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.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:

Vanquisher: If it's what you've got, go for it. It works as advertised, and is something the enemy is going to want gone. Use Multimelta sponsons. 132 + 25 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 217
Battle Tank: Like the overcharged Executioner, but worse.
Executioner: Go big, or go home. Also, go big at your own risk. Make sure it has a Tank Commander friend and isn't a Tank Commander in and of itself so it can receive Tank Orders to not blow up. Use Plasma Cannon sponsons. 132 + 20 + 20 + 15 +15 = 202
Demolisher: If it's the only thing you've got, okay. I would recommend a Vanquisher first, because it nets you only slightly worse performance for much less points. Use Multimelta sponsons, and go after tanks. 132 + 40 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 232
Eradicator: Like the Battle Tank, but much worse.
Exterminator: Like the Battle Tank, but worse.
Punisher: Take it if you want it. Use Heavy Bolters, keep it cheap. 132 + 20 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 176, pretty decent
Annihilator: Probably like the Vanquisher, but better. Use Multimelta sponsons.
Conqueror: Probably like the Battle Tank, but worse.

This makes me sad.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:

I noticed that you matched all your loadouts for similar roles. I am really starting to think that this is a 7th edition mindset. There really is no problem putting bolters on any variant, or a lascannon on a punisher for instance. Spreading weapons around your army means that it is harder for the enemy to focus down the thing most dangerous to them, and lets you fire your AT guns one at a time instead of guessing how many shots a target needs with split fire.

I always find Russ gun options one of the most interesting parts of a new Guard codex, and have gone through many iterations over the years. I think that mixed loadouts are going to be overlooked because they were never something that people considered, yet are now really powerful. The lascannon/bolter is seeming really nice right now. If you have a LRBT with that loadout (pretty much the most classic Russ you can get) then it is a really balanced unit that can deal with anything.

Perhaps, but I'm generally more a fan of having one antitank tank and one antipersonnel tank instead of two tanks that are less kind of bad at both tasks.

Also, I'd rather unload into two transports with my split fire ability and have the option to unload all my guns into one transport if it absolutely has to die so the consort tank can take out the guys inside of it that fire my AT guns at a transport, not kill it, have no target for the other guns, then activate the consort tank and fire it's AT guns at the still-alive transport and not be able to shoot the guys who get out.

If you're going to compare the offensive output of, say 3 heavy weapon teams with 9 lascannons total to a Russ then you should also compare their defensive ability. It's not far fetched to imagine that those 3 HWTs will likely die in one turn. You won't be going first as infantry IG, so they won't get to do anything period if your opponent doesn't want them to. The Russ reduces your total drops and very likely will survive the first turn even if you go second. The importance of advantages like these shouldn't be underestimated.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
If you're going to compare the offensive output of, say 3 heavy weapon teams with 9 lascannons total to a Russ then you should also compare their defensive ability. It's not far fetched to imagine that those 3 HWTs will likely die in one turn. You won't be going first as infantry IG, so they won't get to do anything period if your opponent doesn't want them to. The Russ reduces your total drops and very likely will survive the first turn even if you go second. The importance of advantages like these shouldn't be underestimated.

Sure sure. But as I said, survivability isn't worth a thing if there's no incentive to shoot at you except as a target of opportunity for units with nothing better to do.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Pseudomonas wrote:
Pure infantry armies don't seem to be easy to build anymore given the lack of infantry platoons and limited troop choices with battleforged armies. Platoon commanders being an elite choice doesn't help matters either.

If the rumors are true, we'll be seeing changes this weekend in the FAQ. I expect we will see a limit or some sort of restriction on company commanders & instead platoon commanders will become HQ choices.

What diffrence would it be to do this? It would change nothing and no other faction would have that restriction. I don't think anyone said anything was wrong with company commanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:

I noticed that you matched all your loadouts for similar roles. I am really starting to think that this is a 7th edition mindset. There really is no problem putting bolters on any variant, or a lascannon on a punisher for instance. Spreading weapons around your army means that it is harder for the enemy to focus down the thing most dangerous to them, and lets you fire your AT guns one at a time instead of guessing how many shots a target needs with split fire.

I always find Russ gun options one of the most interesting parts of a new Guard codex, and have gone through many iterations over the years. I think that mixed loadouts are going to be overlooked because they were never something that people considered, yet are now really powerful. The lascannon/bolter is seeming really nice right now. If you have a LRBT with that loadout (pretty much the most classic Russ you can get) then it is a really balanced unit that can deal with anything.

Perhaps, but I'm generally more a fan of having one antitank tank and one antipersonnel tank instead of two tanks that are less kind of bad at both tasks.

Also, I'd rather unload into two transports with my split fire ability and have the option to unload all my guns into one transport if it absolutely has to die so the consort tank can take out the guys inside of it that fire my AT guns at a transport, not kill it, have no target for the other guns, then activate the consort tank and fire it's AT guns at the still-alive transport and not be able to shoot the guys who get out.

The important thing is to always consider the ranges of your weapons. When your mix short/long range weapons you will always find yourself moving to get into position to maximize your hits. This will result in a +1 to hit. It is best to determine a tanks ideal range and attempt to make all your weapons effective at that range.

Played a 150 power game against Tau tonight. I tabled them on turn 4. I managed to fill 2 brigades so I was rerolling a die each phase with ease.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Sure sure. But as I said, survivability isn't worth a thing if there's no incentive to shoot at you except as a target of opportunity for units with nothing better to do.

This doesn't make any sense. (No offense.) The incentive to shoot at the 4 heavy weapons teams that the Russ is is the same as the incentive to shoot at any 4 heavy weapons teams. And oh its sitting over there on that objective.

Pseudomonas wrote:
Pure infantry armies don't seem to be easy to build anymore given the lack of infantry platoons and limited troop choices with battleforged armies. Platoon commanders being an elite choice doesn't help matters either.

How many you want if you 36 troop choices in 2k game isn't enough?-)

So was watching one of the Frontline batreps and something struck me immediately at 2:50. They were talking about why their Scion list didn't have loads of command squads and mentioned it "may not be a good long term investment". That, combined with their reaction when talking about it, suggests to me that something is in the pipe for changing how Commanders work.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
If you're going to compare the offensive output of, say 3 heavy weapon teams with 9 lascannons total to a Russ then you should also compare their defensive ability. It's not far fetched to imagine that those 3 HWTs will likely die in one turn. You won't be going first as infantry IG, so they won't get to do anything period if your opponent doesn't want them to. The Russ reduces your total drops and very likely will survive the first turn even if you go second. The importance of advantages like these shouldn't be underestimated.

Sure sure. But as I said, survivability isn't worth a thing if there's no incentive to shoot at you except as a target of opportunity for units with nothing better to do.

If it's so durable that no one ever fires at it, that guarantees that you can use that model for every turn of the game. 6 Battlecannon shots, 6 las cannon shots and 36 heavy bolter shots over the course of a game is way better than 3, 6, maybe 9 lascannon shots that 2 HWT squads will manage before they're dead.

MaxT wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
If you're going to compare the offensive output of, say 3 heavy weapon teams with 9 lascannons total to a Russ then you should also compare their defensive ability. It's not far fetched to imagine that those 3 HWTs will likely die in one turn. You won't be going first as infantry IG, so they won't get to do anything period if your opponent doesn't want them to. The Russ reduces your total drops and very likely will survive the first turn even if you go second. The importance of advantages like these shouldn't be underestimated.

Sure sure. But as I said, survivability isn't worth a thing if there's no incentive to shoot at you except as a target of opportunity for units with nothing better to do.

If it's so durable that no one ever fires at it, that guarantees that you can use that model for every turn of the game. 6 Battlecannon shots, 6 las cannon shots and 36 heavy bolter shots over the course of a game is way better than 3, 6, maybe 9 lascannon shots that 2 HWT squads will manage before they're dead.

This.
I don't get the HWT vs LRBT comparison - you're comparing a tank (with decent shooting) to a glass cannon and then acting all dramatic when the glass cannon has better damage output for it's points. What a shocking revelation!

tneva82 wrote:

How many you want if you 36 troop choices in 2k game isn't enough?-)

To get those slots you will need to fill 9 HQ, 9 elite,9 fast attack and 9 heavy support slots.

I knocked up a 2k list with 15 infantry squads but I was forced to take a lot more HQ elements than I would like, including 3 company commanders.

I can see no down side to buying infantry squads in platoons like you can LRBTs. I can only assume that it was an omission in the 'black' codex.

I'm open to the idea of allowing multiple infantry squads to be taken as a single troops choice, but is it balanced? See if they've playtested this system as much as they say they have I'm worried about tinkering with it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.

What it means is that nothing in the game turns out high volumes of damage quickly. Every gun is like this, in every faction.

Eldar Heavy Wraithcannon against LR: 3.14

This isn't true, though. There are plenty of things that churn out damage at an alarming rate.

The aforementioned 6x Lascannons. Or a squad of Dominions with Meltaguns.

Hell, even the Leman Russ Annihilator, and the Vanquisher, manage to at least perform as advertised. A Vanquisher or Annihilator with Multimeltas is worse than a pair of Devil Dogs or a squad of Dominions in a Multimelta Immolator, but it's not drastically worse and isn't an utter failure at everything.

The Vanquisher cannon is a big meltagun. We've got 3x Multimeltas and a Lascannon on a 220 point platform, versus 240 for 2+2D3 Multimeltas [2 Devil Dogs] or 6 BS3+ Meltaguns with Scout [Dominions].

Oh no! 6 guns are better than 1 gun!

That must mean the 1 gun is crap.

You are constantly taking the full cost of the gun and the platform it is on. Ignoring all or the defendive factors of the platform as "reactive"; then talking about how the same number of points in a series of much easier to remove platforms with multiple weapons has the same number of wounds without regard to toughness or save.

While lasguns can possibly kill the tank(with a ludicrous number of shots), those same lasguns are going to make far eaiser work of the hws, slightly easier work of the SoB with melta guns(who also have to get far closer), and will only have a tough time with the devil dog. But here is the other part you are ignoring: for all the damage each lascannon or meltagun can do, they can only ever kill 1 model per shot. The battle cannon can also, potentially, kill the same 6 models.

An interesting side effect of the higher offensive efficiency of transports and infantry based weapons is that most armies will necessarily gear weapons toward dealing with those threats. This decision magnifies the defensive power of the Leman Russ even more. Overcharged plasmas, meltas, and missile launchers are wounding on 4s, autocannons are wounding on 5s, that huge plethora of mass fire s4 weaponry is wounding on 6s.

Additionally, look at it this way. An autocannon heavy weapon squad and a heavy bolted heavy weapon squad are together 93 points. That's about half of what it costs to get a Leman Russ with 3 heavy bolters and the Exterminator autocannon with a storm bolter. The exterminator is just shy of equivalent firepower (prertty close to even if movement comes into play) for double the price. It is way, way tougher though. It has the same number of wounds as the heavy weapon team, but has a 3+ save and T8. If it can stay alive twice as long, it's made up it's cost. It's not readily obvious to me how likely this is, but it makes sense that you can leverage that toughness in army construction.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Sure sure. But as I said, survivability isn't worth a thing if there's no incentive to shoot at you except as a target of opportunity for units with nothing better to do.

This doesn't make any sense. (No offense.) The incentive to shoot at the 4 heavy weapons teams that the Russ is is the same as the incentive to shoot at any 4 heavy weapons teams. And oh its sitting over there on that objective.

Of course it makes sense. A Russ is about 200 points, yes? If you had to chose between removing it, or removing 8 Lascannon gun teams, which would you chose?

It's about 4 HWT's. 4 Lascannon HWT's cost about 96 points, versus 200. And while 4 HWT's are much less survivable, is the comparative resilience of the Leman Russ worth 100 points?

MaxT wrote:

If it's so durable that no one ever fires at it, that guarantees that you can use that model for every turn of the game. 6 Battlecannon shots, 6 las cannon shots and 36 heavy bolter shots over the course of a game is way better than 3, 6, maybe 9 lascannon shots that 2 HWT squads will manage before they're dead.

Damage on turn 1 is worth more than damage on turn 2, and damage on turn 6 isn't worth as much as damage on turn 5. I like Basilisks and Manticores and Wyverns for this reason.

Also, consider that it actually only takes 6 wounds to render a Leman Russ entirely unable to do anything. A tank doesn't have to die, it just needs to be rendered incapable of completing its mission.

6 AT guns losing one gun a turn may be far more valuable than 4 guns firing for all 4 turns. Keep in mind that turn 1 is your window to incapacitate assault transports. The value of a powerful opening salvo cannot be understated.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Oh no! 6 guns are better than 1 gun!

That must mean the 1 gun is crap.

You are constantly taking the full cost of the gun and the platform it is on. Ignoring all or the defendive factors of the platform as "reactive"; then talking about how the same number of points in a series of much easier to remove platforms with multiple weapons has the same number of wounds without regard to toughness or save.

While lasguns can possibly kill the tank(with a ludicrous number of shots), those same lasguns are going to make far eaiser work of the hws, slightly easier work of the SoB with melta guns(who also have to get far closer), and will only have a tough time with the devil dog. But here is the other part you are ignoring: for all the damage each lascannon or meltagun can do, they can only ever kill 1 model per shot. The battle cannon can also, potentially, kill the same 6 models.

How, in any world, does it not make sense to evaluate the unit as a whole against other units that act in the same capacity and cost the same price? The Battle Cannon is crap as a weapon on the Leman Russ because you paid 162 points for a gun that does absolutely nothing.

And I didn't ignore the defensive factors, I said it's overrated. By that I mean that all things chronically overpay in points for resilience that goes unused.

Also, are you aware of the Battle Cannon's potential for killing 6 models? 0.00766%

If heavy weapons teams could take a battle cannon on their gun platform for 20 points, they'd probably still want a Lascannon too. I'm not comparing a Battle Cannon to 6x Lascannons, I'm comparing the damage output of a 162 point tank to the damage output of 144 points of guns teams, and the gun teams win fairly drastically in damage. If I bought a 162 tank, I want the enemy to at least care about it enough to shoot at it.



As I said, not all the Leman Russes are strictly terrible. The Punisher is quite good, and has to be dealt with. Just the Battle Cannon variant is.

With regards to the Vanquisher: It is strictly worse than my projection for the Annihilator, and it averages lower damage per turn than the battle cannon, but I like it's probability distribution better.

The Battle Cannon is crap as a weapon on the Leman Russ because you paid 162 points for a gun that does absolutely nothing. [...]

As I said, not all the Leman Russes are strictly terrible. The Punisher is quite good, and has to be dealt with. Just the Battle Cannon variant is.

I disagree. I think the Battle Cannon is better than both the Vanquisher Cannon, the Eradicator Nova Cannon and the ...whatever the Auto-cannon is called.

You say the LRBT's resilience goes unusued, well if your opponent isn't shooting at you, that LRBT will over the course of the game shoot 6D6 shots at S8 AP-2 D-D3.

Thats on average 21 shots, hitting on a mix of 4+ and 5+ depending on if you moved or not, so between 10,5 and 7 hits.
It's not amazeballs, but it can easily kill a enemy vehicle/MC or eve two with a bit of luck. Definately better than "absolutely nothing".

 MinscS2 wrote:

The Battle Cannon is crap as a weapon on the Leman Russ because you paid 162 points for a gun that does absolutely nothing. [...]

As I said, not all the Leman Russes are strictly terrible. The Punisher is quite good, and has to be dealt with. Just the Battle Cannon variant is.

I disagree. I think the Battle Cannon is better than both the Vanquisher Cannon, the Eradicator Nova Cannon and the ...whatever the Auto-cannon is called.

You say the LRBT's resilience goes unusued, well if your opponent isn't shooting at you, that LRBT will over the course of the game shoot 6D6 shots at S8 AP-2 D-D3.

Thats on average 21 shots, hitting on a mix of 4+ and 5+ depending on if you moved or not, so between 10,5 and 7 hits.
It's not amazeballs, but it can easily kill a enemy vehicle/MC or eve two with a bit of luck. Definately better than "absolutely nothing".

Killing an enemy transport on turn 6 is effectively "absolutely nothing". Killing an enemy monstrous creature on turn 4 is also effectively "absolutely nothing".

I'm generally interested more in the damage I can do in the first few turns. Alpha strike potential is extremely important. The Leman Russ Vanquisher has a much higher chance of crippling damage with its salvo than the Battle Tank does, and also has a higher chance of crippling damage on 2 targets. For this reason, I like it better than the Battle Cannon. It averages lower damage per turn, but averages don't tell you everything. The Annihilator is always better than the Vanquisher, but the Battle Tanks/Vanquishers can switch barrels while I don't have any Annihilators.

One thing that the Leman Russ does have going for it is drop reduction. A Leman Russ is getting you a better chance of going first, and getting more out of it's lesser firepower, than 2 heavy weapons sections. But I think you have to commit to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, the LGS is running a 500 point event tomorrow.

I'm thinking of bringing:
Leman Russ Vanquisher Command Tank, Lascannon, Multimelta Sponsons: 167+25+20+20+20=252 points
Leman Russ Punisher Tank, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons: 132+20+8+8+8=176 points
Militarum Tempestus Scions, 1x Hotshot Volleygun: 45+1+1+1+1+9=58 points

The question is, with the left over 14 points, would I rather upgrade the Command Tank to Pask or do something else? Pask is going to end up wasting one of the two Tank Orders a turn, but he'd get the Command Tank BS2+. BS2+ makes a hell of a difference for both the tank's resilience and the tank's firepower, and allows the Battle Cannon to get close enough to the Vanquisher Cannon at the high end for me not to prefer the Vanquisher anymore, and causes the Demolisher cannon to exceed the rest fairly drastically.



Leman Russ Demolisher Pask Command Tank, Lascannon, Multimelta Sponsons: 177+40+20+20+20=277 points
Leman Russ Punisher Tank, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons: 132+20+8+8+8=176 points
Infantry Squad, Plasmagun = 40 + 7 = 47 points

The Demolisher Cannon is 1.5 to 2 times as good at doing crippling damage, but is it worth the cost? With this set up, I'm sending one of Pasks orders to waste and I'm losing Deep Strike and good AP on the Scions, as well as the firepower of their Volleygun.

Leman Russ Battle Tank Pask Command Tank, Lascannon, Multimelta Sponsons, Heavy Stubber: 177+22+20+20+20+4=263 points
Leman Russ Punisher Tank, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter: 132+20+8+8+8+2=178 points
Militarum Tempestus Scions, Hotshot Volleygun: 45+1+1+1+1+9=58 points

I lose the firepower of the Demolisher cannon, and it's a fairly hard hit to my antitank capacity, but I can still crack open a transport a turn, but it's harder to cripple two. I'm not going to be getting good use of the range on the Battle Cannon, because Multimeltas, so I feel like I'm losing a lot, but is the exchange of power in my troops worth it?

 Trickstick wrote:
So was watching one of the Frontline batreps and something struck me immediately at 2:50. They were talking about why their Scion list didn't have loads of command squads and mentioned it "may not be a good long term investment". That, combined with their reaction when talking about it, suggests to me that something is in the pipe for changing how Commanders work.

Command squads and commanders are different units. Not sure how that would change commanders orders.

As I said in my previous thread which got locked and no one believed me, its rumoured command squads will be limited to 1 per commander, and conscripts will go up in points. The fact frontline are mentioning this only adds support to that rumour I heard at the start of the week...

 MinscS2 wrote:

The Battle Cannon is crap as a weapon on the Leman Russ because you paid 162 points for a gun that does absolutely nothing. [...]

As I said, not all the Leman Russes are strictly terrible. The Punisher is quite good, and has to be dealt with. Just the Battle Cannon variant is.

I disagree. I think the Battle Cannon is better than both the Vanquisher Cannon, the Eradicator Nova Cannon and the ...whatever the Auto-cannon is called.

You say the LRBT's resilience goes unusued, well if your opponent isn't shooting at you, that LRBT will over the course of the game shoot 6D6 shots at S8 AP-2 D-D3.

Thats on average 21 shots, hitting on a mix of 4+ and 5+ depending on if you moved or not, so between 10,5 and 7 hits.
It's not amazeballs, but it can easily kill a enemy vehicle/MC or eve two with a bit of luck. Definately better than "absolutely nothing".

It's all on 4+ because the LRBT turret weapon doesn't get the -1 to hit for moving.

One thing to keep in mind is that 4 lascannon HWTs do about 4 wounds to a LRBT and in return the LRBT does about 4 wounds to the HWTs. The HWTs are shooting at one of the tougher vehicles they may encounter, while the LR is shooting at the best target imaginable for it. And the HWTs are still more cost efficient per wound. They do lose effectiveness FAST, but for turn 1 alpha strike to wreck an opponent's plan, they work pretty well.

Something I think is more interesting is comparing LRBT to lascannons in infantry squads, as at 180pts you still get 3 lascannon shots, but you also have to remove 9 wounds before you can shut even one down. I think this gives them pretty good staying power compared to HWTs and even LRBTs, and you get a boatload of split-firing anti-infantry guns as well. .

I'm basically spitballing here, but if you want to improve vehicle alpha strike efficiency of vehicles, you could do worse than Hunter Killer Missiles. 6 points for a s8 d6 wounds attack seriously increase the first turn damage efficiency.

Biophysical wrote:
I'm basically spitballing here, but if you want to improve vehicle alpha strike efficiency of vehicles, you could do worse than Hunter Killer Missiles. 6 points for a s8 d6 wounds attack seriously increase the first turn damage efficiency.

Unfortunately, Pask and Tank Commanders can't get a hunter-killer. Which kind of sucks.

I can definitely see Hunter-Killers being basically a mandatory upgrade to Manticores and AT tanks that don't plan to move, though. But don't stick them on anti-infantry vehicles and vehicles that have to move to get range.

You definitely don't want it on tanks that move on turn 1. You use the missile on turn 1, since by turn 2 it's too late to crack a transport. And since you activate a tank and declare targets for all its weapons before resolving them, you can't try to nick the last wound off a transport with one and then open up on its contents with your Punisher, so it should stick to tanks that are going to lose no efficiency if there's no infantry to shoot on turn one when they activate.

It might not be great on the Manticore, if the Manticore is out of LoS, though, but that's based on the amount of terrain there is on the board in individual metas.

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:


It's all on 4+ because the LRBT turret weapon doesn't get the -1 to hit for moving.

You're right, I keep forgetting about the turret-rule.

I also agree with putting Lascannons in infantrysquads.
HWT-teams with Lascannon simply beg to be targeted and killed off in turn 1: "Hey, we do alot of damage and die easily to boot, please don't shoot us."

Jpr wrote:
As I said in my previous thread which got locked and no one believed me, its rumoured command squads will be limited to 1 per commander, and conscripts will go up in points. The fact frontline are mentioning this only adds support to that rumour I heard at the start of the week...

Yeah definitely a bit of support from that. It isn't that what you said was super unbelievable, it is just you can't really believe every rumour that you come across. Especially when it is "friend of a friend" style. I hope you are wrong about the Conscripts though.

Although I am tempted to run my meta-busting armoured battle group list again. 8th being the "infantry edition" makes me want to run tri-flamer punishers and a shadowsword.

Swung by my FLGS to ask about the size of the games they'll run as part of the 8E rollout and they said "either 1000 points or 50 Power. We haven't decided yet."

Naturally I started tinkering with list building and I have to say, it's a very different point of view to look at it through the view of power level vs points... HWS w/ mortars don't look nearly as attractive for example, when I can get a HWS w/ lascannons for the same value or a Basilisk for two of them.

Veteran Squads don't seem half bad either, since I can load them up with a heavy flamer, three plasma guns, and a lascannon (and a vox caster because why not). Similarly, sergeants with plasma pistols and power weapons seem very worthwhile.

Hmmmm...

I think I'm going to go with Pask Battle Tank and Punisher tommorrow.

If I remember, I'll report on it! It'll be the smallest game I've played in a long time.

 Aesthete wrote:
Swung by my FLGS to ask about the size of the games they'll run as part of the 8E rollout and they said "either 1000 points or 50 Power. We haven't decided yet."

Naturally I started tinkering with list building and I have to say, it's a very different point of view to look at it through the view of power level vs points... HWS w/ mortars don't look nearly as attractive for example, when I can get a HWS w/ lascannons for the same value or a Basilisk for two of them.

Veteran Squads don't seem half bad either, since I can load them up with a heavy flamer, three plasma guns, and a lascannon (and a vox caster because why not). Similarly, sergeants with plasma pistols and power weapons seem very worthwhile.

Hmmmm...

Yeah, because power levels are a compromise between a stock unit and a fully-kitted unit, any unit that has tons of upgrade options (or has a very wide gap between its maximum and minimum costs) can get a lot of mileage out of power levels by taking all the most expensive gear it can get. Something that has no upgrade options at all on the other hand, gets screwed because they pay full cost either way.

However, doing so is a bit against the spirit of what power levels are for. Power levels are more meant for grabbing random models off a shelf and tossing them on a table as WYSIWYG, so building a list around them is just going to break them. For optimized lists, points are better for keeping shenanigans under control.

The HWS is a good example. The generally accepted conversion is around 20pts=1PL, since that's where stuff with no upgrades (like characters) tends to fall. Though some units are treated better than others, a special weapon squad is 3PL and only hits 60 points at its absolute maximum, with melta guns. So at 3PL a HWS is essentially "60 points" regardless of what it has (so its average got stuck on the high end, probably because three of its five options put it there). A mortar HWS is only 27 points though, while a lascannon HWS is 72 points. The spread on that is huge.

An infantry squad is also 3PL, but can be a minimum of 40 points for a bare-bones squad, or a maximum of 86 points with a lascannon, plasma pistol, power maul/sword, meltagun, and vox caster.

As you can see, power levels are just not meant for robust list building.

Power levels are a joke.

fe40k wrote:
Power levels are a joke.

Depends on how you look at it. It's a quick and nice way to set up a battle without having to calculate all the points values, while still retaining some form of balance. If I walked into a store and met a friendly chap I'd like to a quick game with, power levels would allow us to quickly throw together some form of armies.

But if you want to play with even more balanced armies (in theory) or have greater control, it's probably not for you.