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.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand why people think it should be 700+ points. When you compare it to other units of comparable points cost, it gets dumped on. The Warhound Titan (which had been brought up a few times now) is a prime example.

So one of two things needs to happen to the Stompa:

(i) It needs to be the subject of a significant points reduction. A maximum of 550 points is a number I think is fair.

(ii) If the points remains the same or increases, then it should receive some significant buffs.

Even at 550 thats pushing it IMO. It has 4 big shootas, three 1 use only battlecannon shots, it does have a 7" str 10 ap 1 blast and 6d6 str 7 ap 3 shots, but its ork shooting at 48" range. not going to hurt much at all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

Glad to know that you're apparently taking this seriously. [/Sarcasm]

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand why people think it should be 700+ points. When you compare it to other units of comparable points cost, it gets dumped on. The Warhound Titan (which had been brought up a few times now) is a prime example.

So one of two things needs to happen to the Stompa:

(i) It needs to be the subject of a significant points reduction. A maximum of 550 points is a number I think is fair.

(ii) If the points remains the same or increases, then it should receive some significant buffs.

Even at 550 thats pushing it IMO. It has 4 big shootas, three 1 use only battlecannon shots, it does have a 7" str 10 ap 1 blast and 6d6 str 7 ap 3 shots, but its ork shooting at 48" range. not going to hurt much at all.

And that pretty much sums up why Stompaz should be cheaper.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

And then a marine costs 2 pts. No dice. WK is at least 100 pts under costed as it is. I've never seen a Stompa, but it seems like a pretty big turd for the price.

The Warhound doesnt pay for weapons....because GW apparently just stopped caring, they basically treat everything equally...for whatever reason. With the double turbolasers, it could definitley use a notable points bump.

That said, if armed with say, double megabolters or other weapons, do people think its terribly out of whack with the Stompa? It gets void shields and better armor, but fewer HP's and ancillary options and possible gimmicks.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
550 pts for a Stompa? No problem. My WK is now a flat 195 pts, fully-kitted.

Glad to know that you're apparently taking this seriously. [/Sarcasm]

If we're just makin' stuff up, I can make up stuff, too.

The idea that a Stompa just gets to be 550 pts, because reasons? That's just nonsense. Within an Ork context, Stompa is fine.

Stompa does something very different from a WK and it does something very different from an IKT or WH. The idea that all of these should have the same cost templates? Total nonsense when they fulfill very different battlefield roles, and the various armies necessarily pay more for certain premium abilities while paying less for other capabilities. Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Warhound doesnt pay for weapons....because GW apparently just stopped caring, they basically treat everything equally...for whatever reason. With the double turbolasers, it could definitley use a notable points bump.

That said, if armed with say, double megabolters or other weapons, do people think its terribly out of whack with the Stompa? It gets void shields and better armor, but fewer HP's and ancillary options and possible gimmicks.

The Warhound's weapons are built into the cost. It's not like a Guardsman pays extra for his Lasgun or armor. OK, not the best example... It's not like a LRBT pays extra for the battlecannon. Well, certainly not like Lyth tried to cost them working backwards... And actually, the Turbolasers would be fine, if they simply lost the Blast AoE.

" Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes."

That's not true. The Stompa sounds overcosted for what it actually does on the battlefield, just as the is grossly undercosted for what it contributes. It's not "fine" just because it's an Ork vehicle. That's nonsense.

Hi my name is buzzgrob big Mek stompa I cost 500 pts and come with a free big Mek inside and people tried to play me competitively in the ITC.

Guess what I still suck at this price, so people spent another 100pts to give me a decent weapon in a belly gun that made me reasonably decent. I now cost 600 pts and still am not that great of a unit.

Sometimes people bring my friend the kustom stompa from IA8 instead he only costs 650pts and can be built exactly the same as the ork codex stompa for over 100 pts less and people still think he sucks for the 650 points And you math majors think spending 770 pts for the same exact model is somehow appropriate. Please pass me whatever meth induced drugs you have been taking!!!

The option to take the stompa for over 100pts less or more already exists and it still isn't worth the cost. What this means is NO one plays the codex stompa except for the poor dumb kid playing friendly games and is overpaying for the stompa because his club only allows codex unit entries. Great job people you nerfed the friendly club scene that poor ork player really needed that kick in the balls.

Martel732 wrote:
" Otherwise, we're back to everybody playing the same stuff with different colors and optional spikes."

That's not true. The Stompa sounds overcosted for what it actually does on the battlefield, just as the is grossly undercosted for what it contributes. It's not "fine" just because it's an Ork vehicle. That's nonsense.

It is overcosted by about 35-50% easy. It's funny seeing the people think knights or str d blasts are okay but stompa is somehow costed correctly!

The Stompa is overcosted and I think it's because they've over valued its transport capacity and over estimated it's survivability since it was written before the proliferation of so much D and which can rapidly take out HP. In thinking about its point cost in many ways a Stompa is more like a Baneblade or one of its variants in terms of its offensive capability, just more survivable. It's not as good as a Warhound. For 400-ish points IG get something similar in offense with about half the survivability; only doubling survivability obviously shouldn't mean almost double the cost. At most survivability is half the overall cost; I'd say it should be in the mid-600's of points.

I've played 3 of these versus my Reaver and it was pretty even. In other games I've watched with multiple stompas they seem to fail most often because other things are undercosted more than it being about these being overcosted, but it's cumulative. These being even 50pts off when other things are 100 points undercosted means a 150 point spread which is too big to ignore.

I think an aspect of what make it challenging to think about is that when GW modeled the "Stompa" for 40k the model was originally intended to be a "Supa Stompa" both of which represent something sub-Warhound Titan. Though the rules reflect some amalgam of the two.

gungo wrote:
Hi my name is buzzgrob big Mek stompa I cost 500 pts and come with a free big Mek inside and people tried to play me competitively in the ITC.

Guess what I still suck at this price, so people spent another 100pts to give me a decent weapon in a belly gun that made me reasonably decent. I now cost 600 pts and still am not that great of a unit.

Sometimes people bring my friend the kustom stompa from IA8 instead he only costs 650pts and can be built exactly the same as the ork codex stompa for over 100 pts less and people still think he sucks for the 650 points And you math majors think spending 770 pts for the same exact model is somehow appropriate. Please pass me whatever meth induced drugs you have been taking!!!

The option to take the stompa for over 100pts less or more already exists and it still isn't worth the cost. What this means is NO one plays the codex stompa except for the poor dumb kid playing friendly games and is overpaying for the stompa because his club only allows codex unit entries. Great job people you nerfed the friendly club scene that poor ork player really needed that kick in the balls.

made me LOL a bit But, with that said, going off the survey over 50% of people who took the poll think that the Stompa needs to be reduced to 550points or less, with the biggest amount of players saying it should cost as much as a Wraith Knight.....which even I think is a bit wrong. The idea of seeing 4 Stompa's in a 1500 point game makes me cringe inside. Next thing people will start complaining about Ork Cheese (BTW Ork cheese is known as Frumunda Cheese).

So based off the judgement of dakka I would suggest that an appropriate price for the Stompa would be about 450-500points. That sounds closer to what it should be then the current 770.

I am also wondering however what BUFFS you guys would propose to make it worth taking at the moment. I think a 4++ against everything would help enormously, as would adding "assault" to its rules as well as a front access point. Finally I would get rid of the rule about the Gattling Gun jamming after it rolls doubles. At least then it can pretend to be good at Dakka. What are your thoughts?

A 4++ effectively doubles survivability in a way not even Titan void shields do. It's already a highly survivable superheavy and it isn't really consistent with everything else to give it that sort of save. Some sort of Ramshackle "it will not die" type rule would be more appropriate.

 aka_mythos wrote:
A 4++ effectively doubles survivability in a way not even Titan void shields do. It's already a highly survivable superheavy and it isn't really consistent with everything else to give it that sort of save. Some sort of Ramshackle "it will not die" type rule would be more appropriate.

to make it worth 770 points I think a 4++ is fair. Keep in mind that currently you can give it a 4++ against shooting if you add in a Bigmek with a KMFF (Kustom Mega Force Field) from Waaaagh Ghaz supplement. But that costs over 100points which is ridiculous. So to make it worth 770points I think a 4++ with the other added benefits would just about make it reasonable to take in friendly to mid-competitive games. Anything seriously competitive and no, not worth it at all.

I understand what you mean. As a "to fit the cost" fix I almost agree... I just don't think it fits with so many other things and goes too far.

It should be cheaper, but given its already high survivability my Reaver Titan struggles to kill 2 out of set of 3 stompas... Your "fix" would make it unlikely that I'd ever be able to take out a single one of these sub-Titan class units with a medium Titan equipped with Titan killing weapons.

Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

I think my fixes to it would be to drop all the out of ammo/jamming rules... To give it an "it will not die" type roll, and no more than a 5++.

I do think the Stompa is overcosted, but I'm not sure by how much. I think it should maybe cost somewhere from 450-550 points. Now, I'm not an Ork player, so I don't know if that would make it more appealing as a LOW choice, but I think it might be a step in the right direction.

As a tangent to this, would you guys be ok with a Imperial Knights-esque detachment for Stompas? Like maybe 2+ Stompas and a Mek as a formation with some decent rule?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As a tangent to this, would you guys be ok with a Imperial Knights-esque detachment for Stompas? Like maybe 2+ Stompas and a Mek as a formation with some decent rule?

GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

I play Freeblade, and I hope to see GW translate the Mega Dredd to plastic. That would be cool.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW really should have made the Gorka/Morkanaut into a Knight level superheavy...That's the sorta unit that should have gotten a knight-like formation.

I play Freeblade, and I hope to see GW translate the Mega Dredd to plastic. That would be cool.

Lyth also argued his system to create units was perfectly fine even when Perigrine broke it, creating a unit with a -1 point value. He also thinks he balanced the game in his proposed rules but didn't.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


The Warhound's weapons are built into the cost. It's not like a Guardsman pays extra for his Lasgun or armor. OK, not the best example... It's not like a LRBT pays extra for the battlecannon.

Right, but different turret guns cost different prices, a Demolisher is more expensive than a Battle Tank or Punisher for example, and there's just no such differentiation with the Warhound where the Turbolasers really very much should be notably more expensive than the other weapons options.

And actually, the Turbolasers would be fine, if they simply lost the Blast AoE.

That might be a solid fix, it would still make it very potent against big things, but would make the Megabolter and other weapons have more of a point against lighter targets instead of just being able to toss 4 D pieplates and have it just be awesome at everything

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Despite being Titan-like it has more in common with Baneblade and its variants in its capabilities but is twice as survivable.

Very roughly speaking, the Stompa is comparable to a Stormlord transport and a Baneblade combined together. As Lyth arugued for a very long time, the Baneblades are all fairly-costed, so therefore the Stompa should be roughly equal to 2 Baneblades in points.

This kinda goes back to my opinion that I think GW overcosts transport capacity... But I think in general it gets us to a starting point.

Ork shooting simply isn't as accurate and should also translate into something cheaper. BS2 hitting 20% less and all. If we start at 2 Baneblade type superheavies it's about 900 pts. 20% less effective might generally translate to 20% less cost... 720pts... That's before we consider lower armor and the hp that's lower than 2 baneblades; some of that is likely covered by the by the blanket 20% but not likely all of it. 12hp is only 30% better than a single Baneblade and being AV13 instead of AV14 opens you upto more infantry heavy weapons that tends to cost 30% less translating to minimum of 30% more shooting. In this way an AV14 superheavy with 9HP is very roughly equal to an AV13 with 12 HP, but this comparison would favor the Baneblade as it will want to remain relatively static while the Stompa will expose itself even more.

I think this gets us to the point many people arrive at that the Stompa is only as survivable as a Baneblade though it can generate the shooting of 2 baneblades and has a close combat D. So in this way we start at around 450pts add 50% more shooting that's 20% less effective...675*(.80) = 520 pts before we consider the transport capacity or StrD close combat weapon.

In this way we have a range that puts us between 520-720pts depending on how transport and close combat Str D are valued.

Just because BS is lower shouldn't translate directly into a 20% off cost, it's usually closer to a 10% discount in most cases where we do have such options, remember that 20% decrease in effectiveness is only in one aspect, not across the board, particularly for a multi-role vehicle. That said, lets also not forget many of the weapons are Blasts (especially with large blast templates), where the difference in hit rate is dramatically closer than with normal weapons, and the weapons that do hit on straight BS (at least the big ones) tend to have a very high number of shots (6d6 gives an average of 21 shots at S7, vs a standard 15 at S6 with a Megabolter) which mitigates that somewhat. I'd call AV13 HP12 about the same as AV14 HP9 in most cases.

Transport kinda depends on what other options you have. If you have lots of small, disposable transport that's fine for certain play. However, if you want to reliably deliver a deathstar of 20 guys, what then?

Also, if you are dropping a 7" blast, BS2 vs BS3 vs BS4 isn't that big of a difference compared to direct fire or 3" blast.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Just because BS is lower shouldn't translate directly into a 20% off cost, it's usually closer to a 10% discount in most cases where we do have such options, remember that 20% decrease in effectiveness is only in one aspect, not across the board, particularly for a multi-role vehicle. That said, lets also not forget many of the weapons are Blasts (especially with large blast templates), where the difference in hit rate is dramatically closer than with normal weapons, and the weapons that do hit on straight BS (at least the big ones) tend to have a very high number of shots (6d6 gives an average of 21 shots at S7, vs a standard 15 at S6 with a Megabolter) which mitigates that somewhat. I'd call AV13 HP12 about the same as AV14 HP9 in most cases.

I was trying to say I'm using the 20% broadly because I know all those other things more than add upto 20% off the approximate 900 pts combined total of two Baneblade like vehicles. I have to use some concrete number to make the comparison, even if I can back it up with relevant abstractions and approximation. The 720pts gives us a high end of the scale value by showing without a doubt that a Stompa is over-costed in comparison to similar things but is NOT an assertion to what the Stompa should cost.

I'm not trying to argue one way of establishing the cost over the other but I am trying to establish a realistic range based on what I consider the most alike things. Based on a comparison to a Baneblade it should cost no less than 520 points and no more than 720pts. Its not all that helpful but based on statistical performance narrows down what is reasonable. This tells us GW is wrong, but so is anyone who thinks it should be less than 520pts.

From there I was identifying the unaccounted factors which should impact the cost one way or the other. If considering the 520 pts as a starting point you must account for the StrD close combat weapon and the transport capacity as you approach 720pts whoever is more and more likely wrong in their estimate. In this way I've tried to narrow the argument drastically to the only remaining and relevant factors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Transport kinda depends on what other options you have. If you have lots of small, disposable transport that's fine for certain play. However, if you want to reliably deliver a deathstar of 20 guys, what then?

Also, if you are dropping a 7" blast, BS2 vs BS3 vs BS4 isn't that big of a difference compared to direct fire or 3" blast.

5" blast at BS4 will be roughly equal to a 7" blast at BS2... but ultimately the Ork Stompa is relying on its BS for a lot of its small weapons.and that generally contributes to it being something that less than 2 baneblades.

When it comes to "transport" its a difficult thing to price. An embarked unit loses attack opportunities in exchange for tabletop longevity and a greater likelihood of reaching their target. A unit built for this purpose stands to benefit disproportionately.

Transport is indeed difficult, no doubt.

The Stompa has a lot of small arms fire 6d6 shots averages 21 dice, or 7x S5 hits. The difference is that the Stompa can get amazingly lucky, where the BB is deliberately consistent. That gambling nature is much of the attraction of Orks in general, the Stompa in particular. Doesn't win a lot of tournaments, but it is a lot of fun!

Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

6d6 shots = 21 shots on average, at BS2 that equates to 7 hits on average.....The Megabolter has 15 shots at BS4? (I dont know) So at BS4 that is 10 hits, at BS3 that is 7-8 hits...both are better on average then the Stompa.

As far as the transport capacity. The only units it can carry are either assault oriented or Lootaz designed to give the Stompa as many repair rolls as physically possible. While the repair roll strategy works and is decent at keeping the Stompa alive it also adds on another 200-300points to the Stompas cost, while adding nothing really to the effectiveness of the shooting except for a handful of shots from the few gunports.

The Assault troops on the other hand are useless in a Stompa because it isn't an assault walker.


I Honestly, and I mean this, feel that GW tacks on Transport capacity to Ork Vehicles to justify the over inflated price of the vehicle.

Trukk (Actual transport, makes sense)
BattleWagon (This is a tank, but it can carry 22 bodies...good but now im paying for a tank and a transport, and generally it is only effective as a transport)
Gork/Morkanaut (Transport capacity of 6....on a walker.....why?)
And then the Stompa.

Of all the vehicles I just listed, the only one worth its points...and barely at that, is the Trukk and that is because it is ONLY a transport, it doesn't pretend to be a tank or a giant fighting robot as well as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Last comment for the night, At this point in the survey its becoming more and more clear that Dakka is split about evenly on this, however! going by the numbers the majority/mean want the stompa to be priced around 500-550pts. I honestly don't think this would make it that much better as far as winning tournaments but it would definitely be fielded more often with 200-270pt reduction.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

As I stated, Orks aren't for competition - they're for fun. The Stompa is a prime example of that philosophy in action.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Even though "luck" maybe a factor, it is a confluence of events where the statistics play out in your favor at the right time... So it boils down to statistical performance; sometime it's better and sometimes it's worse but if it averages the same it should be valued the same. In this way the punishment is occasional underperformance and shouldn't be overcost and underperformance. Charging a cost for a trade off is effectively charging extra points for the potential to fail, not for a potential to succeed.

As I stated, Orks aren't for competition - they're for fun. The Stompa is a prime example of that philosophy in action.

And if Orks are ever going to become more than just the "For Fun" army (i.e. become competitive), things like the Stompa becoming more appropriately costed (either through buffs of its profile or a decrease in points cost) need to happen.

Adjusting points won't do it, because Orks are still too random. If you're going for competition, you need consistency. Not randomly auto-winnning 1 game and then randomly auto-losing another. You can't win consistently if you're constantly fighting the inherent randomness of your army.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Stompa is reasonably costed. WK's are not reasonably costed. WK's should be ~400pts, not sub 300, they are nowhere near sane at their current price.

There's nothing wrong with the Stompa. There is something very wrong with the Wraithknight.

I dont want to argue with. I agree that the Wraithkmight is criminally undercosted.

But do you know why?

Even with the current FAQ, GW did not even fix the cost of the Wraith Knight so that means GW does not believe that they made a mistake in determing points cost.