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.

kombatwombat wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Disagree vehemently. See here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745675.page

You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?

Dun dun duuuun!

I can do that. I'm giving it a bit of a rewrite so that I can "fire a platform" all at once along with some other features so it maybe be a day or so.

Chikout wrote:
So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?

This is one of the best posts in this thread.
I couldn't care less about the new points costs, they'll be available via battlescribe anyway. And the outliers will be fixed by the next FaQ, Codex or whatever.
The scenarios/ missions are where it gets interesting. And personally, scenario play is the best aspect of 40K. This game won't be balanced, then at least take it for what it is and play some cool scenarios. In our group we usually play narrative games based on points costs and some of the matched play restrictions. Even in a scenario it gets a bit silly if you summon 30Plague bearers every round with no drawbacks...
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...

Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.

Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.

There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...

Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.

Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.

There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.

They can use their custom Land Raiders in matched play - when I get the old Looted Vehicle rules back, so I can turn it around and run it with my Orks

I'll be the odd one out here and say that I'm not dissappointed with my purchase. Points adjustments were sensible (where it really mattered) if not perfect and I'm reasonably confident that they will get better for everyone with some time. Get all the codexes out, test things out a bit and so forth. Closer look at finetuning the balance between all the things is something I don't expect before early 2019.

But, this book here I dig for the missions. Sure I could've gone and just wrote some myself, but these are pretty nice and will see some use with me. Planetstrike and Stronghold Assault especially, 'cause do I not like me some sweet siege brutality, mh-mmh. Having them in a GW book helps a bit with convincing some not-yet-too-keen-on-narrative folks try them out, too.

Of course it isn't the best thing ever, I can certainly spot things there I'd personally done otherwise. Perhaps even will, it's a game after all. Still, I feel it's moving to a direction I can finally support monetarily and hope to get more, and better, of in the future.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...

Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.

Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.

There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.

Dial it up to 11 for fun and profit with stacking tons of 0 cost guns?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...

Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.

Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.

There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.

Dial it up to 11 for fun and profit with stacking tons of 0 cost guns?

A fast vehicle with 100 bolters would be just fine. 5 man tac squads with 15 meltaguns per squad would be entertaining.

Daedalus81 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Disagree vehemently. See here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/745675.page

You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?

Dun dun duuuun!

I can do that. I'm giving it a bit of a rewrite so that I can "fire a platform" all at once along with some other features so it maybe be a day or so.

The previous durability valuations still stand obviously.

Here are the cannons. vs a BB chassis it's 73 vs 60 - edge to Hellhammer. vs a Typhon its 72 vs 64 - edge to Typhon. And this makes perfect sense. The HH will perform better where the Typhon's AP5 is wasted - the Typhon has to pay for that after all. Having 7 BS3 (4.7) shots is reasonably close to 10.5 BS4 (5.25) shots.







The Hellhammer cannon is worth 20 points more than the BB. Since the HH is roughly equal to the Dreadhammer it stands to reason that they should come in at the same cost. The Dreadhammer is 48", but it has to stay stationary. Hellhammer is 36", but it can move and shoot without penalty so no real difference there. Previously I stated the BBC should be between 120 and 180.

It's hard to know what the cannons are worth since all those big weapons are built into the base cost and the only other option is FW points, which have been pretty unreliable. The closest thing is a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon. A regular BC hits on 4+ and is 22 points. A twin of such a weapon would be 44 points. The RFBC hits on a 3+, but I think it needs a point drop, because there is no way it is more than twice as good as a (twin) BC. A hellhammer is substantially better than a triple BC if it were to exist.


Let's compare the Hellhammer to a 9 Battle Cannons (198 points) and a 5 Demolisher Cannons (200 points), and 10 Lascannons (200 points) - all at BS4.

The 1 to 3 turn kill rate is as follows:

BC - 98% DC - 38% LC - 63% HH - 73%

And the chart. Battle Cannon busting it's way to the top. It's a gun that doesn't have a lot of alternate mounting options so to take 9 of them is pretty exorbitant - it could perhaps be considered undercosted. Lascannons on the other hand are ubiquitous. The Demolisher Cannon under performs here likely due to the ability to increase it's shots against larger units.



This places the HH around 210 points. With the Dreadhammer being similar in performance it too should be 210. In the previous thread I has costed it at 225. At 210 the base cost of the HH/BB chassis is 200 points. The Typhon was stated to be twice as durable to common weapons placing it's cost at 400 (I had previously rough it in at 480). The total cost of a Typhon should technically be 610 points or about 110 cheaper than current. But this all really depends how they value the weapons. Clearly the Battle Cannon has some sort of discount likely for being a main cannon. Does the HH have that as well?

A Land Raider is 239 points. If we assume that is the correct price and that a Typhon is 150% of that we're at 360 points. It isn't a stretch to consider the titan abilities and T9 take it to 400 points and beyond.

So GW could be off by 50 or 100 points, but they're in the ball park, because even while the HH cannon performs as well the Typhon is a tough SOB.

Really not sold on some of the CA Missions.

This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?

You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?

Wut?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Really not sold on some of the CA Missions.

This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?

You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?

Wut?

Are you talking about the narrative mission Last Stand?

Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Really not sold on some of the CA Missions.

This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?

You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?

Wut?

Are you talking about the narrative mission Last Stand?

Urgh.

In narrative Forlorn Hope: the banner, that can be picked up by others after the bearer is slain, needs to be planted and stays thus even if the bearer is slain until picked up. And there is no need for it to be that way for two turns anyway, just at the end of the game: the two turn limit ends the game before it would normally end, as the attacker clearly has shown their dominance. How about protecting the VERY IMPORTANT banner with other units while that happens, as any single unit can indeed be blown off the table?

In narrative Last Stand: three infantry squads that can freely start the game in bunkers and forts the enemy has to destroy before even touching them. sarcasm/ Gee, eating through 40-60 T9 wounds with 3+ save sounds like a piece of cake in my first turn. With whatever amount of troops we decided to bring that evening, which could just as well be like a 1000 points worth. Yeah, total train wreck. /sarcasm

How hard can it be to actually read the missions before complaining?

Daedalus81 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
The previous durability valuations still stand obviously.

To avoid completely derailing this thread let’s take it over to your other linked one.