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.

Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.

Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So it wasnt unreasonably cheap in 4th ed, but is now?

Sorry, the rules dont work that way.

Anyway, that *entire* post was "bwaaaah, this is too powerful!!!!" - what part of "that isnt a rules post" went over your head?

Adapt or die. Adapt or die. Whining isnt an option on that list.

Bad attitude much?

Fact is you said it yourself that the thing did not work on av14 last edition. Well it does now and therefore pricing comparison to what it does now changes. So if you would care to join me in 5th edition you will see that it is underpriced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirisaacnuton wrote:That's my question too Gwar. You could do that just as easily without the Rollas.

Kaotik: That's what I pictured, I just wondered why. The things have a long side arc, AV12 on the side, open topped, and everyone and their brother has anti-tank. A 4+ cover save is nice, but then if a vehicle explodes the Lootas may take casualties from that, may even get pinned or fall back if they lose too many. If the vehicle gets wrecked they have to bail out and possibly not have cover (or only a 5+). Why not just deploy the Lootas in cover, put something aggressive in Battle Wagons, put Deff Rollas on them, and blitz forward with fire support?

With defrollas working as they do now, it will be exactly like you said.

So it wasnt unreasonably cheap in 4th ed, but is now?

Sorry, the rules dont work that way.

Yes they do. The much increased prevalence of mechanized transports makes the deffrolla better. The much increased survivability of the battlewagon makes the deffrolla better. The much increased utility of the transport function of the battlewagon makes the defrolla batter. The much increased reliance on close range melta weapons to destroy vehicles makes the deffrolla better.

You're pretty bad at temporal comparisons between rulesets and metagames if you think that nothing changed between two rulesets in one of the most drastically altered-by-ruleset codexes when we are talking about a set of rules (vehicle) that are perhaps more heavily than any other modified by the alteration.

So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?

If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The upgrade is unreasonably cheap for it's capabilities and doesn't make a particular amount of fluff sense. That said, It's at least better than having the question be up in the air.

Just to illustrate this:

Are you including ballistic skill? Which one?
Eh, apparently I'm blind and can't read a key.

I was kinda wondering about that graph myself. I cannot fathom how one melta shot @ BS4 has more probability to wreck av14 than 6 str 10 auto hits.

Edit:

Nor can I fathom how to read a graph. Ignore this.

@masterslowpoke,
Thank you for this informative graph. Can you do another one with ranges over 13"? I think you'll find the efficacy of the deff rolla diminishes considerably.

Kaotik wrote:I was kinda wondering about that graph myself. I cannot fathom how one melta shot @ BS4 has more probability to wreck av14 than 6 str 10 auto hits.

I see single melta shot at ~.3 and 6 rolla hits way up off behind the key around ~.65

olympia wrote:@masterslowpoke,
Thank you for this informative graph. Can you do another one with ranges over 13"? I think you'll find the efficacy of the deff rolla diminishes considerably.

Also, 100x this.

For some reason I can't get what are the numbers at the left side. Are they the propability of Destroy/Immoblise or what?

To argue with ShumaGorath (perhaps at my peril ) Deff Rollas are now good in an environment where there are lots of vehicles.

An environment with lots of vehicles is likely also to contain lots of AT weapons like Plasma, Tau Missile Pods and so on.

AT weapons will be useful against Deff Rollas because Battle Wagons are open topped, etc.

My prediction is that it will either be totally overpowered (as Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam was for a few months) or else it will enjoy a short period in the noonday sun until people adapt and learn how to beat it.

Man, good day for me to have an ork army.

Kilkrazy wrote:
An environment with lots of vehicles is likely also to contain lots of AT weapons like Plasma, Tau Missile Pods and so on.

My prediction is that it will either be totally overpowered (as Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam was for a few months) or else it will enjoy a short period in the noonday sun until people adapt and learn how to beat it.

With the side/back armor profile of a chimera, opentopped, and one of the smallest front armor arcs around, I'm quite surprised at how many people think they're dead 'ard. I routinely lose at least one to turn 1 shooting.

Kaotik wrote:Bad attitude much?

Inabiltiy to read much? How about YMDC isnt a place for whining posts about how X is the worst thing to hit the game ever?

Kaotik wrote:Fact is you said it yourself that the thing did not work on av14 last edition. Well it does now and therefore pricing comparison to what it does now changes. So if you would care to join me in 5th edition you will see that it is underpriced.

Wrong. Read it again. Note exactly what I said. Done that? Now maybe retract your misrepresentation (commonly called a "lie")

ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better. Reliance on close ranged melta? So the meta has to change (yet again) and that is a problem? Sorry, you missed out on "adapt or die", didnt you? Seriously, the last time there was this much whinhing was twin lash, whcih was MUCH improved in 5th ed (moving scoring units off objectives is a key tactic) yet people adapted - again.

You're pretty bad at not overreacting to yet another metagame change, arent you?

Urg.

The ruling on this is, somewhat, clear.

Personal attacks?

Not necessary.

NOT allowed.

This thread is almost over, I think...

Stay on topic (whatever that is, at this point!).

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?

If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?

I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.

ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.

Not against the defrolla or ork close combat.

Reliance on close ranged melta? So the meta has to change (yet again) and that is a problem? Sorry, you missed out on "adapt or die", didnt you?

People adapted to melta because the alternatives were getting them killed. Switching to a less effective anti vehicle platform in response to the increased lethality of a vehicle isn't a logical or good choice. People will be utilizing more missile and plasma in the face of the new tyranid codex, neither weapon is effective against a battlewagon.

Seriously, the last time there was this much whinhing was twin lash, whcih was MUCH improved in 5th ed (moving scoring units off objectives is a key tactic) yet people adapted - again.

Comparisons, once again, are irrelevant.

Can we not YMDC the first rule of Dakka

nosferatu1001 wrote:

What I love is that *everyone* who is anti-deff rollas entirely forgets (or "misremembers") that deffrollas worked entirely perfectly in 4th ed against vehicles. In fact *every* every behicle apart from LR and Monoliths.

This does not say that they worked on all but av14 last edition?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?

If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?

I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.

ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.

Not against the defrolla.

But again, you are blaming the Deff Rolla being overpowered on the current, perceived state of the Metagame. You can't accuse something of being overpowered due to deficiencies in an enemy list. Well, not unless it's spammed of course.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.

Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.

Ouch. Very nasty. I like.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.

Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.

You declare your travel distance before tank shocking. To Ram, it must be the max distance. Passengers can not fire from a vehicle if it has gone over combat speed.

So, to get this understood.

All the AV14 owners (that's AV14 all sides for LRaiders n Monoliths) are complaining that the ork army can finally threaten that, if they can get their own AV14/12/10 vehicle across the table to physically connect with it?

Erm...

That seems to be the long and short of it. Also there is the misapprehension that Ork players now somehow get 3 Deffrolla Wagons for free, just for putting pen to paper.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So the rules for an item in the game being overpowered are to be blamed for the Metagame, which is set entirely by the gamers yes?

If you depend entirely on Meltaguns for your anti-tank, that would be your decision, mistake etc. Not the person who wrote the rules surely?

I gave four different reasons for it being overpowered in a single post, and two others in a previous one. The prevalence of melta in the current metagame is a side effect of the increased cost of lascanons and their significantly decreased capability of delivering a killing shot against an opposing vehicle. Telling people to "alter their lists" isn't a particularly good response when the only realistic alternatives in a significant majority of them if close combat. Lascanons aren't really cost effective in fifth.

ShumaGorath - the increased survivabiilty of *all* vehicles has made *all* vehicles better.

Not against the defrolla.

But again, you are blaming the Deff Rolla being overpowered on the current, perceived state of the Metagame. You can't accuse something of being overpowered due to deficiencies in an enemy list. Well, not unless it's spammed of course.

Actually, I'm talking about general rules of fifth edition. This is the mech and melta edition. Neither of those will change until sixth edition, whenever that comes. The game isn't so fluid and balanced as to have every upgrade and weapon be accurately costed and entirely dependent on metagame.

Kaotik wrote:I was kinda wondering about that graph myself. I cannot fathom how one melta shot @ BS4 has more probability to wreck av14 than 6 str 10 auto hits.

Ok, that might be the issue here. It's not 6 auto-hits, it's 1D6 auto-hits. It might be 6. . . or it might be 1.

That graph contains 6 probability lines for the deffrolla; the meltagun line passes above one. This indicates that a single meltagun shot has a higher probability to destroy AV14 than a deffrolla which rolls only a single hit, but a lower probability than a deffrolla which rolls two hits.

Against AV14, deffrolla hit has to roll 5+ to pen AV14, and then 5+ to destroy the vehicle. That's a 1/9 CTK per hit.

Or, let me put it this way. Even if a deffrolla rolls a 6 for number of hits, it only has a 51% chance to kill an AV14 vehicle! With an average of 3.5 on a d6, the deffrolla's average chance to kill an AV14 vehicle is 33.4%. All these fantastic scenarios of a deffrolla exploding two Land Raiders in a row and such nonsense are ridiculous. The deffrolla is just like most other powerful Ork weapons; random.

This ruling has made it worth using, not wildly overpowered. Meltas are better! A BS4 melta has a 2/3 chance to hit, a 20/36 chance to pen, followed by a 1/3 chance to kill, equating to a 12% chance to kill an AV14 vehicle per melta shot, as opposed to an 11% chance per deffrolla hit. A deffrolla gets 3.5 hits on average, meaning it's a bit less effective (once again, on average) than 4 meltaguns.

So a deffrolla is cheap for what it does, yes. But it comes with a number of limitations. First off; you must tank shock at maximum speed to use it! So you HAVE to move 12", and you HAVE to be in base contact with the target. No wiggle room, no side-armour shots. Also, it's mounted on a chassis with side armor 12! Just kill the bugger before it reaches you! Melta-vets in Valks eat Battlewagons for breakfast, whether they've got Deffrollas or not.

Kroot Loops wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Edit on the original post. Yes it is not as much an issue with the Lootas, but it does crap on one of the very few ways to deal with it aside from Drop Pods.

Fill it with burnas. Multiple str 10 hits to kill the transport then 15 flamer templates to kill what was inside. Or just roll over one squad and flame another.

You declare your travel distance before tank shocking. To Ram, it must be the max distance. Passengers can not fire from a vehicle if it has gone over combat speed.

It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.

Disembark, yes, fire, no. No matter how far you travel, you count as moving Cruising Speed when ramming. Passengers cannot shoot if you moved Cruising Speed.

Well this isn't 100% legit


But still A! Time for some armoured brutality!

Also most Ork players use Battlewagons anyway, so this can't change the metagame that much right? Also don't complain about this being overpowered, its not, and orks have no melta or anything.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

It would be rare for an opposing vehicle to be 12+ inches away from the ramming platform. A majority of the time the battlewagon occupants would be capable of firing their weapons. They can also disembark.

Disembark, yes, fire, no. No matter how far you travel, you count as moving Cruising Speed when ramming. Passengers cannot shoot if you moved Cruising Speed.

They could disembark and shoot. However not only does this lower their effectiveness, it's also putting an expensive squad with 6+ saves on the board for a turn, and basically saying 'Yeah, I only wanted to use these guys once.'

And combat speed is 6", 7" with RPJ. Anything over is cruising speed.

Snikkyd wrote:Well this isn't 100% legit


But still A! Time for some armoured brutality!

It's as legit as it's going to get. Official GW FAQ has gone one way, expect all others to follow suit or refer you to it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Never plated 4th. I'm forgetting nothing

Ah, so you're just ignorant of history then. And thats a positive because....?

Seems to be a positive to me because he actually plays by the rules as they are now rather than trying to enforce an old game on his opponents.