with broken game design, I should put up my broken codex.

GK just cost too much because they have so much POTENTIAL. But none of the potential is defensive, so they just get LOLed off the table.

There's a GK player at FLGS that always crows about how much he's gonna do when he DS, but fails to factor in that removing 40 guardsmen doesn't mean much when there are 80 more waiting with FRFSRF as well as artillery horde.

 Quickjager wrote:


Oh please none of those lists exist because its a weak faction being propped up by another. All of those lists are strong factions backing each other.

The TSons? Congrats you have viable units used as lynchpin units in soups, GK don't have that; in either case you're truly are dumb for saying "I put up with it! You should too!" Na just feth off with that logic. It is almost like you don't pay attention to the countless posts of people complaining about the state of soup or the fact that no one enjoys that their faction is literally being stripped down to one unit a la Smash-captain w/ IG dressing. How about you write an email about it instead of telling everyone to put up with it?

Those DE lists? They have a farseer because they're taking -1 to hit units with the -1 to hit Craftworld to camp objectives, along with the Hemlock fighters (Which are you know, -1 to hit and have the Craftworld trait). Guess what people don't really want anymore.

Congratulations you touched on every issue in the game people want fixed! Sorry I don't think just because some people put up with broken game design, I should put up my broken codex.

I'm not saying put up with a broken codex. I'm stating the reality of soup and it doesn't matter who writes what to GW - it will never, ever go away (restricted at most).