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 most people will be comparing them based on similar units to them, such as Leman Russ variants compared to something like a Predator. Either that, or MEQ's and how effective they are at taking them out, since MEQ's are far and away the most common army found in the game, competitive or not.

It's pretty subjective though - while you find many objectively better units, people compare them on different levels to different things, so getting a straight answer is a bit difficult

I thought most people have established that power per unit is established based on whatever meta you're surrounded by; it just happens that most metas share something in common based on units and codexes that fair the best most of the time, and how they fair going against MEQ's, the most popular armies in probably 99% of 40k gaming communities, competitive meta or not. I think most people assume that the meta we compare by is whatever is most agreed on globally, which is currently SM, Eldar and Tau at the top of the spectrum.

I think you're overshooting the point slightly Traditio; a Wraithknight is almost double the value of a standard Leman Russ Battle Tank, so comparison between them is silly by anyone's standards. It's more along the lines of people looking at top tier armies and their units, looking at theirs and saying "these two have similar values/battlefield roles, yet one is objectively better than the other. Why?".

People compare to the competitive armies because that is usually what most people are playing, at least in a competitive meta. If you aren't part of a competitive meta, chances are not a single word of this matters to you.

I've always considered Leman Russ squads to be thematic to what IG are all about, but in terms of a game it can skewer people who don't have tailored lists to deal with them all at once. Unbound doesn't help this much either.

40K is just a mess in terms of it's gameplay, balance, meta, organisation and things that make it a fun game for all parties. Can't we all agree on this after years of discussion and put it to bed? No discussion about balance, unit hot or not, or why x current meta exists has ever produced anything we can work on other than "you have 3 options; play in a different environment, play with your mates and house rules, or don't play at all"

G.A

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
It is an oft repeated axiom of mine, which should be seen as self-evidently true, that every balance claim is relative.

And so what if it is? Do you actually have a point with this poll, or are you just posting polls for the sake of posting polls?

I think the point of the poll is for him to see where others compare a certain unit to, but he's kinda answered his own question here I think on the accuracy of said comparison. At least from his viewpoint.

As a poll though, it seems pretty narrow, and I couldn't answer it with what I justified in my posts. Does this make me a troll guys? I think it does

Ashiraya wrote:A looted wagon is not a battlewagon, Melly.

The boomwagon (looted wagon with boomgun) has similar role to the LRBT really. No transport, similar weapon.

Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.

Traditio wrote:Duly noted. How about a looted wagon? Would you prefer the looted wagon over the LRBT?

I don't think anyone would prefer the Looted Wagon if they had the choice; the LRBT has better armour, better crew and better hull mounts as well as the option for sponsons, though sponsons are a bit too pricey for what you can often do with them.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Also the Looted Wagon has a 1/6 chance every turn to move at top speed without your consent and be unable to shoot the Boomgun.

This too - somehow I forgot to write that even though I was thinking about it

Good job G.A

 Ashiraya wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.

No, not identical, just similar. Specifically, the Ork weapon is 24".

No, I do not have the new Ork codex, nor have I read it. I only have the 4th edition one. But GW does not change this kind of thing in this kind of codex.

Apparently we're both wrong to an extent the datasheet for their use in 7th (they weren't put in the codex at launch) states that they can only take a Killkannon, which is the thing that's mounted on Battlewagons - S7, AP3, 5" blast, 24".

So now they're even worse But I guess it is a hell of a lot cheaper than an LRBT, and it can now hold onto its transport capacity, so I could potentially see them being taken over an LRBT.

You still only have front armour 11, and "Don't Press Dat" makes a return