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.

Martel732 wrote:
"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "

Broken logic.

"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"

No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.

I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.

Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "

Broken logic.

"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"

No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.

I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.

Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...

Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else. A marine is already paying for BS 4. Double charging for BS by making their lascannons more expensive on top of that was how the marines became a laughing stock in 2nd edition. Lascannons should cost the same since they do the same thing for all lists. The platforms they are mounted on should be where the differentiation comes in. It doesn't matter that marines have grav. By that logic, DA lascannons should cost less than C:SM lascannons.

Martel732 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Marines don't get cheap lascannons because they're BS4, can take bikers with grav guns, can take EW guys with 4 wounds and a 3+ invuln, etc. Tau don't get cheap lascannons because they have Riptides etc. Eldar don't get cheap lascannons because they have Wave Serpents and Wraithknights. "

Broken logic.

"Anyway on topic: Vendetta was fine at 130 points in this edition"

No, it wasn't. It completely invalidated Stormravens. Which are still overcosted because of the near-mandatory sponsons. Also, 130 was the price of a ground-bound Imperial walker, none of which can sport more than two weapons.

I agree with you on the Chimera increase, though. That makes ZERO sense.

Usually when someone says things like "broken logic" we expect an explanation as to why this is the case...

Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else. A marine is already paying for BS 4. Double charging for BS by making their lascannons more expensive on top of that was how the marines became a laughing stock in 2nd edition. Lascannons should cost the same since they do the same thing for all lists. The platforms they are mounted on should be where the differentiation comes in. It doesn't matter that marines have grav. By that logic, DA lascannons should cost less than C:SM lascannons.

You're contradicting yourself. Or at least the wording is inadequate...

A BS4 lascannon has more "efficacy on the battlefield" than a BS3 lascannon. This is the same reason that people are complaining, rightfully so, about having to pay 25 points for a Power Fist on a S3 model.

FWIW we shouldn't use Dreadnoughts as a standard for pricing, since pretty much every dread variant except Psyriflemen blows.

The lascannon itself is not better. It's still S9 AP2. It's only more accurate because of a model that already paid for BS 4. This is double charging for BS 4 and how elite armies end up with miserable throw weight compared to lists like the IG, Conventional marine firepower is miserable. The only thing keeping C:SM really in business is the gravstar.

Okay, then. How about a tri-las predator? The Vendetta has more firepower, more mobility, carries troops, and is much harder to destroy. But it was cheaper? Come on. FWIW, I still think the Vendetta is more efficient than a Stormraven. It's more durability/pt and doesn't have to get within 24" to do its damage.

The power fist isn't a fair comparison.

A Marine Lascannon is always S9 AP2

A Guard Lascannon is always S9 AP2

If the fist was fixed @ S8 it would compare, I don't disagree with the issue, but the comparison is apples and oranges.

There's also the fact that these cheap lascannons in question are twin-linked, which is better then BS4.

to the op:

yes, its still one of the best flyers in the game.

Most flyers are cardboard, and have terrible offensive capability - this is reinforced cardboard, and has decent offensive capability.

Yes, the points increase hurt....but it should not have been unexpected.

At all.

Martel732 wrote:
Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else

And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it.

At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else

And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it.

At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).

Except that leads to situations where elite units are punished because of their additional stats.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Weapon system cost should be based off their efficacy on the battlefield. Nothing else

And the efficacy is dependent on who is firing it.

At the end of the day, the cost of the weapon + troop should be reflective of it's ability, which typically means a high powered weapon will cost more on a Bs4 model than a Bs3 model. If a Bs4 troop costs 6pts, a Bs3 troop costs 5pts (which is a 20% difference, probably fair for a 33% increase in hitting power with a Lasgun), and a Lascannon on the 5pt troop costs 25pts, it should really cost more on the Bs4 troop otherwise the final difference between the 2 models will be 30pts vs 31pts and being able to hit 33% more often is worth way more than 1pt (only a 3% difference in points).

Except that leads to situations where elite units are punished because of their additional stats.

I'd hardly call it "punished". They are better and therefore they should cost more. We aren't talking about going down to the shop and everyone having to pay the same amount of money for a bowl of soup, it's game balance where the value of a Lascannon is highly dependent on the ability of the user to fire it (and also on the user's ability to survive).

The alternative is fancy weapons aren't worth taking on cheap troops because they are completely overcosted for their ability. The simple fact is the cost of a weapon SHOULD be "what can this weapon do?" and that varies from one troop to the next. Ork shooting weapons would certainly cost more if you gave them to troops that didn't have Bs2.

You also can't tie all the cost of Bs to the unit cost because then the unit with higher Bs will be overpriced with bad weapons and underpriced with good weapons.

This is why I don't understand why we've gone back to the "Wargear list" system in codices like we had in 2nd edition. I thought the reason we went away from that system is because the wise game designers realised the same weapon in the hands of 2 different troops isn't necessarily worth the same amount of points... now we've gone back to that system.

The value of twin linking depends massively on who is firing as well. That's why TL Las on the Vendetta is worth so much to IG, as it represents a 50% greater chance of hitting. TL for an Ork represents a 66% greater chance of hitting.

w other point reductions, the points cost increase may not affect a lot of lists.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.

I sence Tzeench somewhere in the HQ of GW company.

No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?

 Boggy Man wrote:
No. The price hike would be warranted if it stayed as is, or it could have stayed the same price and just drop the transport all together. The hell am I transporting in 6 slots? Ratlings?

Platoon commands

I was actually expecting the armour to drop back down to 11, if I am honest.

When the Valkyrie (pre Vendetta) was first introduced by FW it was Av11, and a flyer.
It got bumped up to 12 because it was brought into the codex in a ruleset that didn't support flyers, as a skimmer.
Then it became a flyer again, but retained the Av bump.
I was expecting the Av to drop this time.
Since it didn't, I feel the new price is entirely reasonable, and wholly expected.
Anyone who expected the Vendetta to remain unchanged is frankly delusional.
The passenger capacity reduction is in line with all the other upgunned transports in the game.
The external battery pack argument holds no water, the Land Raider has external batteries, and gains 6 spaces when it drops two TL Lascannons for hurricane bolters.
The Rhino loses 4 for one set of Lascannons, that's just two examples.
I think its not a bad change, and one, to be honest, that the Vendetta needed.

the problem most people have is that a transport capacity of 6 for Marines means a Razorback can still transport any unit the army might have plus an HQ still, while IG units don't have flexible unit sizes as such, and a transport capacity of 6 precludes use with typical Troops units, unlike a Razorback.

Guard still have the Valkyrie with capacity 12. It's still a great vehicle. They just limited the universally regarded as overpowered Vendetta.

 Still Standing wrote:
Guard still have the Valkyrie with capacity 12. It's still a great vehicle. They just limited the universally regarded as overpowered Vendetta.

The Valkyrie also got a 25% price increase too however

Musashi363 wrote:
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.

Eldar had good serpents , they stayed good. They were using jet bikes before , jet bikes got better, DA were good troops , got better. Seers were good , stayed good. Warp spiders were good , got a hell lot better. FD were good , stayed good. The only thing an eldar player had to buy was knight.

Tau had broadsides , those got better. FW were good , stayed good, Kroot were a speed bump and anti infiltration unit , have become realy good with their sniper rifles . hammerheads were good , the one with long strike still is . Suits were good , stayed good. Cmders were good, become buff gods.
Only thing a tau player had to buy were riptides, although there were problems with buying them , because everyone wanted 3+.

Not all armies had to totaly rebuild themselfs like space marines. The problem with IG is that troops didn't become better and all transport options for them went up in points . Worse some troop options became weaker , like veterans for example .

Heh with eldar and tau everyone else had to rebuild their armies =P.

Makumba wrote:

Musashi363 wrote:
Did people actually think they were getting a new codex and wouldn't have to change their army list? There is always change...that's kinda the point of changing the codex. Now that the Vendetta is priced accordingly, that's a good change.

Eldar had good serpents , they stayed good. They were using jet bikes before , jet bikes got better, DA were good troops , got better. Seers were good , stayed good. Warp spiders were good , got a hell lot better. FD were good , stayed good. The only thing an eldar player had to buy was knight.

Tau had broadsides , those got better. FW were good , stayed good, Kroot were a speed bump and anti infiltration unit , have become realy good with their sniper rifles . hammerheads were good , the one with long strike still is . Suits were good , stayed good. Cmders were good, become buff gods.
Only thing a tau player had to buy were riptides, although there were problems with buying them , because everyone wanted 3+.

Not all armies had to totaly rebuild themselfs like space marines. The problem with IG is that troops didn't become better and all transport options for them went up in points . Worse some troop options became weaker , like veterans for example .

Transport costs did go up, but tank prices dropped so really no you are not worse off.

Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.

GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.

 Blacksails wrote:
Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.

GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.

Hells yes! Flying twin-linked lascannons? Can still drop plasma vets with grav chute? AV 12?

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Its looking like the Vendetta will still rule the FA slot unfortunately.

GW thought it would be a great idea to keep the Hellhound at 130pts, and then make the Eradicator 120pts. Amazing.

Hells yes! Flying twin-linked lascannons? Can still drop plasma vets with grav chute? AV 12?

I'm not peeved about the strength of the Vendetta, its more that nothing else in that slot is really a good choice.

If Hellhounds and friends were 100pts, there'd be a case for a budget tank, but now...

The Vendetta still fills too many important roles compared to the other FA pickings.

That is a chronic problem throughout GW army lists. It's a problem LOTS of lists share with my BA. Too many non-choices.

But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C:AS today.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C:AS today.

You mean the army with one or two choice per slot?

Hardly a compelling argument.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C:AS today.

What does that even mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, units that die easily need to be rather cheap in 6th. Hellhound, I'm looking at you. Can GW be THIS dumb? Or are they just trolling their own customers?

Martel732 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
But when an army list has no non-choices, it gets derided as... well, whatever it is haters are complaining about C:AS today.

What does that even mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, units that die easily need to be rather cheap in 6th. Hellhound, I'm looking at you. Can GW be THIS dumb? Or are they just trolling their own customers?

I don't think they really play their own game, and they certainly don't pay attention to anything outside their office really. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had stuff like half the top Adepticon armies being Eldar-INQ-something