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 think it would allow for abuse, particularly in low points games. Say 1000 points, I bring two thundertusks. Aside from the likely reality that no one wants to fight two thundertusks at 1000 points, any opponent without the proper counter (very likely in small games) is screwed. Or I am if they countered with four hellcannons. I don't think this is the type of game we want to promote. Of course the argument of relying on people to be reasonable applies here, but then those people are the least likely to have issue with the restriction in the first place.

I have been comparing balancing systems across the board, and they all seem to include limitations on summoning and limitations on Heroes, Warmachines, and Monsters. If that many people seem to intuitively agree on the same thing, I think it has merit. Remember, in RAW,if you place a bunch of monsters I can match them monster for monster or just keep placing units on the board until I feel the sides are fair, but the PPC will be used for leagues and tournaments where your army will be pre-set. No additions, change outs or sideboards. There needs to be a common agreement on what is fair in the majority of games.

Please do not get rid of the monster/war machine & hero restrictions, this leads to the worst kinds of army's.....the ones that do not even look like army's!

Don't worry, it'll stay. Always good to evaluate these things from time to time, and as long as it can be argued why it should stay it will stay


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for your input everyone. I'm about to update the comp pack and this was the final possible change before I do.

The PPC Comp document has been updated to v0.3 now, so Screening and Shooting Penalties for melee are officially gone now! Exciting times!

Rules and point costs are looking great Attilla, keep up the good work!

PPC's doing really well, it just got a mention on GW's internal facebook page! They hate it lol

That should be PPC's advertising slogan.

"PPC, so balanced GW is allergic to our PDFs!"

"PPC, balancing AoS so well GW thinks it's competing with their sales!"

"PPC, making AoS the game players want, by making it the game GW hates!"

"PPC, a better advertisement than White Dwarf!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe it reminds them that there was something they forgot to add when releasing the game...

I noticed that there is no cost listed for a Blood Warrior Standard Bearer, could you update that please?

Smellingsalts wrote:
I noticed that there is no cost listed for a Blood Warrior Standard Bearer, could you update that please?

Next week all lists will be updated in one major list update, with a much needed facelift as well. This update essentially means we've reached 1.0 (yay!)

I'll wait for that before updating the Bloodbound, but in the mean time the Icon Bearer is 10pts.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Well,what someone does in a one-off game is fine with me. You can't use one or two people's anecdotal stories to justify a change like that though. Ninth knows what I am about to say, but to be clear, I have been involved with the biggest 40k/WFB tournament in San Diego for about four years now. As I am the sponsor, I do not make judge decisions, but I do hang out with them during the tournament and I hear them field all kinds of questions and decisions. I am also an active tournament player myself. Ninth, I know you are not a tournament player, so a change like this seems simple. But wait till you have to listen to the whining that will come when someone is beaten using rules that let you split command abilities. I know you don't want to listen to it, one of the reasons you don't play in tournaments. I don't want to listen to it either. And believe me, all you guys who want to play split lists don't want to hear the whining from people who you beat with a modified list. I did not know about the Daemon weapon that was given an optional attack when it should be mandatory. But I would argue that needs to change too. Yes, we have changed some rules, but the changes are based on the question "Can you play this game without the rule change?" We aren't trying to write AOS 2nd Edition. We are just trying to balance the existing warscrolls. Things like summoning were so broken the game was unplayable without the change. Things like measuring base to base are acceptable because players don't want to risk damage to their models or bases by piling them on top of each other. But you can play the game just fine without splitting command. So if you want to split command in your own personal games, and you have an opponent that will let you, then have fun. But coming from the background I do, I would never allow it, and for my own league I will have to add a line that if a thing is not optional on the warscroll itself, it's not optional. I am a firm believer in not changing the rules as written. That way, tournament players can be angry at GW and not the tournament organizer. It is better for the longevity of your tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and it is the same as taking armor off Blood Warriors, in both cases you are creating something that is not an option on the original warscroll.

The thing that you don't seem to realize is that many heroes are virtually impossible to balance without splitting command abilities. The same hero can be godlike when used as a general, and garbage otherwise. You would have it cost the same in both cases. This is flat out bad game design. I don't see why it would lead to whining, since it is impossible to miss - you see the points cost attached to the command abilities when building your list. You cannot be beaten because of "using rules that let you split command abilities", because you have the same possibility yourself, and it is evident straight from the points cost document.

You say that summoning was so broken that it needed to be addressed. I would argue that making a large number of hero-type warscrolls useless is equally game breaking.

You say that taking away armor is the same as making command abilities optional. It is not. In any given game you will always benefit from armor. While you could argue for or against making armor optional, it is an integral part of a warscrolls profile, and regardless of what type of army or battle you play you will have the benefit of it. This is not the same in the case of command abilities. You either get the benefit or you don't, and this is decided while building the list. And whether you get it or not, you still have to pay for it.

The only alternative that I can see is to attach a cost to upgrading a hero to general. This is essentially the same thing as separating command abilities, except that it does not in any way alter the warscrolls. However, it is a strictly inferior option, due to a few oddball command abilities in the game (Archaon, HE Prince on dragon, possibly a few others). I believe that one of these two options (pricing command abilities, or pricing generals) has to be implemented, because they already exist on the gaming table. As Ninth said, the warscrolls do exist in the game without command abilities - every time you field a hero that is not your general, you use the warscroll without its command ability. This is a game mechanic. Not taking it into account in unit pricing is, frankly, absurd.

Solaris Wrote:

"The thing that you don't seem to realize is that many heroes are virtually impossible to balance without splitting command abilities. The same hero can be godlike when used as a general, and garbage otherwise. You would have it cost the same in both cases. This is flat out bad game design. I don't see why it would lead to whining, since it is impossible to miss - you see the points cost attached to the command abilities when building your list. You cannot be beaten because of "using rules that let you split command abilities", because you have the same possibility yourself, and it is evident straight from the points cost document.

You say that summoning was so broken that it needed to be addressed. I would argue that making a large number of hero-type warscrolls useless is equally game breaking.

You say that taking away armor is the same as making command abilities optional. It is not. In any given game you will always benefit from armor. While you could argue for or against making armor optional, it is an integral part of a warscrolls profile, and regardless of what type of army or battle you play you will have the benefit of it. This is not the same in the case of command abilities. You either get the benefit or you don't, and this is decided while building the list. And whether you get it or not, you still have to pay for it.

The only alternative that I can see is to attach a cost to upgrading a hero to general. This is essentially the same thing as separating command abilities, except that it does not in any way alter the warscrolls. However, it is a strictly inferior option, due to a few oddball command abilities in the game (Archaon, HE Prince on dragon, possibly a few others). I believe that one of these two options (pricing command abilities, or pricing generals) has to be implemented, because they already exist on the gaming table. As Ninth said, the warscrolls do exist in the game without command abilities - every time you field a hero that is not your general, you use the warscroll without its command ability. This is a game mechanic. Not taking it into account in unit pricing is, frankly, absurd."

Actually, I do realize that some heroes are garbage without their command ability. And if you want to play that hero it sucks. But what else is new? Players of WFB have been crying about their Army books and how much they suck since the beginning of WFB ( I know I played Dark Elves and I was one of them for many years). The point I am trying to make is that you're just going to have to wait until GW gets to your Army Book. The solution to imbalances has never been "Hey, the heroes in my Army book suck, so I'm going to make new ones." You could argue that the ETC tried balancing armies with a different points structure than GW, but they had the benefit of all (or at least the majority) of the armies books being released. If you want to split abilities in a tournament that you run, awesome, do it. You will have to explain the reasons for your deviation from the PPC, and maybe they will be fine with it. But if you make it part of the PPC, then you are forcing me to use it, or you are making me the guy that has to deviate from the rules. You could also argue that in the rules as written, since there are no balancing factors other than Sudden Death and how many figures you want to put on the table, you essentially are not penalized by the rules for having heroes on the table that are not using Command abilities. You are, however, punished by your opponent who can place as many models as he feels necessary to counteract your use of heroes. The other question I have, if your heroes are garbage without command abilities, why are you arguing to get rid of them so hard? They're garbage without the command ability, right? No. They have an ability you want really bad, but the extra Command ability cost makes it not worth it to you. But your opponent may not see it that way. To him, the only thing keeping you from making killer combos is the cost. And these are the guys who are going to complain about spliting Command costs.

As far as heroes being broken, no one in my area at least has told me the reason they don't play AOS is because they can't split costs. Not one.

On the armor rule, perhaps I am being a little sarcastic. As you say, you don't benefit from the command ability, but as people who have played me know, my dice roll horribly and I assure you I do not benefit from armor. If possible I would rather buy naked troops, but more of them, rather than armored troops. But I don't get to create new Warscrolls to suite my fancy.

The alternative to splitting command is to not do anything and let players make their choices. As I said, the part of the game that allows you to take as many heroes as you want, so that command abilities don't matter, also allows me to take any and all models I deem necessary to counteract your heroes. This would manifest itself as a points bonus for me to buy more stuff to counter you in PPC. As this is the same as making your heroes cost more if they have command abilities, I don't see how it is "absurd."

In an effort to keep things civil, I'm going to boil this down to the basic logic. Salts mentioned not using anecdotal evidence so I will leave that part of the discussion out for now.

-Command abilities should be split to improve the balance of different hero choices and allow for more army building options. This is because heroes which are not the general do not get to use their command abilities, and and thus should not have to pay for them.

-Command abilities should not be split because it changes the warscrolls, something we want to avoid when it does not significantly impact balance.

-Havimg combined abilities does significantly impact balance because many heroes are very poor choices when not using their command ability, thus those options are highly unbalanced except when being used as the general.

This is what it boils down to. Smellingsalts, I do not see where you have addressed the last point directly. Keep in mind I am trying to leave anecdotal evidence out here.

I'm arguing to be able to use heroes without having to pay twice their worth for an ability I will not have access to. I'm arguing for the sake of being able to take a cheap warboss, give him a weapon upgrade and run him in a unit of boyz as a way of giving them a little bit more punch. I'm arguing for the ability to take a crappy sea helm with a trident and putting him together with my sea guard, for the sake of fluff and rule of cool. I'm arguing for a pricing system where this might not be competitive, but at least somewhat viable.

I'm arguing for a system where all options can be viable under the right circumstances. I'm arguing for a system where you pay for what you get on the table, no more and no less. I'm arguing against a system where there are 20 options, but only 4 are really viable because of a crappy game design and balance philosophy.

In a traditional GW game there are always 2-4 armies that are miles ahead of the rest, and that completely dominate the top 20 of any given tournament. These armies are usually the ones with the most recent Army Book updates. In a traditional GW game there are also always a limited number of heroes, units and magic items that are viable competitively - the rest of the army entries are simply overpriced for what they bring to the table. This has always been the case with GW. It's a sloppy, lazy and really bad philosophy on game design and balance.

This, and stupid gameplay (doomsday spells and death stars) that remove depth of tactics from the gameplay is what has deterred me from playing much the last 6-7 years (I have usually tried out every new edition at least 10-15 games before discarding it for bad gameplay).

If you are into competitive online gaming at all, you'll know that the vibrant and popular games are proactively balanced on a regular basis, to ensure good gameplay. In contrast, any competitive game that does not do this fails, without exception. GWs strategy for preventing the game from going stale seems to be to release a bunch of new stuff with escalating power levels, making old releases redundant. This is what they have always done, and is smart because it forces people to buy their new stuff. But it also results in dumb and unbalanced gameplay.

However, for the first time we have the possibility to change this. By creating a good balancing system, we can prevent the gameplay from becoming stupid (by changing summoning for instance), we can prevent half the entries in an Army Book from being useless (by adjusting their points costs until they're just right, by charging extra for upgrading a hero to general or for the ability to use command abilities). In short, we can create a fun and well balanced game, where a five year old army can compete with a new one because we've done the balancing properly.

In my mind, this is the whole point of balancing to begin with. Now, what you're arguing for is a system where heroes are inherently unbalanced, where there is always a clear best choice of what to bring to the table. I am not interested in playing a game like that, much like I am not very interested in playing vanilla AoS where there is no semblance of balance whatsoever. If this can be prevented by such a small change as making Command Abilities pay-to-use, much like summoning is now pay-to-use, then I am all for making that small change.

I hear what both of you are saying, believe me, I do. But we are not creating a friendly play at home system. I believe that Attila is trying to create a competitive system to be used at tournaments. I think within your store leagues and non-competitive games you should play it the way you like. I just feel that if you are making tournament rules that you want the greater community at large to adopt, you have to deviate from rules as written as little as possible. Now in the league I run, not one person has come to me and said I can't play AOS because the heroes with command abilities cost too much. That's me, and anecdotal to my store. But before I settled on PPC, I searched the net for all of the comp systems that I could find. Azyer comp was really terrible at balancing Ogre armies, and the others tried to balance Warscrolls by type and wounds which was just too broad. But one thing that was universal to all of them was a modification to summoning. So I accept that that part of the game needed to be fixed. The same holds true for not stacking spells/abilities and always failing on a roll of 1. I also saw that most had changed measurement to base to base. That also seemed reasonable because being a modeler myself I did not like the idea of people cramming and stacking model bases into/on top of mine. I spend time modeling my bases and I don't want them destroyed. So that seemed reasonable to me. Things that are not reasonable to include in the PPC include wishlists (things that are not in the rules or warscrolls), This is the major area where Ninth and I disagree. Ninth almost always mentions the need to inckude a change to allow more tactical opportunity. But that is not the job of the PPC. The PPC exists to balance lists for which GW gave no points. And I will allow that it includes rules that make summoning playable. But I believe that that should be it. Outside of a tournament, players can make up any rules they like; rules for cover, shooting into and out of combat, splitting command costs, look out sir for heroes, whatever. But that is not the job of the PPC. I have a compromise. Next week the Lizardmen are supposed to get an army book. Let's wait and see what changes are made to that army. If the majority of heroes are Commanders, then I will agree to splitting Command abilities. But if they make a bunch of heroes (like in the Stormcast and Bloodbound books) then I believe that will be the trend and splitting will not be necessary. I hear what you are saying Solaris, you just want to use your dang Lothern hero with your Lothern troops!. Fluffwise I get it. But we can't change the balancing system to suite one man's fluff.

I get what you are saying, and I agree to a certain point: rule changes should be kept to a minimum necessary. I do, however, think that this change is necessary. It's not about me wanting to use my dang Sea Helm with my dang Sea Guard, though that is a neat side effect of the change. It's about making heroes playable in other roles than as generals. It's about creating tactical diversity for players, something that will benefit casual and tournament play alike.

I get what you say about waiting for ones turn, but I don't agree with it. This is the way of old, and the reason for the power creep of new Army Books and Codices in other GW games. If an old army has severely reduced options due to outdated heroes with command abilities, that old army will be weaker than a new one that has other options. I think that is bad. I think every army should be balanced and playable competitively at every step of the way. I don't think any player should have to wait for five years or more before their army is finally updated and able to compete with its contemporaries.

Of course I am curious to see what the Lizardmen release will look like. But even if it is as you say, that the trend is to create heroes with other abilities than command abilities, this is a change that is needed to balance armies that have not yet received those types of heroes, lest they have less viable options than their competitors.

Let the new releases be gorgeous new models, with cool fluff and interesting rules. People will buy them. But don't let them be more competitive than the old releases due to having new types of abilities. Don't let this game devolve into one where the player that has the most updated army wins.

As a side note, what is your take on attaching a points cost to using a hero as general? That does not conflict with any current rules, nor does it change any warscrolls.

Well split command costs is all about paying more if it's the general and less if it's not, in fact the idea started as that exactly, but was swapped to the split option to account for Archaeon and the like. Which is to say I don't think the intention is being debated here.

At any rate, unless GW changes the warscrolls beyond superficial adjustments there won't be anything different about the new lizardmen since the product list has already been leaked. But if there are changes and GW keeps up a pace of roughly one remade faction a month then everything would be updated in relatively short order and the situation will be good enough as-is, if not ideal (you could use a sea helm as a counts-as for a model without a powerful command ability, for example). That said, there have been no warscrolls which changed with a re-release beyond names and minor errata thus far, so I doubt that is the case. But I think Smellingsalts' proposal of waiting a week to see is not a bad one.

I of course have nothing against waiting for a week either. But I think this is a change that needs to be made either way - either the new releases showcase a new trend of hero-design, in which case the change needs to be made in order for older armies to stay competitive and balanced until they are updated, or the new releases do not showcase any such trend, in which case the change needs to be made to balance hero options for everyone.

Having been the victim of a Ripperdon unit this weekend, I would like to propose an actual rules amendment. Those of you who know me or have read my posts know that I am really hesitant to make any rule change, so if I think it needs to be changed it is really bad. Ripperdons have a rule that allows them to re-roll all hits and wounds. They also have a rule that gives them an extra attack. Combining the two creates a ridiculous amount of attacks. I am also aware that other creatures have rules that give them nearly unending attacks (Konrad Von Carstein). I would propose that if you have a rule that gives you re-rolls on dice, and a rule that spawns more dice for a successful roll, that only the original dice benefit from the re-roll, and not those spawned later. In one match 3 Ripperdons killed Thanquol in one turn. In another, three Ripperdons killed 27 Savage orcs (and the orcs had a mystic shield on them, I think there were something like 48 wounds I had to save).

Rules amendments is one option, another is to calculate their average damage output per turn per model and price them accordingly. I could look into that if I have the time later this week. If I do, I'll post it in the units thread. That damage output sounds absolutely absurd though, holy crap.

The problem is while ripperdactyls are statistically limited (they will run out of hits eventuality) and can thus be costed, there are several ways to get literally unlimited attack potential. Konrad is one example; his ability gives him another pile in and attack if he can roll under the number of models he has slain in the phase once he is done attacking; this means his consecutive attack rounds stack and once he has killed seven models he can't fail the roll. He then piles in and attacks indefinitely until there is nothing in range. There are also several combos I know of involving getting extra attacks on a 6+/5+ to hit that can be abused in a similar manner (like every 4+ dice roll generates 2 extra attacks, statistically infinite).

Better to add a blanket rule that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks, then cost appropriately from there. And give Konrad a rule saying he only gets red fury once per turn max. Because as Smellingsalts pointed out, there needs to be a balancing factor here. For what it's worth I would be willing to make a list of units/heroes affected by this so they could have their costs adjusted.

On another point, the Seraphon have been released with no rule changes to the warscrolls, leaving command abilities untouched. Lizardmen players who want a combat hero without paying for a command ability are limited to just the standard bearer hero (in which case they are paying for a standard ability that doesn't stack its main benefit) or the temple guard hero. So they pay for something redundant/unusable or take that hero option. I would say counts-as only goes so far here and we would be better off with split costs.

Hey Attila, this has probably been answered before but when playing something like Mannfred the Mortarch version, does the price include his "only works if there is no sunlight bonus" or not?

I can't find any discussion of this in the PPC comp document, perhaps it should be added?

Or do we follow the AoS vanilla rules? (IE always play in basements when you play mannfred)

Silly rules are always considered active unless there is a dice roll/randomization involved. So Nagash's hand of dust is priced as a 50% chance of success, for example, while Mannfred always receives his bonus for not seeing the sun. This is to my understanding though, Attilla would still be the authority on the matter.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Having been the victim of a Ripperdon unit this weekend, I would like to propose an actual rules amendment. Those of you who know me or have read my posts know that I am really hesitant to make any rule change, so if I think it needs to be changed it is really bad. Ripperdons have a rule that allows them to re-roll all hits and wounds. They also have a rule that gives them an extra attack. Combining the two creates a ridiculous amount of attacks. I am also aware that other creatures have rules that give them nearly unending attacks (Konrad Von Carstein). I would propose that if you have a rule that gives you re-rolls on dice, and a rule that spawns more dice for a successful roll, that only the original dice benefit from the re-roll, and not those spawned later. In one match 3 Ripperdons killed Thanquol in one turn. In another, three Ripperdons killed 27 Savage orcs (and the orcs had a mystic shield on them, I think there were something like 48 wounds I had to save).

I think we can fix this in a few ways, depending on the situation. Are they hard to take out? If not, a points increase could be in order to make them more of a glass cannon. But if they need to cost a huge amount, it's just boring and a rules change would be better. What would happen if we just removed the Blot Toad rule, for example, to dampen the effectiveness of the unit?

Konrad have the potential to kill one unit (or more) in one turn, but if you face him with a monster/another hero, he is unlikely to have even one extra round of attacks. If we increase his points somewhat, do we really need to put limits on extra attacks?

We can "fix" all this easily by implementing a rules amendment that limits extra attacks, but I want to make certain that we really have to first.

Deusvult wrote:Hey Attila, this has probably been answered before but when playing something like Mannfred the Mortarch version, does the price include his "only works if there is no sunlight bonus" or not?

Hm I was sure I had written it in the Comp Doc already! Must have slipped my mind somehow. As Ninth says, we assume you always get the best result in any case not involving chance. I'll add it for the next update even though it takes awhile before we do that.

Ripperdactyls are reasonably squishy with only a 5+ and 3 wounds each, but they do ignore rend of -1 and are fast enough to stay out of charge range yet still make their own charges easily. I think they could possibly be costed, but there are enough things overall that could cause problems that a blanket rule may be better.

On the Konrad example, say he charges a unit and kills 3 models. He rolls a 2 for red fury and attacks again, killing 4. He then rolls a 6, which is below the number of models he has killed that phase and thus he attacks again. He continues to pile in and attack indefinitely, killing any model until there is nothing within 3" at the end of a given set of attacks. It doesn't matter if his attacks don't kill a model at this point since it is done by phase not by the 'round' of attacks. This could easily be house ruled to fix, but that would be a different rule than what ripperdactyls would need, which in turn could be different than another unit/combo may need.

Blanket ruling that extra attacks cannot themselves generate extra attacks fixes all cases (as well as potential future ones) except Konrad, who really needs a house rule either way due to the issue described above.

If a blanket rule like that was to be implemented, one would also have to take into account it would have on other units (Slaanesh daemons come to mind), and if necessary adjust their prices.

Hey all,
Just had some quick input on points costs. After playing many games with it, I think that the Bastilodon's solar engine should increase in points cost. The amount of damage it can potentially put out, combined with the invulnerability of the model it is mounted on can create a very large problem. An increase of 50 points rather than 10 for the upgrade seems like it should be in order. NinthMusketeer and I have discovered through these games that the bastilodon by itself can nearly win games, as with any sort of shield buff, or cover, it becomes nearly impossible to kill. If the model was at 250 points with this upgrade, it would at east be in the same category as an engine of the gods, which from my experience doesn't have nearly the same output and effectiveness. I also believe that the point cost of a plague claw catapult should be looked at again, at 150 points it would require more thought to take, where as at its current level it is a no-brainer. The plague claw has extreme potential to kill units of 10 or more models, which, excluding ogres and stormcasts, nearly every army in the game uses in force. the amount of damage output that a model like this can put out is ridiculous, when compared with its extremely modest price point. this, however, can be said with most artillery. The last model that i believe needs a point evaluation is the troglodon. from several games played with it, i just find its points cost to be a bit high, when compared to the effectiveness it has in the game, the lack of any sort of rend, combines with its attack profile not being too potent, makes for a question in my mind. it seems that its role i character hunting, however, in a list with so many character hunting units, it seems like such a lackluster option, and never seems to make its points back, tactically, or otherwise.
-Danse

I can confirm the damage output in both of the shooting cases, but I am not totally convinced either one needs a points increase since the quick math I did for average damage numbers suggested that we both just had very good luck across a few games (and that synergies were in play). If the bastiladon does need a points increase then I think it should be based more on the merit that it is insanely hard to kill; give it mystic shied, or more easily just put it in cover, for a 2+ save that ignores rend (of any amount), and the bugger has a 4+ save against mortal wounds. Meanwhile, if the plagueclaw needs a point increase I think it should be based more off the fact that its average damage output is deceptive; while it works out to a relatively low average of wounds-per-shot, the reality is that its 2d6 wounds all at once against units of 10+, likely scoring further casualties from the ensuing battleshock.

The troglodon does seem a bit lackluster for its points. No rend on any of its attacks really hurts it.

Thanks for all the input guys, I've added it all to the possible changes for next version!

As you say, the Bastiladon can become almost invincible, which might not be reflected in its point cost right now. And the Plagueclaw could well be in need of a point increase as well - most war machines only reach that kind of potential when they have an engineer-type model nearby, but the Plagueclaw does not even need that...only large units within range!