Switch Theme:

Fixing the point costs on leman russ sponsons and hull weapon  [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
Regular Dakkanaut




Pretty simple, make it so tanks (tank commanders) with BS 3 pay 15 points as normal for a heavy bolter etc, and then BS 4 tanks only pay 10 points for said heavy bolter, just like it is with infantry units with BS 3/ and BS 4
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Seems reasonable.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Same goes for Pask, but you should adjust the basic price if you want to do it.

Knight Commander Pask equipped with: vanquisher battle cannon.
Unit size: 1 model
Unit cost: 160 pts
• Augur array 5
• Battle cannon 30
• Demolisher cannon 30
• Dozer blade 5
• Executioner plasma cannon 30
• Exterminator autocannon 10
• Heavy bolter 20
• Heavy flamer 10
• Heavy stubber 4
• Hunter-killer missile 10
• Lascannon 30
• Multi-melta 40
• Plasma cannon 30
• Punisher gatling cannon 40
• Storm bolter 4
• Track guards 5
• Eradicator nova cannon 10

Tank Commander equipped with: vanquisher battle cannon.
Unit size: 1 model
Unit cost: 150 pts
• Augur array 5
• Battle cannon 20
• Demolisher cannon 20
• Dozer blade 5
• Executioner plasma cannon 25
• Exterminator autocannon 7
• Heavy bolter 15
• Heavy flamer 10
• Heavy stubber 3
• Hunter-killer missile 7
• Lascannon 20
• Multi-melta 30
• Plasma cannon 25
• Punisher gatling cannon 30
• Storm bolter 3
• Track guards 5
• Eradicator nova cannon 7

Leman Russ Battle Tank equipped with: vanquisher battle cannon.
Unit size: 1-3 models
Unit cost: 120 pts/model
• Augur array 5
• Battle cannon 15
• Demolisher cannon 15
• Dozer blade 5
• Executioner plasma cannon 10
• Exterminator autocannon 5
• Heavy bolter 10
• Heavy flamer 10
• Heavy stubber 2
• Hunter-killer missile 5
• Lascannon 15
• Multi-melta 20
• Plasma cannon 10
• Punisher gatling cannon 20
• Storm bolter 2
• Track guards 5
• Eradicator nova cannon 5

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/02/11 08:09:56


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I wasnt even thinking of adjusting the turret weapon price, but it does make alot of sense
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Pask upgrade should cost 10pts per weapon on your tank.

Dont get sponsons? Pask only costs 20pts

With sponsons, he costs 40pts.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Gainesville, VA

Sounds good to me. Would separate the LRBT from the TCs a bit more if their guns were cheaper, as they are indeed less effective, due to lower BS.

Still doesn't solve the orders problem, but definitely a worthwhile and sensible change really.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




bat702 wrote:
Pretty simple, make it so tanks (tank commanders) with BS 3 pay 15 points as normal for a heavy bolter etc, and then BS 4 tanks only pay 10 points for said heavy bolter, just like it is with infantry units with BS 3/ and BS 4

Then....why not just make this 100× simpler and add 10 more points to the Tank Commander cost? That's all you're doing and it's less to write.

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.
 
   
Made in de
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






The difference would be that a TC without sponsons would be 10 points cheaper compared to the variant with different costs on sponson weapons.

On topic: while I respect the intention, I would prefer the vehicle weapons to stay one price for all vehicles and the better BS be included in the base cost. But that is personal preference.

On the proposition on different turret weapon costs: It would definitly be nice if the Exterminator would not be the second most expensive variant.

~5600 build and painted 
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Whether pts should be baked in raises the question of why you even have weapon options and costs if most of them are overcosted or undercosted by a huge margin. It means Timmy has to rip the flamers off his Pask to install meltas instead and/or that meltas are too overcosted on a regular Russ. Same as PL.
 Eihnlazer wrote:
Pask upgrade should cost 10pts per weapon on your tank.

Dont get sponsons? Pask only costs 20pts

With sponsons, he costs 40pts.

Pask has 100% more firepower, how does a 20% pts increase make sense?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/10 15:14:33


 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Because points aren't just about firepower, they're wrapped in durability and all sorts as well.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because points aren't just about firepower, they're wrapped in durability and all sorts as well.

Which is why points should be increased by about 40% of what the increase is in terms of offence or defence, 50% to be on the safe side. Take two units with 10 models, every model kills 0,2 models each round. Perfectly even. Make one of them take half damage and you need to have 14 vs 10 to balance out the increased defence. If you double damage and take half damage you will need 20 vs 10 to even things out. If you increase pts cost by only 20% then the bigger the model is the more pts efficient it will be, to the point where Guardsmen will be relatively useless at doing damage and Knights ought to destroy an army per turn if you follow the logic to its conclusion of every 100% increase in firepower only coming with a 20% increase in pts cost.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/10 15:37:16


 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

That comparison only works in the relatively narrow vacuum that you have defined.

But as an idea I prefer commanders paying different points for guns than regular 'Russes, as they get different value out of the guns.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.

Well they have atleast cut 15 points base of a russ so that's a possitive. I get that may not be enough externally but right now the points of a Comander vrs heavy support russ are way out of balance.

The problem is do you balance one option externally or try and actually do internal balance then adjust the sliding scale against hmthe outside codex aimpoint?
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.

I'll reduce my suggested pts increase for demolishers by 10 pts, that'll make the largest possible pts increase for Tank Commanders 2 pts. Would you agree that Guard are bad primarily because of missions and undercosted melta weapons in the meta?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/11 08:10:17


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Ice_can wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.

Well they have atleast cut 15 points base of a russ so that's a possitive. I get that may not be enough externally but right now the points of a Comander vrs heavy support russ are way out of balance.

The problem is do you balance one option externally or try and actually do internal balance then adjust the sliding scale against hmthe outside codex aimpoint?

I'd leave the balance for both exactly where it is and test them at a 20 point reduction to the base tank.

 vict0988 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.

I'll reduce my suggested pts increase for demolishers by 10 pts, that'll make the largest possible pts increase for Tank Commanders 2 pts. Would you agree that Guard are bad primarily because of missions and undercosted melta weapons in the meta?

Edit: I realised I forgot to account for the heavy bolter previously being free.

The Russ being correctly costed won't fix IG, that will take an entire codex update to attempt. That said, they're also so bad at present that even the 'broken' commanders need buffs not nerfs. If you get their tanks aggressively priced enough maybe you could see 9 Russ lists with 3 commanders running as the IG version of a Nid monster mash list.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/10 22:47:46


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.


The idea was to reduce the point cost for normal leman russes
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

bat702 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.


The idea was to reduce the point cost for normal leman russes

Doesn't that just leave the Tank Commanders over-priced then? If either option was actually good I could see these adjustments making sense but as is, you could easily cut their points by 20 per tank still have them be meh on the table.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
bat702 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.


The idea was to reduce the point cost for normal leman russes

Doesn't that just leave the Tank Commanders over-priced then? If either option was actually good I could see these adjustments making sense but as is, you could easily cut their points by 20 per tank still have them be meh on the table.


I'm not super familiar with guard, so I might be missing something. I believe the main point here is to acknowledge that a given gun on a TC is more powerful than that same gun on a normal LR. So assuming we were to get a new guard codex tomorrow that makes the faction as a whole roughly as powerful as other factions, wouldn't it make sense for the TC to pay slightly more for his sponsons than the normal LR? With both tanks being reasonable for their points?

IIRC, the sponsons are optional, so baking the extra cost into the base cost of both tanks would mean the TC was effectively paying for better BS on guns that it might not even be equipped with.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
bat702 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.


The idea was to reduce the point cost for normal leman russes

Doesn't that just leave the Tank Commanders over-priced then? If either option was actually good I could see these adjustments making sense but as is, you could easily cut their points by 20 per tank still have them be meh on the table.


I'm not super familiar with guard, so I might be missing something. I believe the main point here is to acknowledge that a given gun on a TC is more powerful than that same gun on a normal LR. So assuming we were to get a new guard codex tomorrow that makes the faction as a whole roughly as powerful as other factions, wouldn't it make sense for the TC to pay slightly more for his sponsons than the normal LR? With both tanks being reasonable for their points?

IIRC, the sponsons are optional, so baking the extra cost into the base cost of both tanks would mean the TC was effectively paying for better BS on guns that it might not even be equipped with.

That assumes that Russes are good in the new codex and that TCs are OP, that the codex has TCs in the same form as they are currently, and that they don't have a different points cost from a base LR to make different sponson costs a big deal.
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

I think it's entirely possible to consider the theoretical aspect of whether or not tank commanders should pay different points for weapons than regular 'Russes, without having to consider the practical aspect of how balanced the tanks are.

I think tank commanders definitely should pay different points for their weapons, as they get different value out of them.

I also think all variants of 'Russes are underpowered at the moment and need a buff. When this buff is delivered, it should come hand in hand with the above suggestion, as nothing about the above precludes proper balance.
Indeed, as pointed out by Wyldhunt if the value of better weapons was represented in the base cost of the TC, they'd be paying more for weapons they're not even using if they go sans-sponsons.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






 Canadian 5th wrote:
Spoiler:
Wyldhunt wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
bat702 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the idea here to drag Tank Commanders down to normal Russ levels of bad? If so, that seems like a poor idea when the guard codex already sucks.


The idea was to reduce the point cost for normal leman russes

Doesn't that just leave the Tank Commanders over-priced then? If either option was actually good I could see these adjustments making sense but as is, you could easily cut their points by 20 per tank still have them be meh on the table.


I'm not super familiar with guard, so I might be missing something. I believe the main point here is to acknowledge that a given gun on a TC is more powerful than that same gun on a normal LR. So assuming we were to get a new guard codex tomorrow that makes the faction as a whole roughly as powerful as other factions, wouldn't it make sense for the TC to pay slightly more for his sponsons than the normal LR? With both tanks being reasonable for their points?

IIRC, the sponsons are optional, so baking the extra cost into the base cost of both tanks would mean the TC was effectively paying for better BS on guns that it might not even be equipped with.

That assumes that Russes are good in the new codex and that TCs are OP, that the codex has TCs in the same form as they are currently, and that they don't have a different points cost from a base LR to make different sponson costs a big deal.

No, your suggestion assumes that Leman Russes are all equal which is silly. It's more important that you can be happy with however you modelled your tank than it is important that AM win tournaments.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Once again, this proposed rule is stand alone from all other aspects of balance changes, If anything its a proposed buff to regular tanks. I feel that when the guard codex does drop (probably in 2025) they will have to address big issues with leman russes and their TC counterparts that would go beyond just lowing 5 pts per weapon on the regular russ variant
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm not super familiar with guard, so I might be missing something. I believe the main point here is to acknowledge that a given gun on a TC is more powerful than that same gun on a normal LR. So assuming we were to get a new guard codex tomorrow that makes the faction as a whole roughly as powerful as other factions, wouldn't it make sense for the TC to pay slightly more for his sponsons than the normal LR? With both tanks being reasonable for their points?

IIRC, the sponsons are optional, so baking the extra cost into the base cost of both tanks would mean the TC was effectively paying for better BS on guns that it might not even be equipped with.

That assumes that Russes are good in the new codex and that TCs are OP, that the codex has TCs in the same form as they are currently, and that they don't have a different points cost from a base LR to make different sponson costs a big deal.


Your response really makes me feel like I'm missing something.

* Assuming that russes are good in the new codex - Sure. We're talking about making a change for the sake of balance, so if the units in question are wildly under or overpowered in the first place, discussing points changes for a subset of those units' options is a bit moot. I assume your main point here is basically, "Russes and TCs are underpowered right now, so there's no need to make any changes that don't buff them"?

* That the codex has TCs in the same form as now - I mean. Yes. Obviously if tank commanders no longer exist or are so dramatically different that they're basically a different unit, then discussing how to change their sponson costs wouldn't be relevant at that point. Talking about how to improve fire dragons would be pretty pointless too if they turn out to be a winged melee unit in the next eldar codex instead of a shooty ground unit.

* That TCs are OP - You lost me here. The basic premise is that weapon options should be priced based on how effective they are. They're more effective on some platforms than others, thus why we've seen some guns cost less on a guardsman than on a scion. As I understand it, the OP is basically just suggesting we carry over that same principle to other units. Even if TCs and LRs are both within a reasonable band of efficiency (neither overpowered nor underpowered), I'd still find it reasonable for the less efficient shooting platform to pay fewer points for its guns.

* that they don't have a different points cost from a base LR to make different sponson costs a big deal. - The issue here is that the sponsons are optional. Just throwing around numbers here, but let's assume that the superior efficiency of a TC is worth 5 points per sponson com pared to a normal LR. If you were to bake that extra cost into the TCs base price and assume that it would want to take two sponson weapons, then you'd be talking about a 10 point increase to the base price. However, if the TC opted to not take sponsons, then you've functionally charged it points for a benefit it doesn't actually have.

If you instead make each sponson cost 5 points more when taken by a TC, then you ONLY charge it those 10 extra points when it actually takes a pair of sponson weapons. And that, as I understand it, is the OP's proposal.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
* Assuming that russes are good in the new codex - Sure. We're talking about making a change for the sake of balance, so if the units in question are wildly under or overpowered in the first place, discussing points changes for a subset of those units' options is a bit moot. I assume your main point here is basically, "Russes and TCs are underpowered right now, so there's no need to make any changes that don't buff them"?

Yes, this is my main point.

* That TCs are OP - You lost me here. The basic premise is that weapon options should be priced based on how effective they are. They're more effective on some platforms than others, thus why we've seen some guns cost less on a guardsman than on a scion. As I understand it, the OP is basically just suggesting we carry over that same principle to other units. Even if TCs and LRs are both within a reasonable band of efficiency (neither overpowered nor underpowered), I'd still find it reasonable for the less efficient shooting platform to pay fewer points for its guns.

Sergeant Chronus doesn't do any of this and he can command 8 different vehicles in any of their legal load-outs. So why is nobody talking about him when they are happy for changes around Russes and TCs?

* that they don't have a different points cost from a base LR to make different sponson costs a big deal. - The issue here is that the sponsons are optional. Just throwing around numbers here, but let's assume that the superior efficiency of a TC is worth 5 points per sponson com pared to a normal LR. If you were to bake that extra cost into the TCs base price and assume that it would want to take two sponson weapons, then you'd be talking about a 10 point increase to the base price. However, if the TC opted to not take sponsons, then you've functionally charged it points for a benefit it doesn't actually have.

Sgt. Chronus is +35 pts for a non-degrading BS 2+ on any Rhino, Razorback, Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind, Hunter, Stalker, or Land Raider. I rest my case.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
* Assuming that russes are good in the new codex - Sure. We're talking about making a change for the sake of balance, so if the units in question are wildly under or overpowered in the first place, discussing points changes for a subset of those units' options is a bit moot. I assume your main point here is basically, "Russes and TCs are underpowered right now, so there's no need to make any changes that don't buff them"?

Yes, this is my main point.

I mean, fair enough. At least, fair enough regarding this specific pair of units at this specific point in time. "The cost of wargear should reflect how efficient it is on a given platform," seems like a pretty good design goal to aim for in general though, no?


Sergeant Chronus doesn't do any of this and he can command 8 different vehicles in any of their legal load-outs. So why is nobody talking about him when they are happy for changes around Russes and TCs?



Sgt. Chronus is +35 pts for a non-degrading BS 2+ on any Rhino, Razorback, Predator, Vindicator, Whirlwind, Hunter, Stalker, or Land Raider. I rest my case.


I don't hear anyone zealously fighting for Chronus to go unchanged. The same design principles should, ideally, probably apply to him too. I'm not familiar with exactly how he's being handled at the moment, but my inclination would be to give him a CP or points cost reflecting whatever non-BS-related rules he has, and then to also include a line saying, "Increase the cost of weapons on Chronus's tank by X points in matched play games." Pretty much everything in the marine 'dex is BS 3+, so figuring out the value of X shouldn't be terribly difficult.

This was one of the advantages of having all the weapon options listed on a given unit's datasheet back in the day. You could price wargear based on the unit that was taking it rather than trying for a one-size-fits-all approach in the back of the book.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/11 21:05:22


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, fair enough. At least, fair enough regarding this specific pair of units at this specific point in time. "The cost of wargear should reflect how efficient it is on a given platform," seems like a pretty good design goal to aim for in general though, no?

Are we also going to add a tax to buffing units and say that weapon options x, y, & z cost +p points if you take HQ A and +q points if you take HQ AB because these hypothetical HQs allow rerolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound respectively and could potentially buff those weapons?

This was one of the advantages of having all the weapon options listed on a given unit's datasheet back in the day. You could price wargear based on the unit that was taking it rather than trying for a one-size-fits-all approach in the back of the book.

There also weren't auras, litanies, stratagems, relics, and anything else I may have missed either. So your comparison falls flat unless you also plan to balance all of that at which point you've committed to rewriting the entire edition and every codex.
   
Made in dk
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver






Chronus isn't a key unit or related to any key units, he's just a little gimmick that one SM chapter gets. I think he should cost 5ish pts + 15ish% of the vehicle's cost including wargear. It doesn't fit with 9th's way of costing units though. I think making him cost 10 (Rhino), 20 (Razorback), 30 (Predator), 30 (Vindicator), 25 (Whirlwind), 25 (Hunter), 25 (Stalker) or 40 (Land Raider) would be a good change.

Buffing units are meant to be better or worse depending on how much value they buff. Would you say that Tank Commanders are meant to be given full complement of weapons and the best weapons available? Do you think GW ought to signal this to their players? Like "hey don't put heavy flamers on your Tank Commanders" or something? Why even have the option of Vanquisher Tank Commanders with heavy flamer?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
I mean, fair enough. At least, fair enough regarding this specific pair of units at this specific point in time. "The cost of wargear should reflect how efficient it is on a given platform," seems like a pretty good design goal to aim for in general though, no?

Are we also going to add a tax to buffing units and say that weapon options x, y, & z cost +p points if you take HQ A and +q points if you take HQ AB because these hypothetical HQs allow rerolling 1's to hit and 1's to wound respectively and could potentially buff those weapons?

If you can think of a way to determine which guns in a given army are going to be benefitting from those buffs, then I'd be all for it. But as you know, figuring out how many units of what points cost are going to be standing within 6" of a captain for however many turns of a game is pretty tricky to predict. So the designers presumably just eyeball how many extra points the buffing unit should cost for lack of a better metric.

That's actually one of the reasons I support the idea of replacing most buff auras with targeted buffs like the necron MWBD. While you won't be able to know exactly which units those buffs will end up applied to in a given game, you can at least know how many units will benefit from the buff and make an educated guess as to those units' costs.

This was one of the advantages of having all the weapon options listed on a given unit's datasheet back in the day. You could price wargear based on the unit that was taking it rather than trying for a one-size-fits-all approach in the back of the book.

There also weren't auras, litanies, stratagems, relics, and anything else I may have missed either. So your comparison falls flat unless you also plan to balance all of that at which point you've committed to rewriting the entire edition and every codex.

I mean, not really. We're mostly just talking about a difference in Ballistics Skill, right? A heavy bolter on a tank commander will average 2 hits in a vacuum while a normal russ will only average 1.5. That differences is presumably worth some number of points unless there is no sponson for the higher BS to benefit. A heavy bolter on a TC is a slightly different weapon than a heavy bolter on a russ. So let's just price them accordingly.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that we increase the cost of sponsons to reflect the tank orders rule. Tank orders, like many buffing rules, can end up applying to all sorts of targets and not necessarily to the weapons on the tank commander. It wouldn't make sense to increase the cost of a TC's sponsons to reflect a bonus he may or may not be giving himself, for instance; that would just encourage people to take a naked TC to save points and apply his buffs to another tank. The base cost of a tank commander should reflect an "eyeballed" value for the tank orders special rule just like a chaplain's base cost presumably reflects his litanies.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 vict0988 wrote:
Chronus isn't a key unit or related to any key units, he's just a little gimmick that one SM chapter gets. I think he should cost 5ish pts + 15ish% of the vehicle's cost including wargear. It doesn't fit with 9th's way of costing units though. I think making him cost 10 (Rhino), 20 (Razorback), 30 (Predator), 30 (Vindicator), 25 (Whirlwind), 25 (Hunter), 25 (Stalker) or 40 (Land Raider) would be a good change.

Yes, let's make Land Raiders even worse by adding even more of a tax to them this will clearly fix the issues with 9e...

Would you say that Tank Commanders are meant to be given full complement of weapons and the best weapons available?

Yes, the same way the every unit should be meant to take their best loadout and leave everything else to the casual and fluffy bunny crowds.

Do you think GW ought to signal this to their players? Like "hey don't put heavy flamers on your Tank Commanders" or something? Why even have the option of Vanquisher Tank Commanders with heavy flamer?

No, players shouldn't need to be handheld through building their army and if they make a wrong choice on weapon options they've learned two valuable lessons:

1) Magnetize everything.
2) Look for unit synergies.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: