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.

Martel,
Why is a 3+ paper armor on Marines, but godly armor on non-Marines?

And when I say Tac Marines, why do you assume just boltguns?

Even if you could put a 3-man Dev Cent squad into a pod, you're just looking at moar boltguns plus some AP-1 HB, unless you went Grav - and then why not go Grav Devs?

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Martel,
Why is a 3+ paper armor on Marines, but godly armor on non-Marines?

And when I say Tac Marines, why do you assume just boltguns?

Even if you could put a 3-man Dev Cent squad into a pod, you're just looking at moar boltguns plus some AP-1 HB, unless you went Grav - and then why not go Grav Devs?

It's not as much about the armor as how gakky marine firepower is. Marines have problems getting other marines out of cover for sure. We don't have the magical reapers or dissy cannons on the cheap.

Grav is so expensive it might as well not exist anymore. I suppose for some, that's a good thing.

Tac marines can't pack in enough weapons to put a dent in dark reapers, so I'm not sure what tac squads you are referring to.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.

I would prefer Land Raiders and the such got to re-roll failed saves instead of an invuln. Better versus light weapons, and makes weapons like meltaguns useful against heavy vehicles.

Darsath wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'm not sure how badly Devs and LRs need an Invuln. Even consider a 5++: it only comes into play on AP-4 or better. Which is precisely the sorts of weapons that *should* be scary to those targets.

I'm not sure Dev Cents in pods do anything to Reapers that Tac Marines in pods don't already do. Yes, more firepower. But you're shooting Reapers - you shouldn't need more firepower.

Everything expensive needs invulns in 8th ed it seems. You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created.

I would prefer Land Raiders and the such got to re-roll failed saves instead of an invuln. Better versus light weapons, and makes weapons like meltaguns useful against heavy vehicles.

Meltaguns already suck vs landraider because point blank shots wounding on a 4+ is a disaster. Meltaguns just suck period.

"36" range is more than enough to be in range turn 1 of your desired target and not move to shoot it."
Provided the target is dropped before you've dropped. And can't reposition. 36" is great. But hitting backfielders with it requires you be mid-field. The extra 12" range gives you a lot more safety.

"You can take them on crimson hunters with bs2+ so they hit on 3's and they still cost 20 points."
You can take LCs on Land Raiders and Dev Cents and still hit on 3s after moving. The CH is good, those platforms are bad. But from a "Unit can still hit on 3+ after moving" perspective, IoM does better than CWE here.

"Like I said there are some situations were ether weapon is the better choice"
Situations where Brightlance is better than LasCannon at the same points? Heavily contrived. Far more, the LC is better. They should not cost the same.

For the dev comparision, yes, there are some weaknesses of the argument. But it cuts both ways. Cents are moving + firing without penalty. Cents are ignoring cover. So perhaps we should look at the WW comparision instead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created. "
AP-4 still gives you a save. It's just when the 5++ starts mattering. It needs AP-5 to remove saves in the open, AP-6 if you have cover. Those are *very* rare.

You do know how expensive Land Raiders and Centurions are in relation to Crimson Hunters, yes?

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact:
War Walker: 50ppm base
Twice the W, +1 T, 4+/5++ instead of a 2+
Two Heavies, instead of Cents' 3 Heavies

So we've got something a bit more durable, more manueverable, but with 2/3 of the firepower options, at 50ppm. That shows an 80ppm base is way too high.

However, compare that model with 2x SC vs the 70ppm Hurricane/2HB model: same points, more durable and maneuverable, but substantially less firepower. So 70ppm kitted seems too low.

I almost mentioned warwalkers in the comparison. However - they have a much different statline. They are more comparable to a GC ML Dev under my point suggestions. A starcannon and a BL is a comparable loadout. 85 points compared to 80 for the cent.

The warwalker gets bonus survivability - outflank ability - greater mobility but worse accuracy on the move. (These units are typically not moving I play with WW all the time) The cent gets ignore cover and better survivability vs small arms.

This all seems reasonable to me.

Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

Bharring wrote:
"36" range is more than enough to be in range turn 1 of your desired target and not move to shoot it."
Provided the target is dropped before you've dropped. And can't reposition. 36" is great. But hitting backfielders with it requires you be mid-field. The extra 12" range gives you a lot more safety.

"You can take them on crimson hunters with bs2+ so they hit on 3's and they still cost 20 points."
You can take LCs on Land Raiders and Dev Cents and still hit on 3s after moving. The CH is good, those platforms are bad. But from a "Unit can still hit on 3+ after moving" perspective, IoM does better than CWE here.

"Like I said there are some situations were ether weapon is the better choice"
Situations where Brightlance is better than LasCannon at the same points? Heavily contrived. Far more, the LC is better. They should not cost the same.

For the dev comparision, yes, there are some weaknesses of the argument. But it cuts both ways. Cents are moving + firing without penalty. Cents are ignoring cover. So perhaps we should look at the WW comparision instead.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You can't pay a bunch of points and not get any save at all. Sucks for -4 AP, but that's the game GW has created. "
AP-4 still gives you a save. It's just when the 5++ starts mattering. It needs AP-5 to remove saves in the open, AP-6 if you have cover. Those are *very* rare.

To justify its current cost, a land raider would need a 3++, though. A 6+ vs a lance is not getting it done for its crazy high cost.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Banville wrote:
GW have deliberately done this to Centurions so nobody will play or buy them and they can be removed from the collective gaming consciousness, thereby preventing eye-nausea and involuntary bouts of disbelieving laughter at their sheer ridiculousness.

I've never understood the hatred of their look. It's like 40k meets exo-squad. Giant suits with lots of guns...This is not something I would expect complaints from. Really I think it's butt hurtness mostly. Ether from space marine players that are sad terminators suck - or people who got ruined by cent stars in 7th.

Nope. Never faced them. Used to own a squad but got rid of them. They just look like teletubbies. In my opinion. Your mileage may vary. I love exo-armour. I love the whole idea of a chassis with weapons bolted on. Cents were just badly realised. Again, in my opinion.

But I was only being facetious. I'm sure they are overcosted/underperforming. Par for the course with Marines.

They are hideous models for sure, imo. Glad BA don't get them.

Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

I'd much prefer them to address any fix by points change over doing anything with stats/rules.abilities.

And I don't care if that puts them in an apparent cost juxtaposition if your comparing them to a a war walker. Those can be addressed some other time, perhaps in their own thread.

Oh, look - a hyberbolic thread by Xenos complaining about Space Marines. It must be Monday again.

But really, if we want to look at actual unit crimes that are overcosted, I think wraithknights are far worse of an offense than centurions.

I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
Would it have shut you up if I put "The CH is good, those platforms are bad." in my post? If I had discussed that topic?

Seriously?

Nah - It would be reasonable to consider LC and BL equivalent weapons though. I don't think the 12" bonus range on a las cannon really comes into play that often. The only place I take BL is on crimson hunters or war walkers. WW will ether start on the table in range to shoot or outflank in range to shoot - crimson hunter has unlimited range. For target eligibility LOS is more often an issue than range. So the mobility of eldar units is't wasted ether.

I just don't see any real reason why the LC should cost more than the BL. AP-4 is really nice. ESP against 2+ saves in cover. Think...broadsides, riptides, obliterators.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Oh, look - a hyberbolic thread by Xenos complaining about Space Marines. It must be Monday again.

But really, if we want to look at actual unit crimes that are overcosted, I think wraithknights are far worse of an offense than centurions.

A WK is at most 100 points overcosted representing 15%-20% overcosted. Cent are about 33% -50% overcosted.

Also - you keep using that word - I don't think you know what it means. Everything in this post is ment to be taken seriously. It's supported by empirical data for logical deduction. You can't even admit shinning spears are undercosted. You have 0 credibility in regards to balance. I bet I could look back in your post history and find you defending 7th ed scat packs. lol

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

check out the price on warp flamers. Im sure they give your examples a run for its money.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

Centurioun devs? That's a funny way to say drop pod

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

+1 Wound? That's worth what? 5ish points? You want to knock of 10 when I have demonstrated they are 40 points over?

They're not 40 points overcosted. They're pretty damn overcosted though sure, probably the most overcosted unit in the game. Why is that?
1. Each single 2+ T5 wound is nearly 40 points.
2. Weapon costs are bizarre at times, like with the Grav Cannon.
3. They're slow.

Some of those issues aren't even directly related to them though. Making them FIFTY points cheaper wouldn't fix issues with the Grav Cannon though. So the making of them viable is to make sure they're not doing their role (they're basically supposed to be a wall with a lot of weapons) for too much.
1. Giving an extra wound with a slight point decrease (5 or 10) makes them only around 25-30 points per T5 2+ wound once outfitted. This isn't a bad deal. While it doesn't help against D2 weapons, it helps against literally everything else. Any whining about D2 weapons can be taken to a different thread as I don't care if you bring up Plasma and Autocannons.
2. Hurricane Bolters need to go back to their original price. Was it 5 points? Can't remember. They need to be cheaper again though.
3. The ML, Lascannon, and Grav Cannon clearly need to be cheaper. Probably 5 points off? Same goes for the Melta Gun and Flamer for the Assault variant.
4. Drop Pods need to go back to being able to transport stuff outside PA, and I already discussed how I feel to tackle Land Raiders in a separate thread here.

You aren't looking at big picture stuff sometimes.

Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

Counting index stuff doesn't work when they're gonna get their codex pretty soon. It'll either be directly after Space Wolves or Genestealer Cults (I didn't see the latter one getting love in a box set so...)

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

That thing is so laughably bad I can't believe it made it to the printers. As for centurions yeah they are absolutely awful units that every time I see them on the table or a battle report I immediately lose interest in the game because chances are the marines already lost. The drop pod is another horrible unit that has the same effect for me. I would be extremely interested in seeing the sale numbers for these models from 7th to 8th. Someone in GW has to realize crap rules are bad for sales.

I don't know how anyone can defend Dev cent points costs when a Custode trooper is 40ppm with +1WS effectively same BS, S, T, W, +1A and a 4++.
They highlight how rediculous Dev cents and Crisis suit points costs are.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparison is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

You understand a fix is supposed to make a unit playable right? An extra wound and 10 points off would still leave them in the dumpster.

It would make them the wall they're supposed to be and making slightly cheaper makes them better offensively. I'm not for knocking 30+ points off a unit just because you're frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I agree that points would be the better fix.

The question is how much should the points change?

I'm concerned that the points being thrown out are going too far. Dropping the LC and ML to 20 across the board? 40ppm base DevCents? These things go too far.

The WW is just a point of reference to compare to. The next closest comparision is probably Crisis, who are already considered overcosted by many, and fill a very different role.

The easiest fix for Centurions is giving them W4 and maybe a 5-10 point decrease.

What makes you think a 5 point drop would make these guys playable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Xeno,
The one you bring up: GC/ML dev vs StarC/BL WW can be compared, but wouldn't the AML make more sense than BL? Missile launcher instead of lascannon?

GC/ML Dev vs StarC/AML WW:
H:8 S5 D1/Dd3 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2 S6 Dd3 + H:1 S8 AP-2 Dd6
So the Dev has 4x the "smaller" shots, although they do only D1 to sv4+ units (typically 1-W). And average 2 shots for an average of 4 damage their missiles - so the ML does better in damage, if slightly. All that is at 12" less range, but I'm still blanking on the extra *6* shots it gets. While ignoring cover. And to-hit penalties when moving.

And the WW is paying 90 points for that loadout. How could that possibly be fair at 80 points.

Another comparision:
GC LC Dev vs BLBL WW:
H:2 S9 AP-3 D:d6 + H:d3 S8 AP-2 Dd3
vs
H:2: S8 AP-4 D:d6
Even before ignores cover/ignore movement, the LCs are at least equal to the BLs. So you get those missile shots for "free". You outrange and outshoot the WW by a ton. Why should that be cheaper?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"No. In fact the fact you even mentioned that's a way to get BS3+ moving Lascannons was so out of touch it's silly. Like, you shouldn't have mentioned it at ALL."
Why is it silly to point out that SM can get BS3+ on the move Lascannons when the argument being refuted is that Brightlances shouldn't be considered heavy because one unit can get BS3+ on the move Brightlances? I fail to see how that's silly at all.

The eldar ML is very much overcosted as well so I chose the bright-lance. Plus it's really a better comparitor anyways. They are both anti tank weapons - the EML is a hybrid - it's paying a lot for it's anti infantry mode though - too much.

Also in regards to comparisons of weapons with 36" range. I think it's pretty common practice to assume 36" range is good enough and should be considered "in range" in your comparison.

You missed the other part of the fix I proposed clearly.

+1 Wound? That's worth what? 5ish points? You want to knock of 10 when I have demonstrated they are 40 points over?

They're not 40 points overcosted. They're pretty damn overcosted though sure, probably the most overcosted unit in the game. Why is that?
1. Each single 2+ T5 wound is nearly 40 points.
2. Weapon costs are bizarre at times, like with the Grav Cannon.
3. They're slow.

Some of those issues aren't even directly related to them though. Making them FIFTY points cheaper wouldn't fix issues with the Grav Cannon though. So the making of them viable is to make sure they're not doing their role (they're basically supposed to be a wall with a lot of weapons) for too much.
1. Giving an extra wound with a slight point decrease (5 or 10) makes them only around 25-30 points per T5 2+ wound once outfitted. This isn't a bad deal. While it doesn't help against D2 weapons, it helps against literally everything else. Any whining about D2 weapons can be taken to a different thread as I don't care if you bring up Plasma and Autocannons.
2. Hurricane Bolters need to go back to their original price. Was it 5 points? Can't remember. They need to be cheaper again though.
3. The ML, Lascannon, and Grav Cannon clearly need to be cheaper. Probably 5 points off? Same goes for the Melta Gun and Flamer for the Assault variant.
4. Drop Pods need to go back to being able to transport stuff outside PA, and I already discussed how I feel to tackle Land Raiders in a separate thread here.

You aren't looking at big picture stuff sometimes.

They are absolutely 40 points over costed base. I have demonstrated it. You could maybe argue 35 - but anything less is just purely idiotic. I'm talking about units that have almost the exact same base stats costing 45-40 points less than them. It really isn't rocket science man.

The weapons are also over costed. LC should be the same cost as a BL - it's been demonstrated. ML is clearly not worth more than a LC - so equal cost seems like a good place to start - honestly 15-18 seems more right for a ML.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:
Theyre overcosted, but certainly not the most overcosted in the game. That title goes to the Stompa/Kustom Stompa

Index units have not been adjusted yet. It's probably a good thing too - IK give them a good base fix the stompa. Don't count on it though. GW sucks at things.