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.

 DarthSpader wrote:
True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.

Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.

If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?

It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.

Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound

The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.

Wait, wasn't the Revenant updated (or at least included) with Escalation during 6th Edition, which was created solely to introduce super heavies to the regular game? That would indicate that the current rules ARE intended for use with normal games and table sizes, so using the whole "only meant for Apoc games" argument is invalid. Yes, GW was lazy and just reprinted the Apoc rules for many of the SH units in that book, but it could be just as easily said that they felt the rules were appropriate.

While I think everybody gets that SH in general are really too strong for the standard game, especially those from FW, but the simple fact remains, the rules allow it, so we have to go by what we are given. Based on that, you will be hard pressed to find anybody that agrees that the Revenant isn't OP and is priced appropriately for 7th edition 40K.

I think Super Heavies CAN work in the current rules set, but they really have to have a good balance between destructive output, durability, and points cost. Nobody bats an eye when a Khorne Lord of Skulls or Ork Stompa hit the table, because while these units are very durable, they lack the efficient destructive output and extreme mobility that something like the Revenant has. Any calculation that can justify both the Lord of Skulls' and the Revenant's points pricing has to be severely out of whack because the two models are on the opposite ends of the SH efficiency spectrum.

 Selym wrote:
And that, folks, is why this thread got made.

That was a year and a half ago, so no it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you wanted to drop the speed of the revenant, subtract the 160 points it pays for it and don't let it have it.

I gave you what the points appear to be for the different abilities the revenant possesses, take them away and see what it brings to the table.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I used one once, via proxy in an apocalypse game. It did OK, giant team game where it got nuked second turn by another strength D shot before it got to do that much. I would never attempt to validation all of their pricing, but some units are direct translations of their epic counterparts, and those games were on a significantly different scale. Making the choices made for the revenant in regards to weapon loadout and maneuverability less nonsensical.

You heard it here, folks. It died one time so it's actually balanced.

Did you know I had a Juggerlord and his Crimson Slaughter Nurgle buddy kill a Centurion star with Invisibility once?

The only time my revenant fell was when it got caught out by wyches with haywire grenades. Other than that the most it really needs to worry about is melee knights. Most of the ranged stuff that can take it are low shots which is where the holofield comes in nicely to keep it going. The movement speed covers the weakness of it in combat as well.

Really it has, and counters, its weaknesses too well; to the point where its main concern is actually the size of the table for places it can jump to.

The Revenant is really powerful, to the point of being semi OP.

Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The Revenant is really powerful, to the point of being semi OP.

Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.

I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The Revenant is really powerful, to the point of being semi OP.

Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.

I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.

The Baneblade cannot move 12" - Super Heavy Tanks can only move 6" a turn.
The firing all guns bit is true but the amount carried is.... underwhelming.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The Revenant is really powerful, to the point of being semi OP.

Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.

I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.

The Baneblade cannot move 12" - Super Heavy Tanks can only move 6" a turn.
The firing all guns bit is true but the amount carried is.... underwhelming.

Super heavy tanks totally can move 12".

Yup, all superheavy vehicles can move 12"

And I don't base my assumptions on my single game, nor did I ever allude to the revenant being underpowered or easy to kill.

The revenant is the only titan level superheavy that doesn't waste points on the excessive range of the weapons loadout it carries, because it doesn't have that long of a range. It has the speed it does to close in on other titans to diminish their range superiority. Now, did games workshop recognise how strong that would be on a normal size table? No, absolutely not. But if the revenant had an additional 3 foot range on each of its guns and lost the jumping ability nobody would complain and it would still do exactly what it would do in apocalypse games.

They traded excessive range for excessive mobility, paying the same points for the two. They traded a higher armor value for the ability to deflect incoming fire while trying to force the model to use its mobility to gain the maximum benefit.

I didn't make these numbers up, games workshop did. THEY priced the holofield at 25 points a side, I used that as my baseline becaus they didn't change the points for voidshields since then either (35 points each) the old vdr had you pay excessive points for movement in order to make the vehicles slightly more expensive, but let you get huge discounts on low armor values which was the primary way to break the system. I fixed those.

The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Yup, all superheavy vehicles can move 12"

And I don't base my assumptions on my single game, nor did I ever allude to the revenant being underpowered or easy to kill.

The revenant is the only titan level superheavy that doesn't waste points on the excessive range of the weapons loadout it carries, because it doesn't have that long of a range. It has the speed it does to close in on other titans to diminish their range superiority. Now, did games workshop recognise how strong that would be on a normal size table? No, absolutely not. But if the revenant had an additional 3 foot range on each of its guns and lost the jumping ability nobody would complain and it would still do exactly what it would do in apocalypse games.

They traded excessive range for excessive mobility, paying the same points for the two. They traded a higher armor value for the ability to deflect incoming fire while trying to force the model to use its mobility to gain the maximum benefit.

I didn't make these numbers up, games workshop did. THEY priced the holofield at 25 points a side, I used that as my baseline becaus they didn't change the points for voidshields since then either (35 points each) the old vdr had you pay excessive points for movement in order to make the vehicles slightly more expensive, but let you get huge discounts on low armor values which was the primary way to break the system. I fixed those.

The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.

Just because GW did the pricing does not mean they did it competently or fairly. And where are you getting the numbers from anyway? It's not like GW ever explicitly said how they price thiings - especially as their pricing is extremely inconsistent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.

WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.

They released a vehicle design rules system in 4th edition. The rules themselves were designed so that anything you made would be slightly overpriced to get opponents to be more willing to let you use it.

I decided to update it with the thought that they wouldn't make a new way of creating vehicles just to give to the public, they would probably tweak their own. So I started with those and began adjusting prices based on complaints I had seen for it on forums such as this one. I then began price checking current vehicles that people weren't complaining about in regards to power to see where they lie. I got to v8.0 and added in monstrous creature design rules as well. Built them based on the fa t that some monstrous creatures used to be walkers (such as the wraithlord bei g an eldar dreadnaught) and built those rules the same way. I figured out how toughness and saves equate to armor values and then extrapolated speed and wounds the same way speed equated to hullpoints.

After I had a decent algorithm for survivability, I started the process of comparing weapon points totals and that was where discrepancies in capability to points ratios would start to skew. Especially when there would be multiple weapon options on a unit that were traded for free (such as a phantom titan with double phantom pulsars being 400 points undercosted while the sword and d-cannons mathed out to within 15 points of each other)

It is a work in progress, I am always taking feedback, but it is really only slight tweeks that have been put forth for the past 2-3 months. I figured I was close enough to start using it to actually show how things lined up with one another.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They released a vehicle design rules system in 4th edition. The rules themselves were designed so that anything you made would be slightly overpriced to get opponents to be more willing to let you use it.

I decided to update it with the thought that they wouldn't make a new way of creating vehicles just to give to the public, they would probably tweak their own. So I started with those and began adjusting prices based on complaints I had seen for it on forums such as this one. I then began price checking current vehicles that people weren't complaining about in regards to power to see where they lie. I got to v8.0 and added in monstrous creature design rules as well. Built them based on the fa t that some monstrous creatures used to be walkers (such as the wraithlord bei g an eldar dreadnaught) and built those rules the same way. I figured out how toughness and saves equate to armor values and then extrapolated speed and wounds the same way speed equated to hullpoints.

After I had a decent algorithm for survivability, I started the process of comparing weapon points totals and that was where discrepancies in capability to points ratios would start to skew. Especially when there would be multiple weapon options on a unit that were traded for free (such as a phantom titan with double phantom pulsars being 400 points undercosted while the sword and d-cannons mathed out to within 15 points of each other)

It is a work in progress, I am always taking feedback, but it is really only slight tweeks that have been put forth for the past 2-3 months. I figured I was close enough to start using it to actually show how things lined up with one another.

I'm seeing a few flaws with this:

-You started from a 4E table
-You're assuming GW continued from that table
-You're assuming GW uses tables
-You're assuming GW didn't off the old design team (hint: half are gone, the other half are too embarrassed to put their names on their work)
-GW *did* rewrite how they price things (FOTM comes to mind)

 master of ordinance wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.

WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.

It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.

It is at this point we can safely conclude that Lyth's method of justifying GW's point costing is a nice attempt, but really really gak.

I get what you're trying to do, but without changing the total points costs of almost everything, your calculation method is going to be both ludicrously unfair and nonsensical.

My tables work for 90% of the vehicles out there, and go a long way toward making the tyranid monsters competitive all the way around (hive tyrant is 20 points too cheap, twin linked devourer should be 30 points a piece, but the carnifex should be about 85 points base and the heavy venom cannon should only be 20 points)

If by "works" you mean that it concludes that everything GW produced is fairly costed, then it needs a rewrite.

 Selym wrote:
If by "works" you mean that it concludes that everything GW produced is fairly costed, then it needs a rewrite.

What it does is show where they THINK things should be costed. I have a lot of points where I show what games workshop believes the point total should be in regards to weapons, and I have what I believe they should be written next to it. I created a baseline for survivability, and extrapolated points for weapons from there by way of comparison to other similar weapons and the old chart used by games workshop for 4th edition.

I believe they flubb points quite often, especially for the imperial guard, orks, and chaos in the negative and they give too much leeway to the eldar on certain things (scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons, and the wraithknight appears to not pay to be init 5 and gargantuan)

I am attempting to rectify that without completely invalidating everyone's infantry point totals.

Reverse engineering points costs from some GW vehicles lets you work out how much GW should price stuff if they are being consistent. Maybe. If you have enough data points to accurately reverse engineer the points costs.

You can't use your method to determine if X unit is over/under powered/costed unless you have been able to accurately reverse engineer the points costs of all its abilities and reconstructed an identical unit without reference to the original units profile.

That still doesn't allow you to say whether things are over/under costed. GW could price a 2++ save at 1pt per model, and you could reverse engineer that cost and apply it universally for consistent results - but that only tells you how much it does cost, not how much it should cost.

Because you don't have other instances of a lot of the abilities the Revenant has, you can't accurately determine what its cost should be, and so you can't determine whether it is over/under powered/costed. All you can do is make up a bunch of numbers that add to 900pts... which anyone else can do, but it doesn't tell us anything.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.

The Shadowsword does not have a demolisher cannon. Its only weapon, before adding upgrades (which cost extra), is the D-weapon.

And no, making a unit weaker (swapping a demolisher cannon for a weaker gun) and lowering its points by the difference in stats does NOT make a unit better. What matters is the ratio of the unit's power to the unit's cost, and you haven't changed that ratio. You've just removed X points worth of power and X points worth of cost. If you start with a unit that is overpriced then you end with a unit that is still overpriced. If you want to make a unit better by removing power then you need to reduce its point cost by more than the value of the things you removed. For example, drop the Baneblade's demolisher cannon to a battle cannon and reduce its point cost by 200 points.

Also, your argument is especially wrong in this case because a demolisher cannon is a really good weapon on a superheavy platform. Having 12" movement speed makes it easier to get into range to use it, and you don't suffer the drawbacks of the ordnance rule. A Baneblade and a LRBT is a better combination than a battlecannon Baneblade and a LR Demolisher. In fact, if I could pay a few more points to add another demolisher cannon to my Baneblade I'd do it without hesitation. So your proposal only makes sense if you assume that the demolisher cannon is a weak weapon that you don't want to have in your list at all, and that's obviously absurd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I believe they flubb points quite often, especially for the imperial guard, orks, and chaos in the negative and they give too much leeway to the eldar on certain things (scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons, and the wraithknight appears to not pay to be init 5 and gargantuan)

IOW, GW doesn't use the process you seem to think they use. If they have a list of standard prices for weapons/defense/etc then it should be impossible to get the points wrong because you simply add up what a unit has and get a final result. You can only have inconsistent point values if the author makes up an arbitrary point cost for each new unit based on their personal opinion about how much it "should" cost. You're trying to reverse-engineer a system that, by your own claims, doesn't exist.

IIRC the way GW assigns points costs is that they give an arbitrary value and then tweak it until it "feels right".

 TheCustomLime wrote:
IIRC the way GW assigns points costs is that they give an arbitrary value and then tweak it until it "feels right".

Or in the case of many units, give it a points value and just let it be.

Or even worse - assign it a 'cool' points value. Hurr durr wouldn't it be hilarious if the Khornemower cost 888pts because Khorne?

Trasvi wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
IIRC the way GW assigns points costs is that they give an arbitrary value and then tweak it until it "feels right".

Or in the case of many units, give it a points value and just let it be.

Or even worse - assign it a 'cool' points value. Hurr durr wouldn't it be hilarious if the Khornemower cost 888pts because Khorne?

Well, I guess it's rules reflect the idiocy of the model so I'd say that points cost is entirely justified!

 Peregrine wrote:
And no, making a unit weaker (swapping a demolisher cannon for a weaker gun) and lowering its points by the difference in stats does NOT make a unit better. What matters is the ratio of the unit's power to the unit's cost, and you haven't changed that ratio. You've just removed X points worth of power and X points worth of cost. If you start with a unit that is overpriced then you end with a unit that is still overpriced. If you want to make a unit better by removing power then you need to reduce its point cost by more than the value of the things you removed. For example, drop the Baneblade's demolisher cannon to a battle cannon and reduce its point cost by 200 points.

Well, maybe it could, it the weapons are disparate.

A model that has 10 SD close combat attacks and a 10-shot SD cannon with minimum range 24" would be a lot better with either one of those units.
Or more realistically, you have a tank with a S10 AP1 single-shot gun and a hull mounted bolter. It would be better if it didn't have to spend points on the bolter, because you're not going to shoot the bolter at the same targets as the main gun.
This isn't generally the case for super-heavies because they can fire guns at multiple targets (so they aren't wasted). And in rare displays of rules awareness GW gives heavy stubbers to Imperial knights so they can shoot their guns at juicy targets and mark their assault target with the stubber.

The rules for the rev didn't change at all. What changed first was the "spearhead" scenarios - wich first brought in super heavies. Generally baneblades and stompas (the kits Gw made) - to keep things "fair" they just copy and pasted the warhound, rev, and the khorne thing. Brass scorpion I rhink.

Since then, the revs rules haven't really changed. It's holo fields have been adjusted a few times but in general it's the same. When 6th dropped again gw just copied and pasted a bunch of stuff into escalation as a seperate addition to the main rules - wich also included I think a passing reference to D weapons and hp/sp conversion, and some super heavy rules - but most existed in the other books. But it's still just a copy paste job into the new rules. - rules wich never really took full account of abailable super heavys and the impact they have on the game. And in GWs mind - a super heavy is a baneblade or stompa. Or more recently Knights and the tau thing. (The kits they sell) - and the rules are intended to sell more of those kits.

The rev being a forge world model must be off GWs main radar when it comes to the game, along with a few other factions. Because they seriously didn't consider its ability in a non apocalypse game.

And gw being the cash hungry grabbers they are - how do they get more money per sprue of plastic? Make those sprues contain super big awsome mega tanks/robots and triple the price. Those units are then shoehorned into the game rules. When they become over powered or change the game - because now everyone has to account for them - the units used get rekitted re boxed and increased in Price - or new $180 open topped robot kits get added as counters. It's GWs "red queen process"

The primary reason people may want to swap out the demolisher for a battle cannon is the range disparity. Nobody want to push too far forward with their tank and be beaten to death by something else.

As for the revenant and its abilities, all of the superheavy vehicles for the eldar have the holofield, games workshop priced them originally at 100 points so I based my mathematical assumption on that being the case. I had a decent grasp on the survivability stats otherwise so the only variable I could see was in the price of weapons. Those would be the only part that wouldn't be guaranteed to math out the exact same since they had so many variables in regards to capability. I saw a HUGE discrepancy between the weapon systems, in particular the titan killer ones (strD) so I decided to base them around the only ones I didn't see people really complain about, the gaze of mork, and the volcano cannon. When you see the points listed differently, that is me attempting to balance things against those weapons.

I can use this rule set to build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie. (Such as the robbery of orks by making them pay for assault capabilities for vehicles that are already open topped, or dropping the gork/morkanaught from superheavy status for no apparent reason other than maybe not wanting that many lords of war)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
IIRC the way GW assigns points costs is that they give an arbitrary value and then tweak it until it "feels right".

Or in the case of many units, give it a points value and just let it be.

Or even worse - assign it a 'cool' points value. Hurr durr wouldn't it be hilarious if the Khornemower cost 888pts because Khorne?

With the khorn mower, it isn't as bad as it seems, just has a problem with not ever being able to charge the things it shoots at. Heavy stubber and it becomes a much more viable unit. The real travesty is angrath the unbound. He would need all of his attacks to be strength D and add an additional attack to his profile to be worth what they say he is!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The primary reason people may want to swap out the demolisher for a battle cannon is the range disparity. Nobody want to push too far forward with their tank and be beaten to death by something else.

Normal games happen on a 6x4 table. The demolisher cannon will have targets.

games workshop priced them originally at 100 points

No they didn't. GW just came up with random arbitrary prices for the unit as a whole, there was never any statement that titan holofields are worth 100 points. And don't forget that the rules for them have changed, causing them to vary significantly in effectiveness over the years, so any attempt to say "they're always worth 100 points" is simply absurd.

I can use this rule set to build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie. (Such as the robbery of orks by making them pay for assault capabilities for vehicles that are already open topped, or dropping the gork/morkanaught from superheavy status for no apparent reason other than maybe not wanting that many lords of war)

I can also make a rule set that can build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie.

Peregrine's Vehicle Design Rules:

1) All vehicles cost 10 points per model.

With the khorn mower, it isn't as bad as it seems, just has a problem with not ever being able to charge the things it shoots at.

No, it's laughably bad even with the ability to charge a second target. It gets effortlessly wiped off the table by a Warhound that costs almost 150 points less, and even compared to "normal" superheavies its damage output is awful for the price. There is simply no plausible argument that its point cost has anything to do with its value on the table. GW simply made a Baneblade-level unit and gave it a "fluffy" point cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:
Well, maybe it could, it the weapons are disparate.

A model that has 10 SD close combat attacks and a 10-shot SD cannon with minimum range 24" would be a lot better with either one of those units.
Or more realistically, you have a tank with a S10 AP1 single-shot gun and a hull mounted bolter. It would be better if it didn't have to spend points on the bolter, because you're not going to shoot the bolter at the same targets as the main gun.

What I said is still true in that case because a weapon (or defensive upgrade, stat line, etc) doesn't have a fixed value regardless of what unit it is on. The hull-mounted bolter on the anti-tank vehicle would have very little value, so removing it at the fair price of its minimal value wouldn't make the tank better. You'd only get a better vehicle if you removed the bolter and gave it a point drop that was more than the value of the bolter.

Example: let's say the hull bolter is worth 1 point (it might be worth 5 points on some other tank that can actually use it effectively) and the tank costs 100 points. If you remove the bolter and drop the tank's price to 99 points you haven't made a better unit, you've just made it a cheaper and less-capable unit with the same point efficiency. Even though the bolter wasn't worth much it still had non-zero value (for example, giving a 50% chance to avoid "weapon destroyed" on the main gun or giving 1-2 more shots against infantry when there are no tanks to kill) and the reduction in point cost only matches the value of what it lost. But if you remove the bolter and drop the tank's price to 90 points you've made it a better unit. You removed 1 point worth of capability but dropped its point cost by 10x that amount.

What Lythrandire Biehrellian is claiming to do is establish that a given weapon/upgrade/whatever has a price of X points that accurately reflects its value to the unit, and then "improve" a unit by removing the weapon/upgrade/whatever and reducing its point cost by X. And that's just absurd. If removing the weapon/upgrade/whatever and reducing the unit's cost by X makes it a better unit then X wasn't the correct price, and Lythrandire Biehrellian's method of assigning point values for parts of a unit gave the wrong answer. They're essentially conceding defeat with their own examples.

 Selym wrote:
you're doing everything you can to justify GW's terribad points costing.

This.

He says the Baneblade and Revenant are both perfectly costed.

That's a crock, because it's a fact that the Baneblade is grossly overpriced..

Let me take equal points of Revenants against his Baneblades, and we'll see how it goes. He can even pick the table size, IDGAF about that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.

WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.

It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.

It would lack the range of even a Leman Russ's Battlecannon, so no I would say that the range does not need dropping at all. Increasing maybe and dropping a metric ton of its points definetly. The problem is not that it is spending points on things that it does not need, the problem is that it is just generally too expensive. BTW, the Shadowsword hulls do not have a hull Demolisher Cannon, they have: A Main Gun, 3x TL HB's, 2x Lascannons. That is essentially just its point defence weapons plus its main gun.

BTW, I do really like your vehicles design rules but I have to say that in this case the Revenant is too powerful for anything sub apocalypse.

Lyth, the Shadowsword is a titan sniper. It does this poorly, and costs more than some of its targets.

In regards to swapping demolisher cannons for battlecannons, aside form it being pointless on SH tanks like the baneblade, it would look pretty silly.

For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:



And here's a shadowsword:



And as a further kick to the bollocks, the Baneblades used to be about 50-75 points CHEAPER before escalation, and they were still slightly overcosted even then.