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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

There are no points costs in the lore.

I make a specific point of avoiding MC's/GMC's as I find that my army has to dedicate a butt-ton of firepower to putting just one, more than it would cost to kill a tank of similar points cost. Hell, the only one that I have faced in recent memory was the GK baby harness and that was bad enough (killing my Inquisitor, a tank and half a section of Infantry in two turns).

 Therion wrote:
Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.

Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.

40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.

Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.

This 100% Someone putting down a few Knights now was like someone setting down 3 land raiders a few editions ago. If you knew your army couldn't compete, then you said so and the opponent either changed their force or you moved on. I can understand if people are annoyed about the tournament scene, since you can't exactly say no, but then again the tournament scene was always filled with people looking to break the game. And that is what it really boils down to. It is all about the group you play with.

I am running a narrative campaign right now and everyone is having a blast. The missions are definitely not always balanced and there are usually army composition restrictions, but people are just having fun mixing it up and playing for a purpose. If you have a theme to your battles that is more than just "my army vs your army," then the game's diversity is a boon, not a hindrance.

To the OP's original question, I am very, very happy that the game continues to evolve. It would have been horrible if we were stuck in one edition of the game forever.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

So why don't Eldar and Tau use that technology to boost their tanks or aircraft?

Backfire wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

So why don't Eldar and Tau use that technology to boost their tanks or aircraft?

^ All of this.

Why the hell have no one thought of a big Tau skimmer-tank Lord of War, with a really big gun running the length of the tank, with other guns working out of tandem with the first gun or something?

 Imateria wrote:
Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?

Tau MCs do not die easily lol Soooooo many math hammer threads have been on Dakka about how many Lascannons you need to take down a single Riptide, and it's not pretty.

There used to be a time where a MC like a Daemon Prince was considered tough, these days, anything lower than T6 shouldn't be considered monstrous, by any means. A measly Biker can have the same Toughness as a Might Eternal Warrior of the Damnos and immiterium. These days MCs from the out dated Chaos as a faction are terrible.

Either over costed, or filling no niche. Gargants are just a slap in the face to the Plethora of MCs that SHOULD be considered Gargants from the Chaos Faction.

Bloodthirsters
Lords of Change
Keepers of Secrets
Great Unclean Ones

These SHOULD BE Gargantuan Creatures, but GW likes to gimp "Bad guy" factions. Because the world of 40k needs a punching bag. Daemon Princes just need their stupid EW back, but hey, what can we do but wish.

Lascannons to take down a Ripetide? If your playing IG about 108 should do it. Provided he does not have his toe in cover. And you get lucky,

 Mantorok wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

And Necrons, and Space Marine Drop Pods.

Space Marine Drop Pods are much better than Tau drop pods. Necrons are much better Necrons than Tau.

With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

I'm fairly certain that that wasn't what you were supposed to get out of it...

 master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

Hell no. It was bad enough when they were immune to Entropic Strike. Now you want to take away literally every weapon my Sisters have to kill them?

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

Hell no. It was bad enough when they were immune to Entropic Strike. Now you want to take away literally every weapon my Sisters have to kill them?

Forgot about the sisters :/
I was referring more to Marines, Necrons, Eldar, Tau, etc

 Imateria wrote:
Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?

CSM would like a word. Hell, so would Orks.

I'll return from the dead to throw in my 2 cents. For the Tau, and maybe for the Orks, the big stompy robot things feels a little natural. I'll argue that the Riptide and Morka/Gorka could stay in, espeically since most people consider the Morka/Gorka a little underpowered. Do I miss the days when Leman Russes were considered a major threat? As an IG player, yes, heck yes. Superheavies were for Apocalypse, and even if I brought a Baneblade, it would likely get stomped to the curb. So yes, I wish we were still in a place where the IG's best tanks could actually do something.

For Formations, I'm even more upset, not just because they award spamming, but because I thought they could have been cool, thematic, and added a lot of flavor to different armies, by representing the sub-armies. The different Hive Fleets, IG Regiments, Necron Tomb Worlds, etc., etc. Instead, we got gamebreakers, and even worse from my point of view, IG, the one faction most likely to actually have formations, doesn't get them.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

That's a legitimate possibility, but it still doesn't make sense - If they are given rules that are better than others, and that was the goal all the way through, how could they then miss making them more espensive point-wise? I mean, if the point was to make them better, they should've known that that'd be unbalanced, unless they changed up to prices to reflect it.

In the end, I don't think that's the gist of it, really - Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!

I think it's just bs, really.

Also, why always Invul.? What if the Riptide Shield reduced all S of enemy guns shooting at it by -1 or something like that? That'd be much more interesting!

There is a point at which technology is so superior that no amount of points can compensate. If you took a modern destroyer and dropped it into Salamis, it doesn't matter if the Greeks and Persians had a combined 100,000 ships and ganged up on you... you could just plow through them all until they were sunk.

In a way, fluffwise, the Eldar/Necron are like this: they are civilizations that are *millions* of years old that could, at the height of their power do things that humans, Orks, Tyranid and Tau in 40k can't even imagine. Though their civilizations have declined, their technology and bio-physical enhancement hasn't (much), and therefore, fluffwise it makes sense that Eldar can wipe out vastly superior numbers -- like Phoenix Lord Maugan Ra single-handedly destroying a Tyranid army.

Of course, deific powers create slight problems in a war game if you're the side that doesn't have them

Talys is correct.

However I did not think we were dicussing the appropriate points costs for units, only their relation to faction technology.

But my view is that GW ruined 40K when they spooged the Apocalypse, Allies, Formations, Forts, Flyers and Unbound rules into the basic game.

Having done all that damage to playability and balance in order to sell more model kits, it's not surprising that GW would continue their career of destruction with items like the Storm Keel and Dagger Board Surge.

What do points costs matter any more? Don't worry about working out a list; there's no Force Chart. Here's a Formation. Buy the Formation and get combat bonuses. If the bonuses aren't enough, buy a few Allied Knight Titans.

I love the big stuff. But I don't use them every single game. We always chat about what kind of game we are going to play beforehand, so sometimes it is one with no bigger things than an LR tank.
I also play a lot of Kill Team, which has just infantry, and sometimes a light vehicle or two.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.

Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.

40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.

Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.

This 100% Someone putting down a few Knights now was like someone setting down 3 land raiders a few editions ago. If you knew your army couldn't compete, then you said so and the opponent either changed their force or you moved on. I can understand if people are annoyed about the tournament scene, since you can't exactly say no, but then again the tournament scene was always filled with people looking to break the game. And that is what it really boils down to. It is all about the group you play with.

I am running a narrative campaign right now and everyone is having a blast. The missions are definitely not always balanced and there are usually army composition restrictions, but people are just having fun mixing it up and playing for a purpose. If you have a theme to your battles that is more than just "my army vs your army," then the game's diversity is a boon, not a hindrance.

To the OP's original question, I am very, very happy that the game continues to evolve. It would have been horrible if we were stuck in one edition of the game forever.

I'm glad that someone agrees. The first tournament game I ever played was with my Tyranid army, when they had just been introduced to 40K for the first time ever. I played against a Space Wolf army that had nothing but 10-15 Terminators (can't remember) with Assault Cannons on every model, lead by a Librarian with a Warp Jump Generator and Thunder Hammer / Storm Shield. I was tabled in two turns. I didn't kill a single model. I can't imagine what year it was, but it's in the 90's.

It only got me more interested in the game. I realised the game is nuts and that if you go to tournaments you'll see all sorts of crazy stuff. It was exciting. It still is. And still if I play against my buddies at my house, we either pick some evenly matched forces to go against each other, or we test some 'tournament builds' out. Like I said, the game is what we want it to be. People who think the game is in a bad state now are just really new or living in fairy tale land. The game is in a great shape, as virtually everything from the 40K background material can now be represented on the table tops one way or the other.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Here's a thought- ask Sad Panda if there's any Sisters in the pipeline. A pretty trustworthy source..

There's been "Sisters in the pipeline" for about a decade now. I'll believe it when I actually see a goddamned press release. Better yet, I'll believe it when I'm holding the plastic models in my hands.

Haha, yeah, that sounds about right. I had something similar. I was using Orks and the guy I played against had Khorne Berserker Bikers. That was back when you could overrun a unit and charge into the next, then immediately resolve the combat in the same turn. The game has always been insanely unbalanced, but that is what I have always liked. I like have a weaker force trying to beat a stronger one. Or, playing a meat grinder mission (which we always used to do in the old days) and just see if you could survive for 5 turns.

Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!

A baneblade is just as fast (12" per turn) - and doesn't have to slow down for difficult terrain, unlike superheavy walkers and gargantuan creatures.

It can't lose weapons, can't be shaken or stunned. It can take explodes results, but those generally need a 6, or a 5 at best.

It has more HP than a gargantuan generally has wounds.

It has no save, but it can get cover saves (it is, as noted, low to the ground) and its AV14 glacis plate makes it immune to a lot of stuff that can wound gargantuan creatures.

Yes, it'll take a lot of scatterlasers, autocannons, poison and sniper rifles to take wounds off a wraithknight. But if you've got them, they can do something to the knight, and not to the tank.

Ever since 7th, i've wanted to see a gundam wing: an army of like 1 dreadknight, 1 wraith knight, 1 imperial knight, 1 riptide, etc etc. No interest in doing it, but the thought of it is cool, would have to be unbound though.

master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

That is the EXACT opposite of what the poster you quoted meant.

master of ordinance wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.

Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.

Hell no. It was bad enough when they were immune to Entropic Strike. Now you want to take away literally every weapon my Sisters have to kill them?

Forgot about the sisters :/
I was referring more to Marines, Necrons, Eldar, Tau, etc

You can't just "refer" to specific armies. They all have the same special rules, and any rule for a super heavy like "shots or attacks with the armorbane special rule made by space marine models loses that special rule when attacking super heavies" would be a huge dick move and would make the game needlessly complicated.

locarno24 wrote:

Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!

A baneblade is just as fast (12" per turn) - and doesn't have to slow down for difficult terrain, unlike superheavy walkers and gargantuan creatures.

It can't lose weapons, can't be shaken or stunned. It can take explodes results, but those generally need a 6, or a 5 at best.

It has more HP than a gargantuan generally has wounds.

It has no save, but it can get cover saves (it is, as noted, low to the ground) and its AV14 glacis plate makes it immune to a lot of stuff that can wound gargantuan creatures.

Yes, it'll take a lot of scatterlasers, autocannons, poison and sniper rifles to take wounds off a wraithknight. But if you've got them, they can do something to the knight, and not to the tank.

Okay, there's some things I hadn't thought about there... But still, that doesn't account for that you actually can get an Explodes! roll, and can damage it easier with Melta and Haywire, which isn't the case with Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures. Also, the fact that they have armour saves isn't at all the same as being in cover, since you have to be 50% covered to gain cover with a Vehicle, and that save is almost surely less than the 3+/2+ that Gargantuans and Monstrous Creatures get, plus the Invul. and FNP some get.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

They're not.

20 Kroot snipers (a full squad) at BS 5 (2 markerlights) do 2 wounds to a Wraithknight statistically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In reality poison and sniper weapons are 33% as good against GCs as against MCs.

Alcibiades wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

They're not.

20 Kroot snipers (a full squad) at BS 5 (2 markerlights) do 2 wounds to a Wraithknight statistically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In reality poison and sniper weapons are 33% as good against GCs as against MCs.

So why don't WKs cost 3 times as much as other MCs?

Also, let me offer you a different example:

A Carnifex is 160pts. It takes 36 poison shots to kill it. For DE, that's 3 Venoms (195pts)

A Tervigon is 195pts. If it gets lucky and rolls FNP, then it takes 81 poison shots to kill it. That's ~7 DE venoms (455pts)

A WK is ~300pts. It takes 243 poison shots to kill it. That's over 20 DE venoms (1300pts)

Okay, there's some things I hadn't thought about there... But still, that doesn't account for that you actually can get an Explodes! roll, and can damage it easier with Melta and Haywire, which isn't the case with Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures. Also, the fact that they have armour saves isn't at all the same as being in cover, since you have to be 50% covered to gain cover with a Vehicle, and that save is almost surely less than the 3+/2+ that Gargantuans and Monstrous Creatures get, plus the Invul. and FNP some get.

No, but gargantuans instead have to contend with sniper, poison, graviton and fleshbane (their versions of Gauss/Entropic Strike and Haywire) and Instant Death (their version of explodes).

Whilst as inevitably T6+ models, they can't take Instant death purely from the strength of a weapon, there are plenty of weapons which either have the instant death trait permenantly (like the Balesword or Rod of Torment), get it conditionally (Most Haemonculus weapons, The Axe of Khorne, 30k Paragon Blades) or can be granted it (Force weapons and the Death Incarnate warlord trait)

Such weapons cause extra wounds, just like an explodes result, and also take feel no pain away into the bargain, and even in the hands of a space marine generally have the strength to cause a wound on a T8 monster where they'd be unable to touch an AV13 walker.



The armour save is a bit of a mixed bag.

When you're talking about shooting a baneblade vs a wraithknight (let's stick with the same example), then different weapons are good at the two targets.

Yes, a wraithknight has a 3+ save and Feel No Pain. BUT - massed S6/S7 fire will do nothing whatsoever to the baneblade's AV14 glacis plate, even if it's sat in the open.

So if you're comparing the two, it's only really S8+ weapons that matter. Which need a 6 to chip a hit off the tank, and a 4 to hurt the walker. The latter has an armour save....but how often is a S8 weapon not also AP3 or better? Hades autocannons and rupture cannons are the only weapons that spring to mind, so that 3+ save doesn't really mean a lot.

The Hierophant/Tau'Nar's 2+ save is a damn sight scarier, but even then, the majority of S9/S10/Destroyer weapons that have a meaningful chance of hurting it at range are also AP2 - heavy gauss, lascannons, lances, railguns, etc. etc.

In reality poison and sniper weapons are 33% as good against GCs as against MCs.

No, they aren't (not sniper, anyway)

Whilst only a '6' wounds, that 6 triggers an AP2 wound. So whilst you're not getting any wounds on rolls of a '4' or '5', there's good odds they'd have bounced off the armour anyway. Going from shooting a sniper rifle at a monstrous to gargantuan creature costs you about 40% effectiveness (assuming it has a 3+ armour save and no invulnerable.

 vipoid wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.

They're not.

20 Kroot snipers (a full squad) at BS 5 (2 markerlights) do 2 wounds to a Wraithknight statistically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In reality poison and sniper weapons are 33% as good against GCs as against MCs.

So why don't WKs cost 3 times as much as other MCs?

Also, let me offer you a different example:

A Carnifex is 160pts. It takes 36 poison shots to kill it. For DE, that's 3 Venoms (195pts)

A Tervigon is 195pts. If it gets lucky and rolls FNP, then it takes 81 poison shots to kill it. That's ~7 DE venoms (455pts)

A WK is ~300pts. It takes 243 poison shots to kill it. That's over 20 DE venoms (1300pts)

Well my point was that poison and sniper are not useless against GCs (they are actially 1/3 as effective), not about appropriateness of pricing.

I didn't say they were useless, I said they were virtually useless.

Poison in particular is all but worthless against them, and few races can put out as many cheap sniper shots as Tau. In fact, to use DE again, the cheapest snipers we can get are 70pts for a single shot.