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.

As the title implies, how many points should a SH or GC actually cost on average?

I bring this subject up more out of curiousity than anything else since there seems to be a very harsh difference in point values for the assorted SHs and GCs across the factions. I can understand warhounds and other titans being the cost that they are, yet I'm left confused when I see things like Imperial Knights and Wraithknights around the 300pt range. I don't even know how much the new Tau one is... and I don't think I want to know. I play CSM, so obviously I'm slightly biased when my options besides titans are a Khorne Lord of Skulls for 888pts, (An asinine number that only exists because "Khorne likes eights, make that the point cost") I think you can get three knights for around that cost. I assure you, a KLoS does NOT perform as well as three Knights.

Now this isn't a bashing Superheavies and GC thread, While I personally dislike the slow transition to 40K Apocalypse, I also recognize that this is the direction the game is moving, and no amount of pissing and moaning is gonna change that. So instead, I want to understand what these models are supposed to truly represent and at what cost should that be represented.

Most of these models are designed to be army centerpiece models, yet will never get played because of inefficient point cost. Models like a Khorne Lord of Skulls will never hit a tabletop outside of very large or very fluffy games. Or the opposite will happen and a model will be so cheap that it is widely used as cheese. So, what is the sweet spot for points? Factoring in their killing potential and durability, at what average points cost is acceptable for these models?

My sweet spot feels around 650 personally, Big enough to be a sizable investment for an army, yet small enough that it can fit in a 1850 or 2000pt game comfortably. I'd love to hear what you all think.

Maybe move this to the WH40k forum for more answers?

Personally, I think the real issue isn't cost; it's that GMCs are nigh indestructible for many foot soldiers. Like, foot soldiers have to actually get there, then roll incredibly well, then the GMC has to roll incredibly poorly, and if any of that goes wrong, the foot soldiers are dead the next round. And even if you manage to do a little damage, you probably won't kill it; and you're still screwed the next round.

But it's not like this for all little models; there are some little models that do a ton of damage too (just not basic CSM). On the other hand, the game for the guy with the little soldiers isn't unwinnable; they just have to win the game, rather than to play to kill the Titan.

To answer your question directly, though: other than the Wraithknight, I don't think any of the mini-titans are horribly undercosted. Some of the models ARE obviously overcosted, though, like the Lord of Skulls and the Harridan.

There is no single "ideal" point cost for superheavies because superheavies have a wide range of power levels. A Malcador is barely bigger and better-armed than a LRBT, while a Warlord titan is a massive god of battle with weapons capable of annihilating entire armies in a single turn. Attempting to generalize at all about the entire category that contains both of those units is a waste of time.

 Peregrine wrote:
.... Attempting to generalize at all about the entire category that contains both of those units is a waste of time.

And responding that it is a 'waste of time' ?

I do not think you know what 'waste of time' is, Mr. 16789+ posts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
@Mr_Piddlez

Starting with the often referred to as "ridiculously low" cost of the WraithKnight, ~300, and so forth, you might be aiming for a generic 500 points, plus or minus, depending on the SH/GC.

Maybe we could derive a formula based on Hull / Wounds, shots it can dish out, defense mechanisms (Invulns, in-built Shrouding, etc.

Start with typical SH/GCs often played and see if there can be some sort of mutual ground.

WK, Baneblade (and varients), Kytan, Brass Scorpion, etc.

Talys wrote:Maybe move this to the WH40k forum for more answers?

My bad, I thought I had posted it in the 40K forums. Usually, I'm better than this, though I think posting at 6AM may of had something to do with that error. I don't suppose there is an easy way to move this where it needs to go?

Personally, I think the real issue isn't cost; it's that GMCs are nigh indestructible for many foot soldiers. Like, foot soldiers have to actually get there, then roll incredibly well, then the GMC has to roll incredibly poorly, and if any of that goes wrong, the foot soldiers are dead the next round. And even if you manage to do a little damage, you probably won't kill it; and you're still screwed the next round.

But it's not like this for all little models; there are some little models that do a ton of damage too (just not basic CSM). On the other hand, the game for the guy with the little soldiers isn't unwinnable; they just have to win the game, rather than to play to kill the Titan.

That I understand and agree with completely. Kill Point games are just not viable anymore with that kinda firepower walking around. So, it makes perfect sense that all missions nowadays are objective based. Fortunately, the game of "hide the cultists in the bushes" applies to everything that shoots at them, not just GMCs. Yet, after awhile, you feel kinda lame that it HAS to be your only viable tactic for 6 turns.

To answer your question directly, though: other than the Wraithknight, I don't think any of the mini-titans are horribly undercosted. Some of the models ARE obviously overcosted, though, like the Lord of Skulls and the Harridan.

I would make some comment about "bad guys can't have nice things", but it's overused.

Peregrine wrote:There is no single "ideal" point cost for superheavies because superheavies have a wide range of power levels. A Malcador is barely bigger and better-armed than a LRBT, while a Warlord titan is a massive god of battle with weapons capable of annihilating entire armies in a single turn. Attempting to generalize at all about the entire category that contains both of those units is a waste of time.

I'm well aware that it is a pretty wide difference in firepower, I don't know the cost of a Malcador, Is it relatively low? As far as the Warlord Titan goes, isn't it like 2750 points? At that point cost, I would assume that level of destructive power. I wasn't trying to generalize about all superheavies and GC's. Most forgeworld stuff is pretty balanced for its points cost. That being said, they've been doing apocolypse size stuff for a lot longer than the traditional GW studio, so they have had enough time to get it right. I just didn't want to say "Non forgeworld SHVs and GCs are broken." That would just cause some level of FW hate later in the tread that is disruptive and unnecessary.

Brothererekose wrote:@Mr_Piddlez

Starting with the often referred to as "ridiculously low" cost of the WraithKnight, ~300, and so forth, you might be aiming for a generic 500 points, plus or minus, depending on the SH/GC.

Maybe we could derive a formula based on Hull / Wounds, shots it can dish out, defense mechanisms (Invulns, in-built Shrouding, etc.

Start with typical SH/GCs often played and see if there can be some sort of mutual ground.

WK, Baneblade (and varients), Kytan, Brass Scorpion, etc.

Honestly, 500 pts is more along the right point range. Since I dont' have the time or patience to try to figure out the complicated algorithm that GW uses to justify some point costs, I think I'd just rather try to figure out a more appropriate points level for these models to played at. For example, at what points level will a TAC list have the ability to take enough AT with them to handle something like that? As of right now, you can bring some knights (both wraith and imperial) to 500 pts games in a CAD. No TAC army list brings nearly any AT at 500pts short of maybe melta bombs and a melta gun. In my case, maybe one obliterator. Yet at 750 points, I'd have a moderate amount of antitank because that is a points level that it can be expected to fight some light armor. I don't think I could handle a knight at 750 personally short of list tailoring. but some armies can fight back at 750 pretty well.

I guess a better way of phrasing what I'm asking is, At what point is it considered a tactical disadvantage to invest that many points in a single model at a low points game? At what point level can it be significantly threatened and not just be "add knight, win game."?

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
I'm well aware that it is a pretty wide difference in firepower, I don't know the cost of a Malcador, Is it relatively low?

The Malcador is about 250-300 points, and arguably a bit too expensive at that point cost. It has a battle cannon (the same weapon as a LRBT), and three HBs/ACs/LCs. Defensively it has AV 13/12/11 and 6 HP. So, roughly the same firepower as a LRBT but with the ability to fire its other guns at full BS along with the battle cannon, and immunity to the vehicle damage table giving it a bit more durability than the LRBT's AV 14 and 3 HP. It's not a bad unit, but it's definitely a "slightly better than a normal tank" type of unit with a cheap point cost for a LoW. Now contrast this with the "whole squadron of tanks in a single awesome unit" Baneblade or "a whole army in one model" titans and you should see why it's impossible to talk about such a broad category of units like you're trying to do.

I wasn't trying to generalize about all superheavies and GC's.

But that's exactly what you tried to do by asking what "superheavies" should cost. Even ignoring the FW rules a knight and a Baneblade are not equally powerful, so of course they're going to have significantly different point costs. There is no general point level for what superheavies should cost because there's no general rule for how powerful they should be. If you want to have any constructive discussion of the subject then you need to give up on generalizing about the whole class of units and ask if specific superheavy/GC units should have their point costs changed.

Mr_Piddlez wrote:

Talys wrote:Maybe move this to the WH40k forum for more answers?

My bad, I thought I had posted it in the 40K forums. Usually, I'm better than this, though I think posting at 6AM may of had something to do with that error. I don't suppose there is an easy way to move this where it needs to go?

Was kinda hoping a mod would see and move it

*poke poke poke* bad word bad word spam spam spam.. PIE!

Mr_Piddlez wrote:Yet, after awhile, you feel kinda lame that it HAS to be your only viable tactic for 6 turns.

For sure. Except on the very rare occasion, I am not a fan of big robots versus tons of tiny units, because the game is so predictable. And it totally feels lame having one strategy to win the game; plus, winning the game by hanging on and not being annihilated in 6 turns generally isn't satisfying!

Peregrine wrote:But that's exactly what you tried to do by asking what "superheavies" should cost. Even ignoring the FW rules a knight and a Baneblade are not equally powerful, so of course they're going to have significantly different point costs. There is no general point level for what superheavies should cost because there's no general rule for how powerful they should be. If you want to have any constructive discussion of the subject then you need to give up on generalizing about the whole class of units and ask if specific superheavy/GC units should have their point costs changed.

You're right that not all Superheavies and GMCs should be equally (or even approximately equally) costed, of course; after all a Phantom Titan is obviously better than a Wraithknight. I think that what Mr. Piddlez is aiming at is two points: first, that many of popular the GMCs like Wraithknight, Stormsurge, Imperial Knight seem undercosted based on their damage output and difficulty to kill; and second, that relative to those models, some SH/GMCs like Lord of Skulls are overcosted. I think he'd like to see the floor pricing on GMCs go up (but if I'm wrong, please stop me).

I definitely see the disparity between, for example, a space marine with a bolter at 14 points and a Wraithknight.at 295 points. If you take 21 space marines and I take 1 wraithknight and charge each other a thousand times, and the 21 space marines would all die every time. But my point is that it's not really that simple, because even if you make the space marines 7 points, and take 42 space marines, you'll end up with the same result.

The game mechanic that makes it all work is that those bolter marines are pretty good at helping to win the game (by scoring victory points and taking out stuff they can actually kill). Add to that, the game doesn't go on forever, and the titan can only kill so many squads per turn, and the SM player does have tools in its arsenal that can take down the wraithknight/stormsurge/IK/etc. If we take WK out of the equation (because most non-Eldar players think they're too cheap, or whatever), I think that in the 400+ point range, many factions have tools let them be competitive with the big stompies (or their own big stompies). Yeah, sure, some are better off than others.

On the other hand, I would be a big fan of making the not-very-good basic troops somewhat cheaper. I don't mean Eldar JSJ jetbikes loaded with heavy weapons, but everything from Cadians to Kabalites to Tacticals could stand to be a little less expensive for the models that are forced to take ordinary weapons that aren't good for much other than killing other foot soldiers, and also, as a whole, for squads that have heavy model requirements to take a couple of good weapons.

 Talys wrote:

Mr_Piddlez wrote:Yet, after awhile, you feel kinda lame that it HAS to be your only viable tactic for 6 turns.

For sure. Except on the very rare occasion, I am not a fan of big robots versus tons of tiny units, because the game is so predictable. And it totally feels lame having one strategy to win the game; plus, winning the game by hanging on and not being annihilated in 6 turns generally isn't satisfying!

There's a reason that in most video games that you to control a big monster/mech/giant tank for a level, they make sure to give you a ton of little baddies to eat/stomp on/ convert to a red mist. Its fun, and usually a nice break from the story. That being said. I have never once wanted to be the baddie trying to keep his "insides from being the outsides" in that scenario. So it makes perfect sense that I wouldn't want my 40K game to go that way either. No one wants their army to be the "badguy NPCs" in someone else's story.

Peregrine wrote:But that's exactly what you tried to do by asking what "superheavies" should cost. Even ignoring the FW rules a knight and a Baneblade are not equally powerful, so of course they're going to have significantly different point costs. There is no general point level for what superheavies should cost because there's no general rule for how powerful they should be. If you want to have any constructive discussion of the subject then you need to give up on generalizing about the whole class of units and ask if specific superheavy/GC units should have their point costs changed.

You're right that not all Superheavies and GMCs should be equally (or even approximately equally) costed, of course; after all a Phantom Titan is obviously better than a Wraithknight. I think that what Mr. Piddlez is aiming at is two points: first, that many of popular the GMCs like Wraithknight, Stormsurge, Imperial Knight seem undercosted based on their damage output and difficulty to kill; and second, that relative to those models, some SH/GMCs like Lord of Skulls are overcosted. I think he'd like to see the floor pricing on GMCs go up (but if I'm wrong, please stop me).

So which one did you lose to that inspired such rage? Out of curiosity.

They should all cost a number of points appropriate to their in-game abilities. What that points level is for each unit is not going to be the same for another unit. It's like asking, "What should be the points cost of heavy infantry?" It's going to depend on the special rules and wargear they get. Would you argue that a CSM Mutilator and a SM Grav Centurion should be the same points? Why not, they're both large, 2W, 2+ save models with slow and purposeful? Why shouldn't they be the same points?

Unless you specify and say, how much should a wraithknight/imperial knight/harridan/baneblade/[whatever] cost, then any discussion around a generic points cost is ... well, missing the mark. Should all SH/GC be the same cost? If so, should they all have the same abilities? If so, wouldn't that be a bit boring? If not, wouldn't that be unbalanced?

Example. I think think SH/GC should be 400 points. Cool, the wraithknight is now probably fairly costed, a Reaver is an I win button more than normal while a Malcador is even more an overpriced piece of junk than normal.

Conversly, I think SH/GC should be 1000 points. Cool, now the wraithknight is going to be a dust collector, a Reaver is still an auto-take for anyone that has one and the malcador will never sell another model nor see the table again ever.

SH/GC are not all cut from the same cloth (and shouldn't be), thus, they should have a generic pricing scheme. If you'd like to turn this into a discussion on how unfair the costing between the wraithknight and a lord of skulls is, well, that's a conversation that's been done a million times before, but we can certainly rehash it, since complaining about OP eldar and Nerfed CSM is a full time job on these boards (not that it's not accurate, but it does get old). It's not going to get us anywhere or bring up anything new, but hey, that's what forums are for, complaining about stuff, right?

Gamgee wrote:So which one did you lose to that inspired such rage? Out of curiosity.

None actually, there is no rage here nor will there be. It's a game with little plastic space men, there is no reason to take it so seriously. I rather spend my hatred reserves on things that are worth hating. For example... wasps. They're jerks.

Drasius wrote:They should all cost a number of points appropriate to their in-game abilities. What that points level is for each unit is not going to be the same for another unit. It's like asking, "What should be the points cost of heavy infantry?" It's going to depend on the special rules and wargear they get. Would you argue that a CSM Mutilator and a SM Grav Centurion should be the same points? Why not, they're both large, 2W, 2+ save models with slow and purposeful? Why shouldn't they be the same points?

Unless you specify and say, how much should a wraithknight/imperial knight/harridan/baneblade/[whatever] cost, then any discussion around a generic points cost is ... well, missing the mark. Should all SH/GC be the same cost? If so, should they all have the same abilities? If so, wouldn't that be a bit boring? If not, wouldn't that be unbalanced?

Example. I think think SH/GC should be 400 points. Cool, the wraithknight is now probably fairly costed, a Reaver is an I win button more than normal while a Malcador is even more an overpriced piece of junk than normal.

Conversly, I think SH/GC should be 1000 points. Cool, now the wraithknight is going to be a dust collector, a Reaver is still an auto-take for anyone that has one and the malcador will never sell another model nor see the table again ever.

SH/GC are not all cut from the same cloth (and shouldn't be), thus, they should have a generic pricing scheme. If you'd like to turn this into a discussion on how unfair the costing between the wraithknight and a lord of skulls is, well, that's a conversation that's been done a million times before, but we can certainly rehash it, since complaining about OP eldar and Nerfed CSM is a full time job on these boards (not that it's not accurate, but it does get old). It's not going to get us anywhere or bring up anything new, but hey, that's what forums are for, complaining about stuff, right?

I think there has been a misunderstanding. My intention was never to start a eldar hate/CSM pity thread, because there is no need for another one. By comparing the Lord of Skulls and the Wraithknight, I was just contrasting the opposite sides of the spectrum of SHs and GCs. Also, as I said in my post later in the thread, I understand that not all SH/GC are treated equal, but I do think the floor point pricing should be raised for a lot of these models. At no point did I intend to imply that a reaver should be reduced to the floor pricing with these models.

Which is why I brought up the use of them in lower point games and what sort of points would be acceptable as a starting floor price for GC/SH. If we use the KLoS as an example. 888pts is a very large investment. So, in a barebones CAD of cultists and a cheap lord, you can fit him in just under 1100 points. At 1100 pts, your opponent can have answers for him. Which I don't have an issue with. Now, if he was 400 pts. He would be way undercosted and be an auto include in all CSM lists because that bare bones list can fit just in just under 600 pts, where the opponent will have some antitank to deal with light armor, but not really the means of dealing with a SH or GC without list tailoring.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that all GC/SHs need to be equal, but they do need to be reevaluated points wise across the board. Even a Malcador would be hard to deal with at 500 points.

Edit:Spelling and grammar.

It depends on how well they do their job, obviously.

Your last post should have been your first as its alot more clear mate.

You will never be able to throw out a universal points cost for SHV or GMC as they all vary far too much.

They do however need to tweak the points on alot of them though as they are wildly off.



For example, I don't waste time using GMC's for my nids as the harridan is 3 land raiders in cost and the hierophant is another one on top of that.
So on par and higher than a warhound with access to turbo lasers.

The warhound I feel is pretty solid for points and in a good place.
The nids though need to drop.



As previously stated, the malcador needs to drop too while the wraith knight needs a hike.
KLOS is heavy on points, but nowhere near 3 knights as stated (cheapest is 370)


Both chaos and daemons took a kick in the nuts due to their sacred numbers.
Which has made most of them all but unusable.





Side note: why not run a brass scorpion?

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:

Which is why I brought up the use of them in lower point games and what sort of points would be acceptable as a starting floor price for GC/SH. If we use the KLoS as an example. 888pts is a very large investment. So, in a barebones CAD of cultists and a cheap lord, you can fit him in just under 1100 points. At 1100 pts, your opponent can have answers for him. Which I don't have an issue with. Now, if he was 400 pts. He would be way undercosted and be an auto include in all CSM lists because that bare bones list can fit just in just under 600 pts, where the opponent will have some antitank to deal with light armor, but not really the means of dealing with a SH or GC without list tailoring.

If you're saying that 40K falls down at low points values that is't news.

This is precisely why low points events always impose a bunch of restrictions (typically eliminating models with an AV over a particular threshold, models with more than a certain number of wounds, etc.)

Prior to hull points even a landraider was a huge handful in a 500pt game.

I think 500 pts before upgrades would be fine for GCs. SHs suffer from using the vehicle rules, so I think they could get away with a lower cost.

500 Points... unless you specify what profile values and weapons you have in mind ANY set point value is a joke...

Someone got beaten in a game...

moving on...

SHV are actually pretty balanced. They just can't suffer from the problems of the vehicle damage chart.

GC on the otherhand have some funky gak going on with their rules. Especially cover wise.

EDIT: OP you just suffered from not making a well-thought out post, as everyone else has pointed out.

Overall, it's a MC/FMC/GMC issue than a SHV issue. The big gribbles just need to be reigned it a bit.

GMCs need to lose the fnp by default or have have less wounds to balance it out with being harder to wound in general (talking in terms of stuff like sniper and poison) or perhaps a way to at least lose performance as they get closer to death. Maybe a debuff if they get to under 25% of their wounds.

That's not quite the discussion but it's a hard thing to put general points to. As they are I don't think any GMC I can think of should be under 500p. SH however vary much much more so it's almost impossible to say.

 Talys wrote:

You're right that not all Superheavies and GMCs should be equally (or even approximately equally) costed, of course; after all a Phantom Titan is obviously better than a Wraithknight. I think that what Mr. Piddlez is aiming at is two points: first, that many of popular the GMCs like Wraithknight, Stormsurge, Imperial Knight seem undercosted based on their damage output and difficulty to kill; and second, that relative to those models, some SH/GMCs like Lord of Skulls are overcosted. I think he'd like to see the floor pricing on GMCs go up (but if I'm wrong, please stop me).

I definitely see the disparity between, for example, a space marine with a bolter at 14 points and a Wraithknight.at 295 points. If you take 21 space marines and I take 1 wraithknight and charge each other a thousand times, and the 21 space marines would all die every time. But my point is that it's not really that simple, because even if you make the space marines 7 points, and take 42 space marines, you'll end up with the same result.

The game mechanic that makes it all work is that those bolter marines are pretty good at helping to win the game (by scoring victory points and taking out stuff they can actually kill). Add to that, the game doesn't go on forever, and the titan can only kill so many squads per turn, and the SM player does have tools in its arsenal that can take down the wraithknight/stormsurge/IK/etc. If we take WK out of the equation (because most non-Eldar players think they're too cheap, or whatever), I think that in the 400+ point range, many factions have tools let them be competitive with the big stompies (or their own big stompies). Yeah, sure, some are better off than others.

I've seen a lot of stupid stuff and truly awful comparisons on Dakka - and forums in general - but I honestly believe this is truly the worst one I've ever seen.

Tactical marines fulfill a totally different slot than SH vehicles, as do all troops. They're supposed to be your "basic" back-bone force. Largely there to be cheap (relatively) and (semi flexible) cannon-fodder objective holders. There to take on most anything in the enemy army but not be amazing at it, meaning they can do certain roles in a pinch or be a meat shield at worst. Not only are they a totally different slot, but they're also a totally different creature type. Comparing equal points of tactical marines vs Eldar SH vehicles doesn't work out, but it also turns out that tactical marines don't fair so well against equal points of Ork Battlewagons. Ork boyz don't do so hot against equal points in Necron Wraithes, and 'Cron Warriors leave a lot to be desired when they find themselves on the wrong side of an Imperial Guard parking lot unsupported.. Would you believe that IG infantry isn't great at taking out equal points cost in Tyranid Carnifex?!

SH units on the other hand.. Are something you compare to other SH vehicles. Comparing 500 points of guardsmen to 500 points of tactical marines is something which holds a small amount of weight, not 500 points of guardsmen vs a fething SH unit.

 morganfreeman wrote:
They're supposed to be your "basic" back-bone force. Largely there to be cheap (relatively) and (semi flexible) cannon-fodder objective holders. There to take on most anything in the enemy army but not be amazing at it, meaning they can do certain roles in a pinch or be a meat shield at worst.

Except they aren't able to do that in 7th. Everything scores so there's very little benefit to having troops to claim objectives, and other units usually do the "do a little of everything well" role better. The main reason to take troops in 7th is that your formation requires them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
They're supposed to be your "basic" back-bone force. Largely there to be cheap (relatively) and (semi flexible) cannon-fodder objective holders. There to take on most anything in the enemy army but not be amazing at it, meaning they can do certain roles in a pinch or be a meat shield at worst.

Except they aren't able to do that in 7th. Everything scores so there's very little benefit to having troops to claim objectives, and other units usually do the "do a little of everything well" role better. The main reason to take troops in 7th is that your formation requires them.

I know. I wasn't saying that they're good at that role, I'm saying that's what they're supposed to do.

As it stands very few armies actually like the minimal amount of troops they're required to take, and even fewer still actively take more by choice. Which just further props up how awful a comparison that was.

For a gargantuan/Super heavy (wraithknight/Imperial knight stats just at I4) I would say they should be about 300 points... However their weapons that inflict multiple blasts / D strength or adjustments to their stats like a bonus to initiative need to be priced accordingly.

For instance, if we remove any comparisons, a Chaos knight with its battlecannon/ thermal cannon, invul and superheavy stats at roughly 500 points would be fair imho.

Ah yes, the good ole' Chaos tax for no reason.

The Imperial Knight stays the same of course.

For the USR that SHs and GMCs get, they should all be taxed an additional 275 points.

Cant reduce armor value - 75 points
Stomp / Thunderblitz - 100
Unstoppable / Invincible Behemoth - 100

Then Tax any GMC an additional 75 points for Gaining FNP so another 350 for those asshats and anyone using one.

But some Eldar players will still complain that WKs are too cheap and probably could use some genuine GW love. Because Eldar trickery

 GoliothOnline wrote:
For the USR that SHs and GMCs get, they should all be taxed an additional 275 points.

Cant reduce armor value - 75 points
Stomp / Thunderblitz - 100
Unstoppable / Invincible Behemoth - 100

No. A Malcador is already overpriced at the 250-300 point (with upgrades) level. Even if you apply your "tax" to a basic LRBT as the base stats/price you end up with a 425 point unit. That's just laughably wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 GoliothOnline wrote:
For the USR that SHs and GMCs get, they should all be taxed an additional 275 points.

Cant reduce armor value - 75 points
Stomp / Thunderblitz - 100
Unstoppable / Invincible Behemoth - 100

No. A Malcador is already overpriced at the 250-300 point (with upgrades) level. Even if you apply your "tax" to a basic LRBT as the base stats/price you end up with a 425 point unit. That's just laughably wrong.

Didn't you say it was slightly overpriced for what it is, comparing it as a better LRBT? If so, is it overpriced because other SHV options are better or is it just because LRBT isn't that good anymore? I do agree that the taxes are a little excessive though, I'm ok with some sort of base tax for rules, just not that large of one. As far as the Malcador goes, it just sounds like it needs a rework. As it stands now, what do you think an appropriate point cost would be for it, Peregrine?

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
If so, is it overpriced because other SHV options are better or is it just because LRBT isn't that good anymore?

It's overpriced relative to the LRBT. You get modest improvements over the LRBT in exchange for almost enough of a point increase to buy a second LRBT. Even if you ignore all other superheavy tanks and pretend it's a heavy support choice for IG instead of a LoW it's still a questionable investment.

As it stands now, what do you think an appropriate point cost would be for it, Peregrine?

Probably around 200ish points, maybe 225-250 if you buy sponson/hull LCs. It's not overpriced by that much, it's just a good example of why "make all superheavies more expensive" and "superheavies should have a minimum cost" are terrible ideas. You can't apply fixed price changes to a Malcador, Baneblade and Warlord titan. Any point cost/adjustment that is appropriate for one of them will be horribly broken on at least one other.

And no, it doesn't need a significant rework. Its rules represent its fluff very well, and from a game design point of view "heavier LRBT" is a fine role to have. It just needs a bit of a point decrease to make it more competitive with spamming conventional units.

I think GMCs in particular need a massive points increase to reflect their insane durability. As in like a single GMC sucks up almost as much firepower as my entire list.

Martel732 wrote:
I think GMCs in particular need a massive points increase to reflect their insane durability. As in like a single GMC sucks up almost as much firepower as my entire list.

It depends on the GMC but yes, on a whole, GMCs are crazy tough.