Switch Theme:

can someone explain the cost of the battlewagon to me?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

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.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 19:32:24


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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:


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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 19:55:51


[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




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.

   
Made in fi
Furious Raptor



Finland

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

Cost per wound:
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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in gb
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





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!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 21:07:41


[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in fi
Furious Raptor



Finland

 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?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 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.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ch
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





 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.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






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.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 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?
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





The Eternity Gate

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.

01001000 01100001 01101001 01101100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01001110 01100101 01100011 01110010 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01101100 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00100001  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.


[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in it
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity




Italy

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.

Orks 9000
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




In My Lab

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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.





[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in it
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity




Italy

 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.

Orks 9000
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




 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.
   
Made in bg
Been Around the Block




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:
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.
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





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.

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 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 ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/11 13:41:49


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: