Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I recently had a conversation at the local GW store where a couple of guys and I were comparing units. One thing that they kept saying was "but you have a stompa!".

why is the stompa in the ork codex when escalation rules allow a stompa to be taken anyway? Most of the tournaments they run ban lords of war so their argument is invalid unless I take it in a friendly game. Then the you took a stompa complaint gets thrown around.

I am just curious as to whether or not others have gotten Similar reactions for something we are supposed to be able to take standard.

There are different stompas out there so to get the rules for the current one is great no matter how it comes out.

A stompa isn't really that scary. The formation of Stompas who get to stomp the crap out of a target is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A stompa isn't really that scary. The formation of Stompas who get to stomp the crap out of a target is.

That's an Apoc Formation though, not 40k legal.

Also, tournaments don't ban super-heavies anymore - imperial knights are pretty much everywhere in tournaments.

As for banning lords of war.....ghazghull, dante are lords of war. If you can't bring a stompa, you can't bring them either? That doesn't make sense.

The truth of the matter is that, no matter what anyone says, lords of war are as much a part of the FOC as HQs or elites.

And, no, your opponent doesn't get the escalation rule bonuses to seizing the initiative / +1 VP for every 3 hull points of damage you do, unless you're playing the escalation missions with those specific special rules, or if you just want to.

lastly.... like zion said, stompas aren't nearly as scary as they look. They have one good gun, one decent gun that'll statistically run out of ammo by turn 2, and an I1 str D melee weapon. Mine have died to: GK paladins (I think I killed like 2 of them, died in 1 round of combat), FMC spam (in 6th - landed, 4x charged him, smash attacked, destroyed before I1, didn't get to fight back). 2x imperial knights would probably win v 1 stompa, and be about the same points, for example. And 2x knight lists are not only legal in tournaments, but incredibly common.

Hell, I've killed a stompa with 3x deff dreads in two rounds. Think I only lost one in return.

I'd say certainly give your opponent a chance to amend his list if necessary to tangle with a stompa (within reason), but........it's perfectly legal to bring. And not nearly as scary as it looks.

Err, well, this is a complicated area without any clear guidelines...

Stompas aren't superbly overpowered, but they are powerful, especially if you chuck in Big Mek with KFF, minimum size unite of burnas with three meks, grot oilers on all the meks and grot riggers. That's 5 rerolls of 5+ each turn to get hull points back, four of which are rerollable to their first fail.

Especially in lower points games the stompa can dominate if your opponent didn't plan for it...

Sooooo, I would check with your opponent before you show up, but then again i'd do the same if I was bringing a knight as well.

Tournaments are typically banning superheavies except knights (so LOW like Ghazkull/Dante etc. all acceptable).

I rarely get to use my Stompa, as tournaments don't allow it, which sucks. Personally I think if Knights are being allowed then so should Stompas.

My two cents at any rate.

 goblinzz wrote:
Err, well, this is a complicated area without any clear guidelines...

Stompas aren't superbly overpowered, but they are powerful, especially if you chuck in Big Mek with KFF, minimum size unite of burnas with three meks, grot oilers on all the meks and grot riggers. That's 5 rerolls of 5+ each turn to get hull points back, four of which are rerollable to their first fail.

Especially in lower points games the stompa can dominate if your opponent didn't plan for it...

Sooooo, I would check with your opponent before you show up, but then again i'd do the same if I was bringing a knight as well.

Tournaments are typically banning superheavies except knights (so LOW like Ghazkull/Dante etc. all acceptable).

I rarely get to use my Stompa, as tournaments don't allow it, which sucks. Personally I think if Knights are being allowed then so should Stompas.

My two cents at any rate.

I agree.

the main point I was originally trying to get at is why is it in the codex in the first place? It is already legal thanks to escalation. It would be like when the new chaos book comes out they put the lord of skulls in it. They can already take it so it doesn't make sense. This is what I was arguing with the people at the store.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, tournaments don't ban super-heavies anymore - imperial knights are pretty much everywhere in tournaments.

As for banning lords of war.....ghazghull, dante are lords of war. If you can't bring a stompa, you can't bring them either? That doesn't make sense.

There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, tournaments don't ban super-heavies anymore - imperial knights are pretty much everywhere in tournaments.

As for banning lords of war.....ghazghull, dante are lords of war. If you can't bring a stompa, you can't bring them either? That doesn't make sense.

There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

Again this is part of the issue I am bringing up. The only reason I can see for why it is in the codex was the GW was thinking that tournaments would say" we ban escalation units" and therefore the stompa would be an advantage for the orks. but instead they are banning super heavies altogether thus making a specific unit in my codex obsolete.
--Now my local GW store takes it a step further to ban LoW (I think they do this as an error instead of just saying super heavies but it may be because certain codices don't have their LoW units yet) either way something seems off.

 grendel083 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A stompa isn't really that scary. The formation of Stompas who get to stomp the crap out of a target is.

That's an Apoc Formation though, not 40k legal.

Technically...

(There's no defined difference between a 'formation' and an 'Apocalypse formation' because Apoc came out before there were non-Apoc formations and GW is bad at FAQs, the sidebar in the core book referring to formations does strict-reading refer to Apocalypse formations too. The only incompatibility overlap comes from formations that reference Apoc mission rules (Strategic Reserves or Strategic Victory Points) but that doesn't rule out a lot)

There is a difference, one is apocalyptic only and does not have the formation detachment icon that 40k uses in the upper left of the datasheet

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, tournaments don't ban super-heavies anymore - imperial knights are pretty much everywhere in tournaments.

As for banning lords of war.....ghazghull, dante are lords of war. If you can't bring a stompa, you can't bring them either? That doesn't make sense.

There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

In-game, you're right, just like there's a difference between a battlewagon and a loota squad. But you can't say I can't bring a battlewagon because you can't kill it with bolters. Which you actually can, technically.....

Anyways. In terms of making an army according to your FOC, they're both heavy support. Same for lords of war. There is literally no difference between a lord of war, fortifications, heavy support, elite, troop, or HQ for your FOC - they're just a thing that takes up a spot on your FOC that costs points.

And as far as people who ban 'escalation' - escalation is already obsolete. Official FAQs have said, essentially, that the datacards in it can be used as LOW slots, but to ignore everything else in 7th ed (str D weapons, for example).

I mean, your opponent doesn't get to say you can't bring a lord of war, just like you don't get to tell your opponent that he can't bring elites. I mean, how would you like it if you play necrons and your store banned necron wraiths because they're 'too mean' for elites - or if they banned elites altogether? Because, rules-wise, that's EXACTLY the same thing as banning lords of war.

Some lord of wars are on the 'unfair' spectrum of things, like revenant titans, but given str D was toned down considerably and the fact that super-heavy LOWs are so expensive, even that's not unbeatable.

1 stompa isn't that kunnin'. But 2 or more is.
Problem is, a single stompa is $115. So it would cost $230 to get two, $230+ for more than 2.
So you should probably invest in something else pricewise.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A stompa isn't really that scary. The formation of Stompas who get to stomp the crap out of a target is.

That's an Apoc Formation though, not 40k legal.

Technically...

(There's no defined difference between a 'formation' and an 'Apocalypse formation' because Apoc came out before there were non-Apoc formations and GW is bad at FAQs, the sidebar in the core book referring to formations does strict-reading refer to Apocalypse formations too. The only incompatibility overlap comes from formations that reference Apoc mission rules (Strategic Reserves or Strategic Victory Points) but that doesn't rule out a lot)

Afraid that's wrong.

First there "Apocalypse Formations" - in every publication they are found in, you are told they are for games of Apocalypse.
Now there are also "Formations". You'll note they are not called "Apocalypse Formations" nor does any rule allow you to use Apoc Formations in 40k.

There's no "technically" at all, no it's not legal.

 grendel083 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A stompa isn't really that scary. The formation of Stompas who get to stomp the crap out of a target is.

That's an Apoc Formation though, not 40k legal.

I know, I was speaking generally.

I think what it really comes down to is poor planning on GWs part. The introduction of Knights, and, also things like WraithKnights, was a clear attempt to try and introduce super heavies into normal play, which the cynical among us would argue was for cash generating reasons... Thus bringing the Stompa into the codex was intended to be the hard counter to imperial knights (and they had an existing kit, which many people love), encouraging people to use it. I'd also argue that using the stompa could make orks very competitive just via it's 'Idol' rule, suddenly making your units of orks fearless...

However, I don't think they really counted on the community backlash over the change in meta that super heavies bring to the game.

For example, in my local Meta, superheavies are either banned all together for tournament play, or more commonly, banned EXCEPT knights. I personally think this is , why can he have a knight, and I don't get my Superheavy? Or come to that, why does my opponent get to walk over me with three wraithknights, and three wave serpents, while all i have is trukks and mega nobs?

Short answer after all the :

They put it in because they could, but they didn't plan well, but the local meta is resisting the inclusion of super heavies. I believed at first that things like baneblades would end up in the IG codex, and I don't understand why they aren't. I guess we just have to chalk this up to inconsistencies on GW's part...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, tournaments don't ban super-heavies anymore - imperial knights are pretty much everywhere in tournaments.

As for banning lords of war.....ghazghull, dante are lords of war. If you can't bring a stompa, you can't bring them either? That doesn't make sense.

There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

In-game, you're right, just like there's a difference between a battlewagon and a loota squad. But you can't say I can't bring a battlewagon because you can't kill it with bolters. Which you actually can, technically.....

Anyways. In terms of making an army according to your FOC, they're both heavy support. Same for lords of war. There is literally no difference between a lord of war, fortifications, heavy support, elite, troop, or HQ for your FOC - they're just a thing that takes up a spot on your FOC that costs points.

And as far as people who ban 'escalation' - escalation is already obsolete. Official FAQs have said, essentially, that the datacards in it can be used as LOW slots, but to ignore everything else in 7th ed (str D weapons, for example).

I mean, your opponent doesn't get to say you can't bring a lord of war, just like you don't get to tell your opponent that he can't bring elites. I mean, how would you like it if you play necrons and your store banned necron wraiths because they're 'too mean' for elites - or if they banned elites altogether? Because, rules-wise, that's EXACTLY the same thing as banning lords of war.

Some lord of wars are on the 'unfair' spectrum of things, like revenant titans, but given str D was toned down considerably and the fact that super-heavy LOWs are so expensive, even that's not unbeatable.

I don't agree, GW has always sadi 'play the game you want to play', which is why unbound was created. However, I refuse to play unbound, unless it's explained up front as fluffy, and not for chees reasons. Again, I choose not to play superheavies or knights in most games as they are, frankly, a bit boring at smaller points levels. What is comes down to is that you can no longer play a pick up game, you need to sort out in advance what type of 40K you and your opponent want to play.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
1 stompa isn't that kunnin'. But 2 or more is.
Problem is, a single stompa is $115. So it would cost $230 to get two, $230+ for more than 2.
So you should probably invest in something else pricewise.

With regards to dollars-to-points, a Stompa is one of the best investments you can make.

You get damn neared a 2000 points army for 230$ with two stompas.. That's horribly cheap for 40k.

we pretty much say take wahtever yo want...

no one does anything silly. and everyone forms into a legal detachment. Usually there is one LoW in every game but they are never a problem. (our minimum game size in 3k)

a stompa in a small game is a bit... hard to deal with.

Personally i think 2500 is the minimum for super heavies to come in unless you are doing a narrative buld for both armies ... but thats just preference.

I'd rather play vs stompas than pentyrants.

It was to sell models to non apoc players in my opinion. People who didn't have 10k+ armies didn't buy super heavies before. Now they do. Tada... Marketing.

And they didn't make it a very OP unit because they didn't want to break the game.....more.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And they didn't make it a very OP unit because they didn't want to break the game.....more.

Nah, the reason the Stompa got zero changes to become better is because da Orks is da punching bag of da 40K verse. You wouldn't want to give the whipping boy something decent.

The Stompa as a whole is not terribad as it stands. But when you compare it to everything else that the other factions get, with perhaps the exception of Tau, it's pretty damn terrible. A lot of HPs, good shooty but still God awful BS, and 13/13/12 armor? This would be the ONE thing other than a Battle Wagon that SHOULD have 14 on at least one facing. Why the Hell wouldn't it?

Granted, it's a super fun unit to play from time to time, but I actually regret putting the money out for it. Especially when I play Apoc because it does turn 1 GUARANTEED against my opponent's vast array of Knights or high armor piercing weapons or other eager super heavies. And I refuse to play my Stompa in a normal game.

*shrug*

People can point and say 'well you have x, so I can use y'. There's a difference in being ABLE to use something than actually USING it. Just because I have the option to field a Stompa in any game I desire, doesn't mean I will or would. I like having people to play with, and my group generally agrees Super Heavies are a dick move in non apoc games. Knights alone are single handedly the most stupid thing GW has forced upon the game.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
1 stompa isn't that kunnin'. But 2 or more is.
Problem is, a single stompa is $115. So it would cost $230 to get two, $230+ for more than 2.
So you should probably invest in something else pricewise.

With regards to dollars-to-points, a Stompa is one of the best investments you can make.

You get damn neared a 2000 points army for 230$ with two stompas.. That's horribly cheap for 40k.

Hmm?
Do you mean points or $$?

mhalko1 wrote:
I recently had a conversation at the local GW store where a couple of guys and I were comparing units. One thing that they kept saying was "but you have a stompa!".

why is the stompa in the ork codex when escalation rules allow a stompa to be taken anyway? Most of the tournaments they run ban lords of war so their argument is invalid unless I take it in a friendly game. Then the you took a stompa complaint gets thrown around.

I am just curious as to whether or not others have gotten Similar reactions for something we are supposed to be able to take standard.

I believe the reason GW put the stompa in the codex is so you would know what your lords of war are. 7th edition basically eliminated the need of the escalation book for rules. Escalation book just became a reference book for what your lords of war are. Because of that, the decision was made to put the LoW in the codecs. From the codex you have two lords of war. If you go to FW and look at their LoW FAQ, orks actually have 8 different LoW. Personally, my favorite is the kustom stompa or Kill Krusha Tank. More options as to what weapons the stompa can use. I've not seen events just ban lords of war, but more or less put point limits on how many points of your list can be dedicated to your LoW. This helps curves which Lords of war people are allowed to bring.

I just can't see myself bringing an 800 point model to the game. I wish they Gorka/Morka naughts had been super-heavies as a nice counter to Imperial Knights.

But a single 800 point model. I can't do it. Too many eggs, not enough baskets.

 docdoom77 wrote:
I just can't see myself bringing an 800 point model to the game. I wish they Gorka/Morka naughts had been super-heavies as a nice counter to Imperial Knights.

But a single 800 point model. I can't do it. Too many eggs, not enough baskets.

Thats why I suggest using the kustom stompa from IA:8. He starts off 350pts. The upgrades can add up really quick, but you could build a cheaper version of the stompa to use. Personally, I use this one to trade my psyko-blaster for a gigga shoota! Gigga Shoota never runs out of ammo.

 Glitcha wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I just can't see myself bringing an 800 point model to the game. I wish they Gorka/Morka naughts had been super-heavies as a nice counter to Imperial Knights.

But a single 800 point model. I can't do it. Too many eggs, not enough baskets.

Thats why I suggest using the kustom stompa from IA:8. He starts off 350pts. The upgrades can add up really quick, but you could build a cheaper version of the stompa to use. Personally, I use this one to trade my psyko-blaster for a gigga shoota! Gigga Shoota never runs out of ammo.

None of the tourneys here allow Forgeworld rules, so subsequently, people aren't very keen to see them at all on the table. But, I might look into picking that book up. I'd love an excuse to buy a Stompa. Cool kit.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Glitcha wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
I just can't see myself bringing an 800 point model to the game. I wish they Gorka/Morka naughts had been super-heavies as a nice counter to Imperial Knights.

But a single 800 point model. I can't do it. Too many eggs, not enough baskets.

Thats why I suggest using the kustom stompa from IA:8. He starts off 350pts. The upgrades can add up really quick, but you could build a cheaper version of the stompa to use. Personally, I use this one to trade my psyko-blaster for a gigga shoota! Gigga Shoota never runs out of ammo.

None of the tourneys here allow Forgeworld rules, so subsequently, people aren't very keen to see them at all on the table. But, I might look into picking that book up. I'd love an excuse to buy a Stompa. Cool kit.

One of the best. Cheapest super heavy kit and you get a crap ton of bits. I used my kit to build a stompa and two looted wagons. The events in my local group openly allow forgeworld, but we must have the books and the models. Some of the more competitive events limit the FW to 1 model and no army lists. Kustom Stompa is my one model. Sorry to hear your local groups don't allow FW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
In-game, you're right, just like there's a difference between a battlewagon and a loota squad. But you can't say I can't bring a battlewagon because you can't kill it with bolters. Which you actually can, technically.....

Does that mean that fielding a Thunderhawk Gunship is completely fine?

It can be shot down by Bolters after all

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is quite the difference between a super heavy LOW and a infantry LOW like Ghazghull or Dante who can both be easily taken out by bolter fire...

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
In-game, you're right, just like there's a difference between a battlewagon and a loota squad. But you can't say I can't bring a battlewagon because you can't kill it with bolters. Which you actually can, technically.....

Does that mean that fielding a Thunderhawk Gunship is completely fine?

It can be shot down by Bolters after all

if you actually bought and built one I would gladly play against it!