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.

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

And here's a shadowsword:

Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.

Well it has the hull HB, but it cannot pivot, and it's crap.

 Selym wrote:
Well it has the hull HB, but it cannot pivot, and it's crap.

Oh, is that standard now? It used to be an optional upgrade (the original FW model didn't have a hull gun).

Yea. It got it with a large price increase. Apparently a twin linked hull HB with a 45* firing arc is worth a lot of points to the shadowsword. I don't have my books on me atm, but I'll be able to give a breakdown of points from before and after escalation later.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

And here's a shadowsword:

Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.

No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

And here's a shadowsword:

Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.

No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.

Speaking as the guy who has Escalation, you buy the sponsons, but not the hull gun.

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

And here's a shadowsword:

Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.

No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.

Speaking as the guy who has Escalation, you buy the sponsons, but not the hull gun.

Damn, Im still using the Imperial Armour variant. Escalation is looking even worse now.

Don't forget the points increase alongside the loss of guns.

 Selym wrote:
Don't forget the points increase alongside the loss of guns.

Why GW, why?

Apparently Baneblades are OP, and Eldar are underpowered.

What next, Baneblades with the Baneblade Cannon are OP, increase the price by 80 points and replace the cannon with a regular Battlecannon. +40 points to upgrade to the Baneblade cannon?

A vehicles damage output efficiency is directly related to their weapons range and prefered targets. The khorne lord of skulls has a problem where both of the guns it has are so strong that they inhibit it from being able to effectively get into melee, thereby stopping it from using all of the points it spent on the melee abilities it has.

I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.

The eldar holofield were 25 points per facing according to the vdr games workshop released and they granted a 4+ invul save to that facing at all time for that side, but only against shooting attacks. The current version is only better than that if the titan had moved and the opponent happened to roll a 6 on the destroyer table at range, and it works in melee. Other units appear to pay 60 points less for a straight up 4++, that means the holofield is over 100% more effective than a 4++

Also, I'm putting the baneblade at 5 points less than the one in apocalypse, I don't have the escalation supplement. Did they change it between the two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the only weapon priced appropriately on the warhound is the vulkan mega bolter, taking anything other than that will give you between 35 and 100 points free. They should have listed a point value for them as additions to the hull, not free swaps.

EDIT: nvm

Lythrandire Biehrellian: Don't let all these guys get you down. You took a unit and looked at it the way it is supposed to be looked at and people are putting you down for it. You even updated the VDR charts and people are just saying you made the rules up. I have seen the old VDR from games workshop and I have a feeling 95% of the people who posted on your thread haven't. I would actually like to see your updated VDR so I can help a friend of mine modify his vehicle as he used the old VDR charts and the vehicle may warrant some restructuring.
The picture below is my Armorcast Rev. He hasn't seen much action but I love the look on peoples faces when I put him on the field and tell them it is a revenant. Not at all what they were expecting to see since the forgeworld one is more commonly known.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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

And here's a shadowsword:

Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.

No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.

Girls, girls, you're both pretty.


Actually, the real issue is that GW changed the rules for the Shadowsword, where some have the fixed hull HBs, some don't.

If you want a classic resin Mars pattern Shadowsword from the early days of FW, it's:
- NO hull weapon
- Sponson Targeters (+1 BS) instead of Lascannons
Not like the upgunned plastic kit.

I think it's a pretty terrible model for what it does on today's tabletop.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.

No, it's standard fit as seen on the tabletop for both Baneblade and Revenant, Revenants with the S(D) guns, not the crappy sonic lances that nobody fields.

If you're having to handicap or limit the Revenants, then that's just more evidence that your VDR doesn't work. Previously, you had said, it was a function of table size, which I granted to you. Now, you're saying that it's only for certain weapons, which I refuse to accept.

So I wonder: what's the next thing you need to do to make your VDR pretend to work?

How about a radical points cost reduction in the cost of the Baneblade, to <400 pts, as I've suggested in the IG threads. That'd fix things, rather than pretending that BBs and Revenants are both correctly costed.


But rather than forcing you into that hole, I will magnanimously grant you the option of swapping your Baneblades with dedicated anti-Titan armor: the dreaded Imperial Shadowsword superheavy. Mars Pattern, of course. It has a single-shot S(D) gun, so things should be fair, point for point.

The point I was making was when one vehicle is kitted out to hunt superheavies, and the other is set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles the game is a forgone conclusion. If the sonic lance is the weapon that is weaker and unused, why was it the one banned by itc on the superheavy tanks for the eldar and not the pulsar?

@xerics, the link is in my signature. I hope you and your friend find it useful!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And they would be fair, point for point, if the revenant's started at the max range of the shadowsword. If they both are on a 6x4 table, you would have to take off ~80 points from the shadowsword for them to equal out in their firepower levels.

Also, I would suggest my houserule for strength D where a "6" is d3+3 instead of d6+6. It would make whoever goes first a much less important part of the fight, and should be how strD is set up anyway.

Escalation Breakdown:

Baneblade:
-Baneblade Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB
-525 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Banehammer:
-Tremor Cannon
-Hull HB
-410 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25

Banesword:
-Quake Cannon
-Hull HB
-430 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Doomhammmer:
-Magma Cannon
-Hull HB
-420 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25

Hellhammer:
-Hellhammer Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB
-540 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Stormlord:
-Vulcan Mega Bolter (can fire twice if it does not move)
-Two Heavy Stubbers
-Hull HB
480 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 40

Shadowsword:
-Volcano Cannon
-455 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-May replace one pair of sponson lascannons with targeters for +1 BS

And on reading that, I've just realized that despit the official model having it, the Shadowsword CANNOT have a hull HB. Feth me.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A vehicles damage output efficiency is directly related to their weapons range and prefered targets. The khorne lord of skulls has a problem where both of the guns it has are so strong that they inhibit it from being able to effectively get into melee, thereby stopping it from using all of the points it spent on the melee abilities it has.

No, it has a problem where it costs 888 points for "fluff" reasons. Even if you give it a special rule where it can charge any unit, regardless of what it shot at in the shooting phase, it still sucks.

I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.

IOW, "Revenants are fine, as long as you nerf them".

PS: the problem still exists if you use pulsar Revenants (anti-LoW) vs. Shadowswords (anti-LoW). The Revenants effortlessly wipe an equal point value of Shadowswords off the table.

The eldar holofield were 25 points per facing according to the vdr games workshop released and they granted a 4+ invul save to that facing at all time for that side, but only against shooting attacks. The current version is only better than that if the titan had moved and the opponent happened to roll a 6 on the destroyer table at range, and it works in melee. Other units appear to pay 60 points less for a straight up 4++, that means the holofield is over 100% more effective than a 4++

Could you please actually read the rules you're dealing with before trying to analyze and re-balance them? Going from a 4++ to one facing to a flat 50% chance to negate damage is a HUGE change. Remember that holofields are not a save. You can have a Revenant with a 4+ cover save from standing behind a ruin AND a 4+ holofield roll to negate any incoming damage.

Oh, and the only weapon priced appropriately on the warhound is the vulkan mega bolter, taking anything other than that will give you between 35 and 100 points free. They should have listed a point value for them as additions to the hull, not free swaps.

Yes, this is very obvious to everyone who isn't GW. But the fact that GW printed all of those weapons at the same cost should pretty clearly tell you that GW doesn't use the point system you're trying to reverse-engineer, they just arbitrarily assign point costs to stuff based on what "feels" right. Or based on what sells model kits.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The point I was making was when one vehicle is kitted out to hunt superheavies, and the other is set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles the game is a forgone conclusion. If the sonic lance is the weapon that is weaker and unused, why was it the one banned by itc on the superheavy tanks for the eldar and not the pulsar?

And they would be fair, point for point, if the revenant's started at the max range of the shadowsword. If they both are on a 6x4 table, you would have to take off ~80 points from the shadowsword for them to equal out in their firepower levels.

Also, I would suggest my houserule for strength D where a "6" is d3+3 instead of d6+6. It would make whoever goes first a much less important part of the fight, and should be how strD is set up anyway.

First, the Revenant is not "kitted to hunt Superheavies". The Pulsar is a general purpose weapon that's just really good, being a S(D) BLAST. It's good against Terminator infantry, MEQ Veterans, Dreadnoughts, Monstrous Creatures and so forth. It's also good (albeit overkill) against ordinary human / Tau infantry that it generally outranges. And that S5 ML isn't even scratching a superheavy. The Revenant is generally good - that's the point.

Second, the Baneblade is not "set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles". The S9 Ordnance Primary and Lascannons are all anti-tank guns, along with the HK missile. S9 is overkill for infantry, unless you're considering massed ranks of MONSTROUS infantry, and your "light" vehicles are AV13+. The Baneblade is supposed to be a strong TAC unit, but it's clearly overcosted for what it does.

It is a foregone conclusion, and that's mostly because you were wrong when you said that the points costs were fair. Even if we were playing them in the context of "ordinary" Apoc games with some number of basic Eldar / IG T3 units that would give the HBs and Revenant ML something to fire at.

Third, I'm not part of the ITC, so I have no idea why they banned it. Nor do I care, as I don't play their events. If you want an actual answer, ask someone who follows the ITC Tournament rules. Not a casual player who hasn't rolled his dice in anger and fury for years.

For the Shadowswords, you now need to change the deployment so that the Revenants need a minimum 10 foot separation? How is that anywhere near reasonable in terms of gaming? Although, if I'm placing half the terrain, a few well-placed Administratum buildings will mean you don't see anything past 40".

Finally, no way that we're going with house rules, because that's changing the units again. If your Revenant cost was correct, then there's no need to further nerf S(D).

 Selym wrote:
Escalation Breakdown:

Spoiler:

Baneblade:
-Baneblade Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB
-525 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Banehammer:
-Tremor Cannon
-Hull HB
-410 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Baneblade:
-Baneblade Cannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB
-525 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25

Banesword:
-Quake Cannon
-Hull HB
-430 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Doomhammmer:
-Magma Cannon
-Hull HB
-420 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25

Hellhammer:
-Hellhammer Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB
-540 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair

Stormlord:
-Vulcan Mega Bolter (can fire twice if it does not move)
-Two Heavy Stubbers
-Hull HB
480 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 40

Shadowsword:
-Volcano Cannon
-455 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-May replace one pair of sponson lascannons with targeters for +1 BS

And on reading that, I've just realized that despit the official model having it, the Shadowsword CANNOT have a hull HB. Feth me.

What the actual feth? How, in even the most Timmyish of Space Marysue players, did the Baneblade and its variants need a nerf of that magnitude and a points increase to warrant? It is hardly like they where over performing to begin with anyway.

That ruin would have to be at least three stories high in order to grant protection to the revenant. And the 4++ on one facing, times four facings is 100 points, which is why I used that as a guideline. And since a 4++ on all facings, including in melee now seems to be only 40 points total me considering the holofield to be 150% more effective doesn't seem that far out of line.

The lord of skulls appears to have been bumped to 888 from about 880. They piled every special rule they could on it to give it those points.

The reason I say use the modified strD is BECAUSE I think GW priced strD too low for what it gives you. But they didn't just give that boon to the revenant, they gave it to everything. If the dreaded 6 didn't have a 66% chance of deleting a 9hp superheavy, then they would have a decent chance at a rebuttal.


If the point totals above are correct, I am indeed going to have to modify the primary weapons of some of the baneblade variants.

With my system (using the stats listed above, assuming av 14/13/12)
Baneblade 505 (not bad)
Bane hammer 530 (WAY OFF, not sure how that happened but thank you!)
Shadowsword 455
Banesword 430 (I don't like being above, I'll address it)
Doom hammer 465 (again, wondering if I somehow didn't take another weapon into account or if the price changed for the better)
Hell hammer 530
Stormlord 582! (No excuse for this, I apologize for that large of a flubb. Will definitely fix that when I get a chance this weekend.)

Now, if the av on some is higher, that may account for some of the points above. If not then yes, I will have some tinkering to do.

The baneblade is a general purpose weapon loadout designed to cover maximum area, agreed? So when you kit out the revenant with an 18" help storm template with super torrent that wounds on a 3+, is ap2 and rolls 3d6 for armor penetration I would say those two would be the best comparison in regards to coverage and optimal target choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you don't place them at maximum distance, then the shadowsword are wasting points on unneeded range. That was my point with this whole thing! If other superheavies were designed to fight on a 6x4 table, the revenant wouldn't stand out at all.

Except the Revenant WOULD because speed and great weapons. Baneblades won't stand out on an Apocalypse table, but the Revenant would because it's actually getting stuff done.

I'm placing my imaginary terrain on the imaginary battlefield, so yeah, it would be at least 3 stories tall to block LOS from your imaginary Shadowswords to my imaginary Revenants...

The S(D) rule was written, and is presumed to be fairly costed into the Revenant that you claim to be corrected priced, like the Baneblade. If S(D) needs a nerf, then your claims of being priced correctly are no longer valid.

The Baneblade is a general purpose unit, yes, and thank you for indirectly acknowledging it's not specifically "set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles".

As above, I don't need to cut the range on the Revenant, simply because it helps you make the ridiculous Shadowsword vs Revenant matchup less one-sided than what it would be in the real world. The default kit on a Revenant is the dual Pulsars, and that is what you claimed to be fair. And I gave you the Mars pattern Shadowsword as a dedicated Titan hunter, so that should also be a "fair" matchup, even though the Revenant pays for side and rear holofields, along with a Revenanat ML that it won't use..

The Shadowsword is indeed wasting points on unneeded range. But 1% of the time, it might matter, when you're in a huge megabattle and you need to snipe something a few tables over. And that is what the extreme range is for. Most of the time, it's a 4' x 8' table, and too bad, so sad, Shadowsword sucks.

So again, the revenant isn't out of line with anything else carrying strength D. Strength D needs toned down a bit, but that isn't just the revenant's problem, and the shadowsword is only outclassed by the revenant because it is paying for range it doesn't need on most tables, same as some other superheavy class units and a few other things on the tabletop (basilisk and hydra come to mind, and any flyer paying for supersonic)

I restate my case, because it is what I see. The revenant only appears to be too powerful because it isn't wasting points on excessive range like other superheavies and titans. It bought speed to make up for those units range in the off chance they play somewhere it could be used to their advantage.

With the points I listed above, drop the jumping ability and you get a normal speed superheavy walker at about 735 points. Drop the holofield for a straight up 4+ invul and you are at 675. That makes it slightly weaker than a warhound, and the stats show as much.

I updated the vdr to let people make games workshop compatible vehicles and monsters, not to rewrite the game. If will be updating and looking at some of the issues presented in this thread for my next update, but this thing isn't some nonsense I just threw together. I took what they had done and have tried my best to update it for the current ruleset.

Instead of telling me how garbage it is and how wrong I am, show me where you see a discrepancy. Show me where something that is so significantly better as a weapon of the same calliber that is priced so low that I need to re evaluate share my points lie. Every person here has only told me I am wrong and games workshop sucks, nobody has actual feedback or can give me what they believe to actually be a fair point total for weapons, survivability, speed, and special rules. Show me where I am wrong, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the shadowsword is almost exactly half the cost of the revenant now, two of them have half the firepower, double the hullpoints, 1/3 the speed, over double the ground coverage and almost double the range. They are less survivable than the revenant against strength D but are more survivable against most medium- high strength weapons (the baneblade chasis is harder to penetrate all the way around and spends 90 points for that survivability, the revenant will be easier to glance or pen, but will reduce incoming fire by 33-50%, but spends 135 points for that protection)

Here's the the discrepancy you're looking for: Eldar Titan Holo-Fields are not a 4++ save. They force your opponent to re-roll successful hits, and then you roll for any additional saves. Pack it behind another decently-sized unit, and it automatically has a 5+ cover save. Move one inch, and that save becomes better than a 3+ and successfully protects against Deathblow hits. Add to that the four D-strength pulsar blasts, and the Revenant hits significantly above its weight class.

Is the Revenant Titan overpowered? No, because its an Apocalypse unit and balance doesn't matter in Apocalypse. Is it undercosted? Absolutely. I'd peg it at around the same cost as a appropriately costed Warhound Titan: 1400 points minimum.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Instead of telling me how garbage it is and how wrong I am, show me where you see a discrepancy. Show me where something that is so significantly better as a weapon of the same calliber that is priced so low that I need to re evaluate share my points lie. Every person here has only told me I am wrong and games workshop sucks, nobody has actual feedback or can give me what they believe to actually be a fair point total for weapons, survivability, speed, and special rules. Show me where I am wrong, please.

I think I (and others) already shown you where you were wrong, and continue to be wrong: Revenant, Baneblade and Shadowsword.

Those data points are merely obvious examples of where your system breaks down, and you are not owed anything further than the observation that those points collectively, and clearly invalidate your VDR system. You yourself observe that range is overvalued, but you're not changing the system.

You wrongly claim "the revenant isn't out of line with anything else carrying strength D", and the S(D) Shadowsword blows that statement completely out of the water. An unfluffy, non-model Shadowsword starts at 455 pts, but would be 505 with the sponsons that are typically modeled. People play 900-pt Revenants as a competitive unit, but they do not play 455+ pt Shadowswords except as fluffy. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious - a Revenant is faster and has 2+2 shots which hit 90% of the time, giving excellent chances to insta-kill a Shadowsword (or whatever its target happens to be) in one turn. And that is fine, because 40k wants to have a lot of random things going on. It's excellent story when a Revenant shows up, pops one Shadowsword with its left Pulsar, and cripples the second with the right. What an exciting turn! Anything can happen in Apocalypse. I wonder what will happen next time...

You need to decide whether your VDR is going to try to recreate the secret sauce of how GW costs things, or whether you're going to try and cost everything by "clean sheet" 7E utility on the tabletop, knowing what's out there and what it can do. Paying a bajillion points for 9HP vs 6HP doesn't make sense. Same with a premium for having more than 48" range. Or carrying models as Transport.

So much hate for the Revenant. Lythrandire Biehrellian is the Phantom appropriately costed? Also it isn't his VDR. He took what GW made a long time ago and updated it to current edition and should be commended for that. Just because YOU don't think things are appropriately costed doesn't mean he is wrong. The Revenant has 12/12/10. It has tank armor and can be taken down by mass str 6 shooting (which is extremely common these days). Every shot that gets through the holo fields is a hull point that can never be gotten back. There are no void shields like on the warhound (that can regenerate effectively giving it even more hull points on a lucky roll) and has a front armor of 14! Its REAR armor is the same as the Revenant's best facing! It even costs less than a Revenant! Not to mention that a Void shield absorbs an entire D shot with a 100% chance. Is it Balanced against other Superheavy's? Yes based on the stats of the units. Is it Balanced for a 6 x 4 board? No. Just because you choose to play on a tiny board doesn't mean the Revenant isn't balanced. It just isn't balanced for the circumstances YOU want to play with.

I read OP, but dont have time right now to read 6 pages worth of discussion.

Please Tell me, is OP trolling? Because i came into this with no experience and little knowledge about the revenant titan and after reading the OP, it seems pretty clear that it is OP.

Tankman131 wrote:
I read OP, but dont have time right now to read 6 pages worth of discussion.

Please Tell me, is OP trolling? Because i came into this with no experience and little knowledge about the revenant titan and after reading the OP, it seems pretty clear that it is OP.

The revenant is OP for a standard 40k game. It is not OP for Apocalypse.

I refuse to not make things pay for abilities they possess, even if it is obscene range and they aren't playing in a space big enough to use it. I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.

The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.

The phantom is a little bit undercosted if using the big pulsars, but only about 25 points. It drops to hundreds of points too weak when equipped with the other weapon options because GW removed the secondary bonuses (extra attacks for the melee weapon, ignoring voidshields for the phantom distortion cannon)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Here's the the discrepancy you're looking for: Eldar Titan Holo-Fields are not a 4++ save. They force your opponent to re-roll successful hits, and then you roll for any additional saves. Pack it behind another decently-sized unit, and it automatically has a 5+ cover save. Move one inch, and that save becomes better than a 3+ and successfully protects against Deathblow hits. Add to that the four D-strength pulsar blasts, and the Revenant hits significantly above its weight class.

Is the Revenant Titan overpowered? No, because its an Apocalypse unit and balance doesn't matter in Apocalypse. Is it undercosted? Absolutely. I'd peg it at around the same cost as a appropriately costed Warhound Titan: 1400 points minimum.

Warhound with double barrel turbolaser destructors is about 925-950 if memory serves. It is certainly not in the 1400 point range. The chance of a 6 on the destroyer table is too small to try and pile extra points onto units because they would be paying huge sums of points for something that may not ever happen in game. That is why I say they should drop to d3+3. The shot would still wreck most normal vehicles, and it would pile on a decent enough chunk of damage onto superheavies to make them useful. What it would NOT do is invalidate almost all gargantuan creatures and every superheavy with 9 hullpoints or less that doesn't have voidshields, ork fields, and eldar holofields.

Everyone sees what strD can do, we all recognise the threat, and we can see that on a regular tabletop the revenant is the most efficient delivery system for it. But the last point is only true because the revenant has a limited range compared to other strength D platforms of its size. It does pay (significantly) for the mobility it has to rely on for that range disparity, and when you put into the context of optimal ranges for the units it would consider equals on a (admittedly mythical) endless game space it isn't doing anything that the points it pays for don't allow. If you want your units to line up,then what needs to be done is lower the range of their weapons to fit within their normal game space. Then the revenant will not seem too efficient because they won't be playing with a handicap. Instead of increasing the cost of the revenant or cutting the cost of other superheavies, fix the range discrepancy between game space and weapon range.