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.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is about the only time armor value is better than toughness.

Bingo! GW seems to think 40K is a CC game, so many of their decisions could be based on this

this edition is a CC edition? Damn, I wonder why they forgot to tell my Orks that.....

You misunderstand. I am saying that GW "thinks" this is a CC game. They are clearly wrong, but they create rules & points cost based off of this.

I.E. they will make units that are CC more expensive when they should not be

 Galef wrote:
You misunderstand. I am saying that GW "thinks" this is a CC game. They are clearly wrong, but they create rules & points cost based off of this.

I.E. they will make units that are CC more expensive when they should not be

That isn't always true. The knight gallant, the CC variant in the new IK codex costs less fully upgraded than an unupgraded knight paladin or errant.

The WK is cheap because they had no idea making it a gargantuan would make it this good. It makes perfect sense it should be one, it's a massive model, but it could definitely cost more points and still be good.

In the end, the WK is a great anti-LoW, but it's very different from the others. The stompa, the lord of skulls, even the IK are great at removing multiple models a turn with their pie plates. The WK doesn't do that - it eliminates other vehicles and MCs, at range or in CC.