New Ork Codex Stompa - How many points is it REALLY worth?

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.

**Thornz**

I’m an avid Ork fan and have been collecting them on and off since 2nd edition. I love Ork walkers in particular and have been tremendously disappointed with the Ork release with the re-pointing of the Stompa to 920!

From all the educated folks of the internet they all estimate between 550-720, How many points do you think it is actually worth?

**ccs**

Is it comparable to a Knight?

If so, as I don't find a single knight much of a challenge, I'll say 400.

**Ratius**

Not sure of all the Knight points but somewhere in the region of the big Castellan thingy I feel. So 600ish?

**Blackie**

450 points at most. It's not even remotely as effective as a Knight so that's its real value.

To be 600ish it needs to gain an invuln and double its offensive output.

**Grimskul**

Yeah, 450 sounds about right. Maybe 500 if they allow it to keep its Klan kultur without being in a supreme command detachment or super heavy detachment. When it's more cost efficient to bring more morkanauts/gorkanauts you know it has a problem.

**r_squared**

I don't think it could be less than 650 tbh, otherwise you'd start seeing 2 in 2000 point armies, lower than 500 points and a superheavy auxiliary detachment of 3 stompas could easily become a reality. No one really wants that surely?

I put one in a supreme command detachment with Bad Moons kulture, and shoot twice strat combined with more dakka was utter filth. I conceded that, in this particular circumstance, that it'd be nearly worth its points at 920.

However, at lower than 600 points, if you can apply kultures and strategems, I feel that it would be op. Without them, then I'd consider 600 points about right.

Otherwise about 700 points for me, but only with kultures.

**crzylgs**

The number of votes in the 600-920 categories is alarming, would love to know how many of these people have looked at the stats of it's weapons and its survivability (especially the lack of built in invuln... So add points for KFF Mek and then still only have an invuln vs Shooting)

I was tied between 400-450. Voted 450 to take in to account that it's points shouldn't purely be taken in a vacuum but also in consideration of its position in the Ork roster.

Would have been useful if the OP included some math-hammer and comparisons to knights or similar models. Then I think the voting would be much more aggregated between the 400-500 region.

**lolman1c**

crzylgs wrote:
The number of votes in the 600-920 categories is alarming, would love to know how many of these people have looked at the stats of it's weapons and its survivability (especially the lack of built in invuln... So add points for KFF Mek and then still only have an invuln vs Shooting)

I was tied between 400-450. Voted 450 to take in to account that it's points shouldn't purely be taken in a vacuum but also in consideration of its position in the Ork roster.

Would have been useful if the OP included some math-hammer and comparisons to knights or similar models. Then I think the voting would be much more aggregated between the 400-500 region.

I voted 600 because whenever I say 400 I get told i'm crazy and it would be OP. (honestly for 900pts I'd expect at least a 4+ invuln or some kind of special rule like void shields.... hell ramshackle would have even been a bonus).

**Lilrys**

Well based on some quick napkin math, the unbuffed stompa will more or less go toe to toe with a unbuffed Castellan. So 600 seems about right.

this is based on the assumptions that:
A: The Castellan is underpointed due to it's acces to insane buffs, but where it should be without.
B: The stompa shouldn't be an auto pick
C: It's better to nerf over performing units and buff under towards the center. then it is to buff under performing units to the level of the over performing.

**Weazel**

400 points for a 40W distraction carnifex? Hell no, that would make it an autoinclude in any list. 600 points would probably be just about right. Not a top table competitive price but would make it an OK pick in a casual game. FWIW I think that the Castellan is vastly underpriced, which surely causes a bias in these answers.

**Kaiyanwang**

r_squared wrote:
I don't think it could be less than 650 tbh, otherwise you'd start seeing 2 in 2000 point armies, lower than 500 points and a superheavy auxiliary detachment of 3 stompas could easily become a reality. No one really wants that surely?

I put one in a supreme command detachment with Bad Moons kulture, and shoot twice strat combined with more dakka was utter filth. I conceded that, in this particular circumstance, that it'd be nearly worth its points at 920.

However, at lower than 600 points, if you can apply kultures and strategems, I feel that it would be op. Without them, then I'd consider 600 points about right.

Otherwise about 700 points for me, but only with kultures.

I think that one should estimate the point cost of a model only in base of its efficiency, not in base of how easy is to spam it.
If spamming is an issue, it means that we still (unsurprisingly) have basic issues in the way the force organization is designed.
550.

**Kap'n Krump**

I think a 30% price cut, in addition to the buffs it got in the new dex, would make it........decent.

its degradation table is still an embarrassment though.

**Nature's Minister**

600 seems good. Anyone say8ng otherwise is comparing vs the castellan which is undercosted

**G00fySmiley**

500 as is, 600 if they gave it a damn inv save. current problem is while 40 wounds is nice most of the things shooting at it completely ignore its armor and do d6 damage. meaning 3.5 wounds per hit. with its wound track being 4 steps after 3 hits on average you are moving impaired. I have tried it a few tiems to not just knock it and not try it, even put toe to toe with a castellan and it lost handily. as it gets hit it slwos down and never manages to get into close combat where it wants to be. the guns let you roll a lot of dice to get mayeb a few wounds.

**Trimarius**

Nature's Minister wrote:
600 seems good. Anyone say8ng otherwise is comparing vs the castellan which is undercosted

The problem isn't the castellan, it's House Raven's strat, Cawl's Wrath, the 4++ warlord trait, and Rotate Ion Shields in combination that are the problem. With all those on a single model that's being fed CP by the IG brigade, it becomes nutty. Without those it's just another big target that's pretty good at shooting but isn't anything worth writing home about.

Chaos castellans aren't exactly tearing the scene apart, are they? They're the same basic model, they just don't have access to those four force multipliers. Castellans in a pure knight army are good, but not insane.

If aux knights had to be unaligned freeblades or there was some other cap on stacking upgrades in a non-IK army (cp locking would work), you'd see them falling out of the meta.

With that in mind, I'd be happy to pay 500 for a stompa, just so that I'd get the chance to actually field the beast. It's not terribly more durable, shooty, or killy than one questoris, but it does pack some of each and has a decent transport capacity (though honestly I wish it didn't and was cheaper or better).

**nareik**

They went from being worth 400 but costing 1000 to being worth 600 costing 900.

An improvement of 300 points; still not quite there yet though!

(this is uninformed conjecture; I've never played a game with a Stompa).

**Daedalus81**

lolman1c wrote:
crzylgs wrote:
The number of votes in the 600-920 categories is alarming, would love to know how many of these people have looked at the stats of it's weapons and its survivability (especially the lack of built in invuln... So add points for KFF Mek and then still only have an invuln vs Shooting)

I was tied between 400-450. Voted 450 to take in to account that it's points shouldn't purely be taken in a vacuum but also in consideration of its position in the Ork roster.

Would have been useful if the OP included some math-hammer and comparisons to knights or similar models. Then I think the voting would be much more aggregated between the 400-500 region.

I voted 600 because whenever I say 400 I get told i'm crazy and it would be OP. (honestly for 900pts I'd expect at least a 4+ invuln or some kind of special rule like void shields.... hell ramshackle would have even been a bonus).

Because it would be. A KFF is trivial to add and covers other models at the same time.

I mean seriously folks. At 400 points you could have 3, 90 boyz, 500 points left over.

Anyone suggesting that price needs to never offer balance suggestions ever again. Ever.

**G00fySmiley**

Daedalus81 wrote:
lolman1c wrote:
crzylgs wrote:
The number of votes in the 600-920 categories is alarming, would love to know how many of these people have looked at the stats of it's weapons and its survivability (especially the lack of built in invuln... So add points for KFF Mek and then still only have an invuln vs Shooting)

I was tied between 400-450. Voted 450 to take in to account that it's points shouldn't purely be taken in a vacuum but also in consideration of its position in the Ork roster.

Would have been useful if the OP included some math-hammer and comparisons to knights or similar models. Then I think the voting would be much more aggregated between the 400-500 region.

I voted 600 because whenever I say 400 I get told i'm crazy and it would be OP. (honestly for 900pts I'd expect at least a 4+ invuln or some kind of special rule like void shields.... hell ramshackle would have even been a bonus).

Because it would be. A KFF is trivial to add and covers other models at the same time.

I mean seriously folks. At 400 points you could have 3, 90 boyz, 500 points left over.

Anyone suggesting that price needs to never offer balance suggestions ever again. Ever.

while i agree 400 is to much I disagree on the ease of getting kff, it has to be whole within that 9 inches. now you could embark the kff mek in the stompa to just give it a 5++ but the only in codex way of doing for it in mega armor for 119 points (some tournaments and clubs say codex only units) or 75 points for the kff on a big mek . in either case you are basically paying that to buff just the stompa as you likely will just embark the big mek. unless they follow the stompa which they cannot keep up with then they cannot try and repair it due to being embarked. I think it woudl be more orky to give it a 5+ramshackle for ~600 points shrugs or 6+ ramshakle for 550

**lolman1c**

Daedalus81 wrote:
lolman1c wrote:
crzylgs wrote:
The number of votes in the 600-920 categories is alarming, would love to know how many of these people have looked at the stats of it's weapons and its survivability (especially the lack of built in invuln... So add points for KFF Mek and then still only have an invuln vs Shooting)

I was tied between 400-450. Voted 450 to take in to account that it's points shouldn't purely be taken in a vacuum but also in consideration of its position in the Ork roster.

Would have been useful if the OP included some math-hammer and comparisons to knights or similar models. Then I think the voting would be much more aggregated between the 400-500 region.

I voted 600 because whenever I say 400 I get told i'm crazy and it would be OP. (honestly for 900pts I'd expect at least a 4+ invuln or some kind of special rule like void shields.... hell ramshackle would have even been a bonus).

Because it would be. A KFF is trivial to add and covers other models at the same time.

I mean seriously folks. At 400 points you could have 3, 90 boyz, 500 points left over.

Anyone suggesting that price needs to never offer balance suggestions ever again. Ever.

Well I'm going to keep giving advice and the bets part is that you can;t stop me.

**Daedalus81**

lolman1c wrote:

Well I'm going to keep giving advice and the bets part is that you can;t stop me.

Curse youuuuu!

**Blackie**

With the current profile 450 points are fair, that price would make it viable but not auto take. I wouldn't bring one of them even at that price, because I hate expensive units and I only play lists where there aren't target priorities.

At 550-600 points the Stompa should have a 4+ invuln and BS4+, and maybe he shouldn't even degrade. Note that those 40W usually last 2 turns at most while doing very little damage with its firepower. 450 points of shooting ork units are absolutely more dangerous, and even more durable, than a Stompa.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Well, compared to a Baneblade:

The main gun has D6 damage vs 3 damage and has 1 better AP. The difference between S10 and S9 is pretty much irrelevant.

The secondary suite is better than that of a stock baneblade [~450], but weaker than that of a fully loaded baneblade [~600].

Both are offset by a poorer ballistic skill.

In survivability, the Stompa has +14 wounds.

In close quarters combat, the Stompa is far superior, no contest. Between much better WS, and having either more or stronger hits, it's not really a question.

I think it should be around or slightly higher than the cost of a fully kitted Baneblade, so probably around 600-700 points.

**Kap'n Krump**

nareik wrote:
They went from being worth 400 but costing 1000 to being worth 600 costing 900.

An improvement of 300 points; still not quite there yet though!

(this is uninformed conjecture; I've never played a game with a Stompa).

You're not far off in my opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

In close quarters combat, the Stompa is far superior, no contest. Between much better WS, and having either more or stronger hits, it's not really a question.

.

Bear in mind that stompa CC is kind of a joke. It degrades very quickly, and as it does, both attacks and WS go down. At its lowest tier, its like 3 attacks (which can split into 3 attacks each at lower AP/damage) @ WS6+, which probably isn't much better than baneblades'.

Come to think of it, I had a baneblade kill a (weakened) stompa in CC once. There's some IG stratagem that buffs a tank's WS, and the baneblade melee str/d/ap is surprisingly decent, all things considered.

So, yeah. A stompa's CC profile is nearly irrelevant, which is tragic.

**Thornz**

Stompa for 450 points would be ridiculous, it's significantly more powerful than a Knight Errant (most direct comparison). The 900+ points it costs now is too much for sure though, I think a fair price tag would be around the 650-700 points including wargear mark. Still, I wonder if a properly supported Stompa (Big Mek w/ KFF + Fixer Upperz, maybe on a bike?) can't be made worth it's current pricetag.

Is it? Knights are pretty much same survivability(knights have better degration table though so while comparable survivability knights are more efficient when damaged...) and about equal in h2h. Oh and knights generally shoot better...So let's see. Not tougher, not killier in h2h, loses gun fight. What's so good about stompa?

So, let's see then. I'm going to compare it to a Knight Errant because that's probably the closest comparison given the loadout of both:

Shooting: Errant has D6 Thermal Cannon + probably the 3-shot Stormspear Rocket Pod. Gonna leave the minor stuff like stubbers out. Stompa has 3D6 Deffkannon, probably a 6D6 Supa-Gatler and a D6 Suparokkit (or whatever it's called). Even with BS5+ that means a Stompa outshoots a Knight Errant. The comparison gets even more in favour of the Stompa when you realize the Stompa's BS doesn't degrade at all. Both have stratagems to increase their shooting output (although Knights are house-specific I thought). Stompa wins.

Melee: Stompa has A6 S20 AP-5 D6, Errant has A4 S12 AP-3 D6 or A4 S16 AP-4 D6 at the cost of -1 to hit. Stompa degrades much worse as it loses wounds though (it loses both A and WS, Knight only loses WS), so melee is about equal I'd say.

Survivability: Tough one to call given the load of variables that can potentially be at work here. Only thing that can be said is that the Stompa is significantly more resilient than the Knight against small arms fire by the simple virtue of having 16 more wounds unless the Knight has the Armor of the Sainted Ion which gives it 2+ armor. Anti-tank entirely depends on whether the Knight has the Ion Bulwark Warlord Trait and how many CP one is willing and able to spend on Rotate Ion Shields. I'd say that with the Ion Bulwark trait the Knight will be stronger against anti-tank. Without Stompa is slightly more resilient I think. Although the Stompa can also be supported by a KFF (costs points instead of CP) for 5++. All in all I can't point out a definitive winner here, although I think overall balance slightly favours the Stompa unless the Knight has a very specific build. Better against small arms fire, about equal AT but AT resilience heavily depends on builds on both sides.

All in all I think a Stompa is clearly more powerful than a Questoris class Knight, so I think a 650-700 point price tag is justified. I'm getting the feeling that maybe the Stompa might have been priced to be used in conjunction with the Tellyporta stratagem, that the developers later thought "Deepstriking a Stompa is too much", limited Tellyport to 20 PL but then forgot to shave off 200 points of the Stompa pricetag. That or GW just thinks "Well, we sell the model so it has to be in the codex but we think Stompa's don't belong in non-Apoc games so we're giving it a way too high pricetag".

This was some of the best discussion on the Ork Tactics Forum about Stompa costs

**tneva82**

G00fySmiley wrote:

while i agree 400 is to much I disagree on the ease of getting kff, it has to be whole within that 9 inches. now you could embark the kff mek in the stompa to just give it a 5++ but the only in codex way of doing for it in mega armor for 119 points (some tournaments and clubs say codex only units) or 75 points for the kff on a big mek . in either case you are basically paying that to buff just the stompa as you likely will just embark the big mek. unless they follow the stompa which they cannot keep up with then they cannot try and repair it due to being embarked. I think it woudl be more orky to give it a 5+ramshackle for ~600 points shrugs or 6+ ramshakle for 550

One thing about kff is what counts as fully within anyway? Just 2 dimensionally? Or is it bubble toward up as well? If up stompa is never fully within 9".

Yet another thing gw has failed to define properly

**Blackie**

Fully within means that at least a small part of the base (or the miniature's body if it doesn't have a base) is covered under the bubble. That's quite clear. The expression "fully within" is referred to units, not models, so single models can be covered just with a small part of the miniature but units with more bodies must have all their bases covered.

That's the meaning of the rule. Just a small part under the bubble and if the unit is made of multiple models each one of them should be at least partially covered.

**Thornz**

After all the votes were counted (146) the average was 607.32875

**Jidmah**

Which means it only costs about 150% of what its worth