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.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies.
I find many players, GW included, mistake this idea that a faction should have units that are mathematically more powerfull instead of thematically more powerfull.
One example. Imperial Guard should have the best tanks in the game. Should that means Leman Russes need to be mathematically better (Undercosted) than Space Marines tanks, Ork tanks, etc...? NO! That means Imperial Guard should be the ones with heavy tanks as baseline "troops" (Leman Russes), or ultra heavy tanks. But a Predator and a Leman Russ should be mathematically balanced, each one costed appropiately for what they can do.
The same with Tau. You balance Tau as a shooting army not giving them meele trops. But if you want them to have meele troops they should be balanced with other meele troops in the game, because if they pay a "Tau" tax, then they will be useless and people wouldn't use them, instead using just more shooting Tau units.
So with this, you don't end up with "Khorne has OP meele units because of course they are only meele and don't have magic, and Tzeentch has OP magic because they suck at meele, so lets mix both to have OP meele units and OP magic users", but with "Khorne has access to more meele units than anyone, with elite meele units as basic troops, so I can use some of those because they fit my strategy, not because they are mathematically just more efficient"
I hope I have explained myself good enough.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Ice_can wrote: Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Presumably because the Russ's battlecannon isn't actually double shooting. We can drop the Knight battlecannon to 22 points as soon as it hits on a 4+, drops the Knight's movement to 5" max, and only fires 1d6 in overwatch.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies. I find many players, GW included, mistake this idea that a faction should have units that are mathematically more powerfull instead of thematically more powerfull.
One example. Imperial Guard should have the best tanks in the game. Should that means Leman Russes need to be mathematically better (Undercosted) than Space Marines tanks, Ork tanks, etc...? NO! That means Imperial Guard should be the ones with heavy tanks as baseline "troops" (Leman Russes), or ultra heavy tanks. But a Predator and a Leman Russ should be mathematically balanced, each one costed appropiately for what they can do.
The same with Tau. You balance Tau as a shooting army not giving them meele trops. But if you want them to have meele troops they should be balanced with other meele troops in the game, because if they pay a "Tau" tax, then they will be useless and people wouldn't use them, instead using just more shooting Tau units.
So with this, you don't end up with "Khorne has OP meele units because of course they are only meele and don't have magic, and Tzeentch has OP magic because they suck at meele, so lets mix both to have OP meele units and OP magic users", but with "Khorne has access to more meele units than anyone, with elite meele units as basic troops, so I can use some of those because they fit my strategy, not because they are mathematically just more efficient" I hope I have explained myself good enough.
You have, but I disagree. If the answer to "who has the best tanks?" is "meh, whomever, they're all essentially the same once you take points costs into account" then you've made faction choice fairly irrelevant. "Who has the best Melee?" "Meh, who cares, World Eaters and Tau have equivalent melee capabilities for the points."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/23 20:22:26
That was what Auticus said when he designed his point system for AoS. People don't like for units to be balanced because people like to encounter the most mathematically powerfull stuff and use them, if not they find all of them the same
It wouldn't end up in "who cares". Because Tau wouldn't have the amount of meele units to have a proper meele force, just like Imperial Guard would be the faction with most tanks, that can face the most amount of enemy tipes, more versatiles, etc... So to the question "Who has the best tanks?" the answer would be "Most factions have functional tanks, but most of them can only be used as a support element, Imperial Guard has a great array of tanks, the heavier ones, and the ones with the bigger guns, that can face any kind of target"
What I'm saying is to make a Predator balanced agaisnt a Leman Russ. That means, for them to have an appropiate cost to the average damage, resilience, and sinergies with their own book, agaisnt their normal targets.
Is the same as saying that an Anti-infantry unit and an Anti-tank unit should be mathematically balanced, each one agaisnt his intended target. That does not means they need to be literally the same, or the choice between one and the other becomes irrelevant.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/23 20:31:02
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
Ice_can wrote: Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Presumably because the Russ's battlecannon isn't actually double shooting. We can drop the Knight battlecannon to 22 points as soon as it hits on a 4+, drops the Knight's movement to 5" max, and only fires 1d6 in overwatch.
So when are C9mmand tabks going to start paying 50pts a battlecannon then as they are BS3+ also what does the movement speed of the hull have to do with how much a weapon should cost? If thats the case why don't marines on foot get discount heavy weapons instead of paying the same price as a predator?
LRBC is undercosted stop hiding from the fact and then start your balance arguments based in reality.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
They should probably do something different - like extend the range of orders or something
The base chasis need to go up on all russes. T8 12 wounds - is huge - you should have to pay for that resilience - not to mention their grinding advance rule. Gaurd shoot better on the move than eldar? Does that make any sense?
Little about the Russ tank actually makes any sense
However, as to the Eldar comparison, only if we're insisting on the concept that everything Space Elf must be superior just because. Eldar were not, until relatively recently at least, an army where everything was an expert marksman with eldritch targeting systems, they were a majority BS3 army for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the games existence.
Ultimately, we can look at it this way, a heavy, generally slow moving ground vehicle (if it wants to make use of all those rules) with multiple dedicated gun crew that serves as the premier armored unit of *the* tank faction should probably have some things to make it stand out. I dont have a conceptual problem with that being a more stable firing platform than a wibbly-wobbly hovertank zipping around at high speed thats getting tossed around by every near miss blast with two weekend warrior crewmen.
In real life, when looking at such platforms, say Attack helicopter vs Tank, the groundbound tank can run around at highway speeds and hit a similar sized target also moving at highway speeds at several kilometers distant with a single shot 90%+ of the time, while a the helicopter has to rely on guided munitions to accomplish the same feat.
As is, many of the Russ variants never see use, of the Codex versions, we basically only see 3 of 7 turrets see routine use (BC, Executioner, Punisher) the others might as well not exist even though they have radically different roles than those that do see use, its hard to argue that theres a fundamental platform issue with the Russ hull as a result.
As for the T8, relative to something like a Predator (since its the only , they're already paying 35% more for the base hull (122pts vs 90) with a lower base Ballistic skill, it would seem they're paying more already, that resiliency isnt coming for free.
Some things you mentioned don't need to go up - some of them do though. How can you seriously say the manticore doesn't need to go up in cost?
Given how rarely it makes an appearance in army lists these days, it doesnt appear to be a particular issue. Their popularity has plummeted since the first few months of 8E, and the value of that indirect fire is highly variable depending on table and opponent. They just dont appear to be a major issue, in the thread about what units need a CA points adjustment from last week, I think only one post even mentioned them over 5 pages.
How in anyway can you remotely defend that a LR with BC is remotely balanced. It out shoots a quad lascannon predator, hammerhead, a vanquisher against T7 3+Sv and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
You are looking at units in too much of a vacuum. for instance, a knight can move more thanfurther and still shoot its BC, has a ward save and isn't useless the second something touches it in CC. People keep compairing apples to organges in this thread and its probably why you never see LR spam lists dominating tournaments despite people in this thread claiming they are broken over and over
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
it would make a tactical difference but it wouldn't need to be a power difference if the units are balanced, because you are changing how the army plays, but thats no different from a pure meele marine force vs a pure shooting marine force.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
You'd also loose a lot of your alpha strike ability, as Custodes bikes are actually super expensive. Melee is a lot less essential in an army where most of the heavy lifting units can fly.
Ice_can wrote: How in anyway can you remotely defend that a LR with BC is remotely balanced. It out shoots a quad lascannon predator, hammerhead, a vanquisher against T7 3+Sv
I don't have the Hammerhead stats and costs directly in front of me, but IIRC it has the same problem as the Vanquisher, being reliant on a single-shot D6 damage weapon. These are issues of poor execution of concept, particularly in the Vanquisher's case, a single watered down long range BS4+ melta shot as the main gun on a (bare minimum) 150pt battle tank is pretty garbage, even with double shooting main guns.
As for the Quadlas Predator, the only Battlecannon Russ that's going to outshoot one against a tank target is one loaded to the gills with expensive sponsons (and at ranges under that which the Predator can engage out to full effectiveness), which it will either have to engage at risk of harming itself to employ (overloaded plasma cannon sponsons) or get absurdly close to really use well (multimeltas). At 48", a Lascannon equipped battlecannon Russ is going to average 4.08 wounds against a T7 3+sv target, the Quadlas predator is going to average 5.19 wounds, and do just as well against a T8 target while the Russ will drop to 3.31 wounds. Meanwhile, a lascannon equiped Vanquisher is going to average....3.46 wounds against a T7 target and a mere 2.84 against a T8 target.
and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
That's probably because the Predator Autocannon is overcosted. That's an issue with that particular piece of wargear. Autocannons in general feel really expensive, at least to me, in this edition. Whether it be Predators, Sentinels, Hydras, Havocs, etc.
As another comparison, the Armiger Knight, while having a much higher base cost, pays a mere 5pts for the same weapon with a longer range and no movement penalty.
Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Two things.
First, stuff costs different points in different armies, same way a Lascannon is 20pts for BS4+ Guardsmen and 25pts for BS3+ Space Marines. Knights are rolling with BS3+, not IG's predominantly BS4+
Second, in the Knights case, the weapon itself has 2d6 shots, the double shots are tied to the weapon, in the case of the Russ, the platform pays for that ability, not the weapon. One will notice it is the same cost in the CSM codex where it resides on the BS4+ Defiler and it's the same cost and has no double-shot ability.
More to the point however, I think the Knight Double shot Battlecannon is simply absurdly overpriced and has no business being 100pts. I think that class of Knight is a wee bit expensive personally for what you get.
So when are C9mmand tabks going to start paying 50pts a battlecannon then as they are BS3+
Because predominantly most armies don't have different BS levels within an army where units with different levels of that stat can have the same weapons and GW doesn't want to micromanage costs to that level (with the exception of plasma and melta guns primarily in the case of Stormtroopers), and have instead chosen to increase the price of the Tank Commander's base profile to account for its increased BS and Orders abilities. Same reason a Powerfist costs more for Space Marines than for Guard, but doesn't cost more for a Chapter Master who can wield it far more effectively than a Sergeant, they only take the granularity so far.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies.
In that sense, sure yeah I'm with you there, I guess I was thinking more in the sense that, while many armies may be able to deal with the artillery gunline *or* the bikers (either kind), having the ability to combine both in an army can present a threat many opponents cannot deal with.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
You'd also loose a lot of your alpha strike ability, as Custodes bikes are actually super expensive. Melee is a lot less essential in an army where most of the heavy lifting units can fly.
You end up losing your worst ~300 points of guns, in an army that has 1700 other points of guns. It's not really a big deal.
I actually think the basic russ is mediocre at best.
Possibly below mediocre.
And only because of random shots and damage.
You can't rely on it to be OP if your rolling 1 or 2 shots consistently which you still need to roll to hit and wound.
At least Exterminators are guaranteed 4 shots and guaranteed 2 damage each shot
These people going on about good great and op russ tanks are deluded fools
and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
That's probably because the Predator Autocannon is overcosted. That's an issue with that particular piece of wargear. Autocannons in general feel really expensive, at least to me, in this edition. Whether it be Predators, Sentinels, Hydras, Havocs, etc.
As another comparison, the Armiger Knight, while having a much higher base cost, pays a mere 5pts for the same weapon with a longer range and no movement penalty.
Why are you firing an autocannon predator at single wounded models? That thing is made to make Dark Eldar cry, compare the damage of a BCLR to a Raider compared to a stock AC predator. That is true for all the targets with a good invul save, which aren't exactly rare in the competitive environment, especially if there are hit penalties attached to it.
T7 3+ is not a good benchmark anymore for fire practice.
ValentineGames wrote:I actually think the basic russ is mediocre at best.
Possibly below mediocre.
And only because of random shots and damage.
You can't rely on it to be OP if your rolling 1 or 2 shots consistently which you still need to roll to hit and wound.
At least Exterminators are guaranteed 4 shots and guaranteed 2 damage each shot
These people going on about good great and op russ tanks are deluded fools
Russes are cheap enough to not be negatively affected by randomness, and Catachans still exist.
Most people are running them Cadian or Catachans, and therefore able to re-roll number of shots.
Exterminator isn't even as good as the Battlecannon at killing Primaris I'm afraid. Even if you count 1 in 3 shots as doing nothing to represent it rolling a 1 for damage, the Battlecannon still kills more 2W models on average.
Getting hung up on random shots and damage is missing the point. It'll cost you in the long run.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/24 08:38:38
Catachan takes the avarage number of battle cannon shots from 7 to 9 shots per turn it's pretty good buff and makes a LR better than anything most non Space elfs can field
The preditor hull in a rhino with +1 wound. It should be more like 72 points base.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
If the predator was 170 points and had 4d3 predator autocannon shots it might be worth it. But this is fantasy land, there is no way the predator gets that kind of buff.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
If the predator was 170 points and had 4d3 predator autocannon shots it might be worth it. But this is fantasy land, there is no way the predator gets that kind of buff.
Why is 170 with ~4 extra Str 7 AP -1 D3 shots so much better than 120 with 6 extra Str 5 AP -1 D1 shots? Is the damage stat really that important that you'd trade 2 shots and 50 points for it?
