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.

IllumiNini wrote:How did you come to the conclusion that this is how to calculate the points for a unit? And even if I take your word that it's an appropriate way to look at calculating points (which it definitely is not), then how exactly do you define what Lascannons are designed to kill?

Lascannons are designed to kill AV at range.

That's pretty much their job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:Why?

Lascannons are strength 9, AP 2 and have 48 inch range. Not to mention that they have "heavy" in their statline. That's why.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why?

Lascannons are strength 9, AP 2 and have 48 inch range. Not to mention that they have "heavy" in their statline. That's why.

No.

Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

CrownAxe wrote:Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

Because there are obviously units in the game, as well as weapon selections, which lend themselves to that style of play.

I could easily ask you the opposite:

Why shouldn't it be a viable style of play?

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why should sitting a heavy weapons squad in cover and sniping tanks from a distance be a perfectly viable play style?

Because there are obviously units in the game, as well as weapon selections, which lend themselves to that style of play.

I could easily ask you the opposite:

Why shouldn't it be a viable style of play?

Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

The stompa could go down a 100 points and the wraightknight up by that amount.

All the long range single shot weapons suck right now, Lascannons, dark lances, railguns etc could take a buff.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I price it at 760 but it counts as an assault transport, doesn't lose hullpoints to glances, and strD only does d3+3 up on a 6 in my houserules so that skews the price a bit.

In the current meta, without assault probably 730... 12 hullpoints is quite a bit.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I have no further comments for this discussion.

Carry on.

Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

I have no further comments for this discussion.

Carry on.

No, you stop trying to price everything off a mediocre anti-tank weapon

Yeah, Traditio, you're using the imbalanced tool to judge others. If you want the lascannon to live up to the fluff (the fluff which is admittedly flawed in places), then fix the lascannon. Not everything else.

I've never had huge issues with Stompas - with a KFF Big Mek, they become rather good, but my main plan is to ignore it and try to get some Weapon Destroyed results on it's main cannon. The rest doesn't bother me.

600 seems like a decent price as it is a very durable vehicle (12 HP means it can even survive a 6 from a D weapon) and when you cram a ton of meks inside they can spam repairs on it to make it almost unkillable for certain armies. Might still be a bit too high considering all the support units you need to take with it to really get good value from it (like a KFF) but any cheaper might be a bit too strong.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Not EVERYTHING should be good against everything. You wouldn't use a Hand Flamer to kill a Land Raider

That doesn't address what I wrote at all.

Lascannons are supposed to be devoted AT heavy weapons. They're supposed to kill heavy tanks at range.

And they're not good at it because other guns do it better.

Lascannons have been the staple Imperial heavy ranged anti-tank weapon since this game was created. Yes, there are some weapons that are better (though also dramatically more limited in availability), but that doesn't change the fact that the Lascannon has pretty much been the standard by which all other AT weapons are compared in most cases. If we're at the point where Lascannons are not considered adequate AT weapons to measure a vehicle's resilience by because they're just too weak, something is very wrong.

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

Let's break this down to see if Tradito's understanding of the lascannon is correct.

1) 'a formidable laser weapon' -truth! They can kill everything in the game with enough sustained fire.
2) 'capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles' - the Warlord Titan is the only one it is incapable of penetrating, and even then it is only from certain directions.
3) 'it is the favored antitank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is used commonly by the space marines.' - this is the only part that doesn't mesh.

Therefore, Tradito, to make the fluff match the TT, we should make Lascannons compulsory upgrades for the guard and certain Space Marine units, no?

Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

I dunno. Just trying to follow Traditio's logic.

Personally I think it is fine without a change.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why would it need to be a compulsory upgrade? It may be favored but that doesn't make it compulsory for all units, not all units would be equipping all the time for an anti-tank role.

I dunno. Just trying to follow Traditio's logic.

Personally I think it is fine without a change.

It is perfectly fine without the change, I would go into detail more about it, but someone got mad and a mod limited my account last time

Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Do you know how mediocre lascannons are for killing vehicles?

Quoting the warhammer 40k wiki:

"The powerful Lascannon is a formidable Laser Weapon whose energetic shot of coherent light is capable of penetrating most armoured vehicles. It is the favorite anti-tank weapon of the Imperial Guard and is also commonly used by the Space Marines"

From your SHV thread:

Traditio wrote:

War Kitten wrote:Gauss is a weapon that flays the target at the molecular level, hence why it gets that Gauss bonus. A bolter is a glorified grenade launcher.

Next you're going to say a lasgun should be able to hurt a Baneblade.

This is an argument from the fluff. The fluff can be adjusted however GW sees fit.

Fact is, gauss guns are the basic guns for a basic troop choice in the necron codex. If basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies, then basic troops shouldn't be able to hurt superheavies.

Period.

So fluff is useable as an argument only by you? Lawdy lawdy.

It'd probably be better at around 500-550 these day with how the other super heavies have crept into the game easier.

Tradio, you are being ridiculous. A couple units of Necron Warriors will drop the stompa in 2 turns. Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Lascannons suck because the odds of getting an explodes with them is crazy low, and other weapons are better at HP stripping. Plus, with all the T5 in the game now, they don't double out reliably like they used to. Everything is in the favor of wound spam or hp strip spam.

"Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles."

Actually, that was their exact purpose before hull points came out. Lascannons should be removing multiple wounds and multiple hps to keep up with the game.

 koooaei wrote:
In current meta, around 550 is the max i'd pay for it.

This
Right now tournaments allow the kustom stompa which is already over 100points less then the codex stompa at ~650 and the ITC allow the buzzgrob kustom stompa which is only 500 points (600 with belly gun) and has more weapon options and still neither version is really that competitve.

So the joke that 770 codex price is costed correctly is completely unfounded on any reality. No one currently uses it at that price in any tournament because there are cheaper options for the same exact model. Right now it is better in every way for an ork to take a renegade knight then a stompa in any current form.

My recommendation is the codex stompa needs to be 550 and the big Mek stompa with belly gun needs to be 600. The reason being is in or practice and actual use bs 2 single shot weapons including the gaze of mork is completely unreliable and ineffectual in an army without any ability to reroll to hit in shooting. The lifta droppa also suffers the same fate and has a limited selection of targets. The 20 model carrying capacity for an army that regularly consists of either 20-30 unit size models is ok but still lacks an assault option in an assault army with the only access point being the unhelpful rear. The Gatling gun is designed not only to miss at bs2 but stop working by turn 2 and still just fires the same low str low ap Orks don't need anymore access too. The only useful wpn on a stompa is the belly gun kannon as its massive blast limits the bs2 disadvantage and the while the slightly higher str helps it main benefit is access to ap3 which is rare in the entire ork codex.

So yes just looking at actual tournament activity and current available stompas to Orks the codex 770 ot option is a joke and grossly overcosted and the actual price point should be someone where between the cost of the buzzgrob stompa 500 and kustom stompa 650 depending on the weapon loadouts.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Given that Lascannons predate the existence of HP's by about 25 years, and their current incarnation unchanged for 14 years and 3 editions before the introduction of HP's, and likewise Gauss, I would think that any "intent" on how auch weapons were intended to interact with HP's would be, well, nonexistent given the "after the fact" hamfisting of HP's onto the vehicle rules looooooong after such weapons had been solidified in role and purpose.

A Stompa is an armored vehicle, different from a tank largely simply by locomotion, relative to say, a Baneblade or Stormsword or the like.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Given that Lascannons predate the existence of HP's by about 25 years, and their current incarnation unchanged for 14 years and 3 editions before the introduction of HP's, and likewise Gauss, I would think that any "intent" on how auch weapons were intended to interact with HP's would be, well, nonexistent given the "after the fact" hamfisting of HP's onto the vehicle rules looooooong after such weapons had been solidified in role and purpose.

A Stompa is an armored vehicle, different from a tank largely simply by locomotion, relative to say, a Baneblade or Stormsword or the like.

This.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Tradio, you are being ridiculous. A couple units of Necron Warriors will drop the stompa in 2 turns. Lascannons were never designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles. They were designed to cut through tanks, not stompas.

A stompa is not a tank, and should not be treated like one. You're using scissors to kill a rock when you need paper.

Actually, Lascannons were designed to take out high hullpoint vehicles.

It's just that with the way the game has shifted, single shot AT with high S/low AP is basically garbage when compared to weapons that have high ROF, middling S/AP, and/or special rules that allow for weapons to harm vehicles in a unique manner.

Most ork players agree that the gmorkanauts should be superheavys for their current cost, and since a stompa is about twice the hull points of a gmorkanaut then the stompa should be priced roughly by twice the price of the gmorkanaut.

Lazcannons in fluff are goof against tank armour, but what does the fluff say about their effectiveness against superheavys? A superheavy is a completely different thing compared to an average high armoured tank, it shouldn't be vulnerable to a few squads of lazcannons. The fluff always has sh vs sh, you almost never hear about lazcannon arrays doing that job.(at least what I hear).

Now from what I understand about the overprice of gmorkanauts and stompas is because they are loaded with dakka, but due to poor bs, most of those weapons are useless.

geargutz wrote:
Most ork players agree that the gmorkanauts should be superheavys for their current cost, and since a stompa is about twice the hull points of a gmorkanaut then the stompa should be priced roughly by twice the price of the gmorkanaut.

Lazcannons in fluff are goof against tank armour, but what does the fluff say about their effectiveness against superheavys? A superheavy is a completely different thing compared to an average high armoured tank, it shouldn't be vulnerable to a few squads of lazcannons. The fluff always has sh vs sh, you almost never hear about lazcannon arrays doing that job.(at least what I hear).

Now from what I understand about the overprice of gmorkanauts and stompas is because they are loaded with dakka, but due to poor bs, most of those weapons are useless.

But somehow haywire weapons own them.

If something is not going to be vulnerable to lascannons, it needs to be very costly indeed.

Wit how often people have talked about the underpowered lazcannon in this thread about stompas I'm surprised they haven't started their own thread yet.
Let's get off the topic of lazcannons and get back on what is an apropriate point cost for the stompa.

Unsure who's friends I feel more sorry for: the guys who think a Stompa should cost as much as a Wraithknight, or the guys who feel a Stompa is fine at it's current cost.

Probably the latter. At least the former understands there's an issue with points costs no matter how delusional his fix would be.

geargutz wrote:
Wit how often people have talked about the underpowered lazcannon in this thread about stompas I'm surprised they haven't started their own thread yet.
Let's get off the topic of lazcannons and get back on what is an apropriate point cost for the stompa.

That's tied to the efficacy of the various anti-tank weapons.