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.

I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?

Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.

Wait, but that's backwards.

If a transport greatly increases the effectiveness of a unit, what should cost more, the unit or the transport? If it's the unit, then I'm grossly overpaying when I don't take a transport, if it's the transport, then I'm only overpaying if I'm not transporting anything - but what's the point of a transport if not to transport?

AtoMaki wrote:I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?

The hellhound is still pretty good, scout sentinels can outflank, unlike the vendetta, and armored sentinels get to start shooting turn 1, can take cover better, and have twice as many hull points (among other sentinely things like tying things up in close combat).

Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.

 Ailaros wrote:

Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.

Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.

So anyone who valued the vendetta and took it in every list wasn't creative? With such a broad brush you'd think you'd get more painted..

" but what's the point of a transport if not to transport? "

What indeed. The Stormraven is rarely used as a transport in my experience because its a deathtrap and forces reserving of that unit. The Stormraven in NOT a transport; it's a gunship that GW tacked transport capability on to. The point cost of a unit should be evaluated independently of its transport or transport options.

"f a transport greatly increases the effectiveness of a unit, what should cost more, the unit or the transport?"

Most units get worse (read: killed) in a Stormraven.

"Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity. "

They were at 130 pt price point. Call me uncreative.

IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.

Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.

I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.

And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.

Given that these are same morons that brought us the Wave Serpent and Riptide, I was convinced that the Vendetta was going to stay the same price. Guess I was wrong.

I still don't like the Vendetta out of principle; I don't think it should exist at all, or should have been a true gunship like the Vulture.

But 170pts is in the ballpark of reasonable. I probably would have gone with 160pts including the transport nerf myself, but time will tell how well the new version fares.

I imagine it'll still be the best FA choice though, which is another problem.

 Ailaros wrote:

AtoMaki wrote:I think the Vendetta is still a no-brainer choice in the FA slot. I mean, what alternatives you have that can replace the Vendetta? Especially with the twin-linking order gone?

The hellhound is still pretty good, scout sentinels can outflank, unlike the vendetta, and armored sentinels get to start shooting turn 1, can take cover better, and have twice as many hull points (among other sentinely things like tying things up in close combat).

Sure, Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels can blast FMCs and Baledrakes out from the skies while posing a serious threat to any other "big game" target and they also have good durability and maneuverability... Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/MCs/FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.

MWHistorian wrote:IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.

Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.

I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.

And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.

I'm not complaining, and the Vendetta is pretty much my only dedicated anti-tank choice with more than a 12" range.

Blacksails wrote:I still don't like the Vendetta out of principle; I don't think it should exist at all, or should have been a true gunship like the Vulture.

But 170pts is in the ballpark of reasonable. I probably would have gone with 160pts including the transport nerf myself, but time will tell how well the new version fares.

I imagine it'll still be the best FA choice though, which is another problem.

I'd have gone with 160 as well. ^^; I don't know how normal sentinels operate, but drop sentinels are pretty effective, even if they are horrifically overpriced compared to their vanilla counterparts (nearly twice the cost!)

AtoMaki wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Sure, Sentinels and Armoured Sentinels can blast FMCs and Baledrakes out from the skies while posing a serious threat to any other "big game" target and they also have good durability and maneuverability... Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/MCs/FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.

Sentinels can also get a really, really easy 3+ cover save, without sacrificing their mobility.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Sentinels can also get a really, really easy 3+ cover save, without sacrificing their mobility.

How exactly?

 Furyou Miko wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:IG players get one of the best fliers in the game for way under what it should cost.

Complain when it gets priced at a more reasonable level.

I'm not going to say you've been spoiled...but you've been spoiled.

And for people complaining that they'll have to re-write their lists, of course you will. Very few codexes can survive unchanged from dex to dex.

I'm not complaining, and the Vendetta is pretty much my only dedicated anti-tank choice with more than a 12" range.

Wait, what? Did you miss all the other units that can take Lascannons, the Demolisher, the Vanquisher and the Devil Dog?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Sentinels can also get a really, really easy 3+ cover save, without sacrificing their mobility.

How exactly?

Probably referring to obscured + camonetting.

I don't see how that is really, really easy though...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.

And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.

What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.

Forge the narrative!

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Probably referring to obscured + camonetting.

I don't see how that is really, really easy though...

But that misses the "without sacrificing their mobility" part since camo netting only works if you don't move. And of course it requires 4+ cover, which can be hard to get unless you're willing to camp in one spot behind an ADL.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
The vendetta shouldn't have the same capacity as the valkyrie, because it needs the space for the three twin-linked lascannon batteries.

And, once again, this contradicts the model. The Vendetta model clearly has external battery packs for the lascannons and the exact same transport space as the Valkyrie. This is a game balance change, nothing more.

Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.

There are already battery packs there for the Valkyrie's hull gun. And even if you put an entire set of battery packs like the wing guns have in the transport compartment you don't get any meaningful decrease in space.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Where's the battery packs for the hull TL lascannon? I thought those were at the front of the transport area.

There are already battery packs there for the Valkyrie's hull gun. And even if you put an entire set of battery packs like the wing guns have in the transport compartment you don't get any meaningful decrease in space.

I can't see the external battery packs for the hull gun. I agree it's not a good excuse, as the battery packs really aren't that significant as to warrant such a reduction in transport capacity, but I was under the impression the Vendetta, like the Valkyrie, had the power source for the hull weapon mounted inside the transport area.

Honestly this poitns change AND the troop capacity change is about exactly what I was expecting

Well I pay 160 for my crimson hunter. No transport, av10, and s8 guns that ain't TL. I get to reroll armour pen vs flyers and am slightly more maneuverable. So I'd rather the vendetta.

What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.

Forge the narrative!

Sure . I can forge some narrative , just give me the 5 hour long preliminary bombardment pre attack and am cool . Lets say d3 templates for any tank , d6 for any artilery pice and d6+2 for any siege artilery pice in an army . That would represent the massing of vehicles in the area. More mecha stuff would mean that IG is massing up for a big attack , while fewer would mean just some soldiers on leave or something.

Failing that make a 130pts vendetta with scater lasers and let it upgrade to las vendetta for 170pts or more.

 Von Chogg wrote:
Well I pay 160 for my crimson hunter. No transport, av10, and s8 guns that ain't TL. I get to reroll armour pen vs flyers and am slightly more maneuverable. So I'd rather the vendetta.

The Vendetta guns are TL, but 4 shots at Bs4 that aren't TL will typically do more damage than 3 at BS3 that are TL. Vector Dancer is also quite a big deal IMO, the extra turn at the end of it's move goes a long way to setting up targets, getting shots at more vulnerable armour, getting shots at other flyers, etc. Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.

Makumba wrote:

What if the standard operating procedure for Vendettas is now that they are required to carry extra ammo for extended missions, as brass has found that they too often are relocated several times before touching home and too often end up in battles with no or very low ammo.

Forge the narrative!

Sure . I can forge some narrative , just give me the 5 hour long preliminary bombardment pre attack and am cool . Lets say d3 templates for any tank , d6 for any artilery pice and d6+2 for any siege artilery pice in an army . That would represent the massing of vehicles in the area. More mecha stuff would mean that IG is massing up for a big attack , while fewer would mean just some soldiers on leave or something.

Failing that make a 130pts vendetta with scater lasers and let it upgrade to las vendetta for 170pts or more.

Absolutely! Of course your enemy then gets 35000 extra points to represent the threat large enough for the operation you describe.
Why are you being ridiculous? I was forging a narrative to the (potential) new rules. Not making up rules with the excuse of a narrative.

But IG had rules like that in 2ed. They got preliminary bombardments for every vehicle taken and could buy extra wargear to get more shots and artilery vehicles were giving extra shots too.

There are no rules for ammo in w40k , other then being one shot and I don't see why my army has to be punished for GW being unable to balance stuff.
Right now with chimeras going up to 65pts and vendettas being 170 , my army is almost 1700pts . To play it I would have to cut off the whole ally section , which is the only thing that makes it work right now.

Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.

very true . Eldars don't want to use their CH , because their armies work fine without them , IG without vendettas need some big buffs and points drops to work.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Martel732 wrote:And no, the dangerous cargo should cost more, NOT penalize the transport for the other portions of the codex.

Vendettas have never been an auto-include, except to those tragically born without a sense of creativity.

So anyone who valued the vendetta and took it in every list wasn't creative?

That's not what I said. "Value" is not a synonym of "auto-include".

AtoMaki wrote: Like, maybe they can pose a threat to vehicles/flyers/MCs/FMCs but they can hardly replace 3 flying TL lascannons. And then you have their wet toilet paper equivalent durability and average Joe grade maneuverability to spice things up even more.

The 3 lascannons are twin-linked, but they also arrive late and don't always get to shoot at the same target twice, and often leave early or spend a turn pointed at nothing.

And vendettas aren't way more durable (and sometimes are less so). You get more hull points and better cover saves out of other options, and are less likely to stray near high-powered short-range weapons like meltaguns, and once your opponent figures out what skyfire means, any extra durability the vendetta has vanishes.

Makumba wrote:
But IG had rules like that in 2ed. They got preliminary bombardments for every vehicle taken and could buy extra wargear to get more shots and artilery vehicles were giving extra shots too.

There are no rules for ammo in w40k , other then being one shot and I don't see why my army has to be punished for GW being unable to balance stuff.
Right now with chimeras going up to 65pts and vendettas being 170 , my army is almost 1700pts . To play it I would have to cut off the whole ally section , which is the only thing that makes it work right now.

Granted, the Vendetta is still a better option than a Crimson Hunter IMO (higher armour and transport capacity), but a Crimson Hunter isn't a great option to begin with so I would hope as such anyway.

very true . Eldars don't want to use their CH , because their armies work fine without them , IG without vendettas need some big buffs and points drops to work.

Off Topic, my CSM army weeps for you that now your going to have to make meaningful decisions rather than just smash stuff in..... to think you could field the same army over multiple edditions, as well as codex's... thats not how it works... at all

on topic, again i think 170 is fair, the old costing was a joke and we all know that.

as to losing transport capacity for more guns, course it would.. look at the landraiders, more firepower less troops. and as to the batteries being external, as said, it will be a weight issue. "fluff" wise atleast

 Ailaros wrote:

And vendettas aren't way more durable (and sometimes are less so). You get more hull points and better cover saves out of other options, and are less likely to stray near high-powered short-range weapons like meltaguns, and once your opponent figures out what skyfire means, any extra durability the vendetta has vanishes.

The more HPs for the Sentinels are cramped into an easy-to-hit, low-mobility package and it is pretty hard to get a cover save for them because of the chicken legs: covering only the legs won't give you cover, and cover that are taller than the legs will also block weapon LoS - on the other hand, vertical cover can only give protection to one or maybe two Sentinels as you have to peek from corners least the cover will block weapon LoS. And even then, your opponent doesn't have to bring all sorts of dedicated anti-Sentinel firepower: you can trash them with any S6+ weapon or even S5 weapons in the case of the Scout Sentinel.

Oh ,and it is much easier to get cover for the Vendetta, as it can just Jink and there it is: an 5+ cover save . And even snap shooting next turn isn't that big problem as you will still hit stuff on a ~5+ thankfully to twin-linked.

Coming soon to every Astra Militarium army list everywhere...
Introducing the new vendetta:

I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I have no sympathy here. The Vendetta was universally regarded as way undercosted. It's balanced now. Yes, that might mean changing your list a little. I don't see how you could have expected anything else.

It IS GW. I could have totally seen them leaving it unchanged.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Wait, what? Did you miss all the other units that can take Lascannons, the Demolisher, the Vanquisher and the Devil Dog?

Those aren't in my codex. I guess I could take a Tauros V, but those are coming in at two Rhinos for an over-gunned humvee.