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.

Its a really dilly of a pickle isnt it.

when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks

 Desubot wrote:
Its a really dilly of a pickle isnt it.

when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks

We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.

You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).

I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".

Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.

I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."

And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.

But it's not just Missile Launchers, it's every S8 anti-tank weapon that would get affected if T9 became a norm for heavy tanks.
(And there are, quite afew "dedicated" AT weapons which are S8.)

There are plenty of armies who wouldn't be able to handle massed T9 tanks, since most of their AT is limited to S8.
Factions with easy access to Lascannons (or any S9+ anti-tank weapon really) wouldn't be nearly as affected.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


You chose to try to play the "I don't know what you're on about" card after getting called out for your hyperbolic posts--which in and of itself is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, by the by, as it lets you insinuate that the individual you're engaged in an argument with does not know what they are talking about or is behaving in an illogical manner.

You're reading way too much into my posts and using that to justify insults (twice now).

I genuinely didn't know why you where comparing Lascannons to Missile Launchers and saying "The LC is better at killing tanks" - I never stated otherwise, nor do I disagree.
You where trying to prove (or argue about) something I had never stated, hence the "I'm not sure what you're on about".

Now you've called me crazy and (indirectly) hyperbolic for no reason. I'm done wasting time on you.

I think you are very confused or distraught or something. His point was "If missile launchers are worse at killing tanks, that's fine - they're not real antitank weapons like lascannons are, even though they can pretend like it for a bit."

And I think he was arguing against the assertion that making missile launchers worse against the heaviest of tanks was a bad thing.

But it's not just Missile Launchers, it's every S8 anti-tank weapon that would get affected if T9 became a norm for heavy tanks.
(And there are, quite afew "dedicated" AT weapons which are S8.)

There are plenty of armies who wouldn't be able to handle massed T9 tanks, since most of their AT is limited to S8.
Factions with easy access to Lascannons (or any S9+ anti-tank weapon really) wouldn't be nearly as affected.

Ah, I see. If that's truly a problem, then give them lascannon statlines - unless, like Orks, the weakness to heavy tanks is a deliberate design decision.

Anti-heavy-tank weapons should be in the realm of lascannons, not missile launchers, is his point. The problem right now is that most are in the realm of missile launchers, and even worse, that's okay because most heavy tanks aren't 'heavy' at all!

So buff the heavy tanks to be actually tough, and then buff the heavy-anti-tank weapons to fulfill their role in the armies where they are inadequate (and increase their points costs appropriately) except for where it's a design decision (e.g. orks).

Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed

unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.

but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Anti-heavy-tank weapons should be in the realm of lascannons, not missile launchers, is his point. The problem right now is that most are in the realm of missile launchers, and even worse, that's okay because most heavy tanks aren't 'heavy' at all!

So buff the heavy tanks to be actually tough, and then buff the heavy-anti-tank weapons to fulfill their role in the armies where they are inadequate (and increase their points costs appropriately) except for where it's a design decision (e.g. orks).

Agreed.
Right now S8 AT-weapons aren't a problem because T8 is the norm for heavy tanks.
If this changes to T9 however, then many dedicated AT-weapons need a redesign, or at the very least a increase in strenght.

 Desubot wrote:
Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed

unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.

but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)

To be fair... There is already arguments for making Hammerheads and Fire Prisms into 2d6.
Both Eldar and Tau would be fine.

Nids and Orks I agree would be insanely weak against Heavy Tanks at long range, but they should be given tools needed to deal with them at short range. Which makes sense for the army.

I'm not familiar with Drew Carey line of Anti Tank, but I'm completely for Lance Weaponry gaining back the Always Wounds on a 4+

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a really dilly of a pickle isnt it.

when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks

We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing

They're not going to do that. Sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed

unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.

but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)

Honestly, my solution to a lot of the Leman Russ issues in 7th was that they should have just classed them as Superheavy Vehicles.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think the T factor isnt the issue, as T is of less value than it was in previous editions, I think Russ tanks should have had a 2+ save at the least (and maybe a couple extra wounds). That would matter a whole lot more than a T boost, and is a big part of what makes the Land Raider so much more resilient than the Russ.

It's just perplexing how "normal" the Russ is really relative to other tanks, especially considering it used to be just as well armored as the Land Raider, with the Demolisher originally actually being even better armored than the Land Raider.

Afew things worth noting when comparing Leman Russes to Land Raiders;

1)
Leman Russes used to be AV 14/13/11(10) 3HP, Land Raiders used to be AV 14/14/14 4HP.
Landraiders should be significantly tougher than a Leman Russ, and they currently are (Due to better save and +4 wounds.)

Thats only comparing them to the previous paradigm, back in RT/2E Russ tanks were just as well armored and better in some cases, and even in the previous edition that armor difference largely only mattered for CC (shots to Russ Tank rear armor typically were extremely rare).

Either way, the Russ should be a more resilient platform than it is, and the gulf in resiliency between a Land Raider and a Leman Russ is dramatcially higher than between say, a Russ and a Rhino, which doesnt make any sense. I can live with the Leman Russ being squishier than the Land Raider, but it's wayyyyy too squishy for the role it is supposed to fill. Not just from a competitive standpoint but a fluff one as well.

2)
A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?

I'm not saying that either unit is necessarily costed appropriately or that there arent changes to be made in pricing as well, or that the Russ needs ro absolutely be on identical par with the Land Raider, but they need to be closer.

Likewise, the Land Raider's weaponry has improved *dramatically* over previous editions, while the Russ tank's have either stayed the same or worsened (the latter in most cases), and the Raider has an event better move+shoot rule and a transport capacity to boot.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed

unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.

but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)

Honestly, my solution to a lot of the Leman Russ issues in 7th was that they should have just classed them as Superheavy Vehicles.

I wouldnt of mined super heavy light (tm)

but 7th is dead and im fine with it.

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Eldar, Tau, orks, nids, dark eldar all get boneswaed

unless we make prism cannons, and hammer heads 2d6 damage.

but you create more problems then solve unless you make lemons and super heavies SOO expensive that at most you only ever can take 1-3 in a game. (not that i mind i think they are super cool and basicly center piece worthy pieces of kits)

To be fair... There is already arguments for making Hammerheads and Fire Prisms into 2d6.
Both Eldar and Tau would be fine.

Nids and Orks I agree would be insanely weak against Heavy Tanks at long range, but they should be given tools needed to deal with them at short range. Which makes sense for the army.

Well, to be fair Orks and Nids both have a couple of options against Heavy Tanks at longer range. They just aren't reliable ones--which I'm okay with, personally.

I'm not familiar with Drew Carey line of Anti Tank, but I'm completely for Lance Weaponry gaining back the Always Wounds on a 4+

Lance could simply be set up like this:

This weapon always gets to utilize its Armor Penetration modifier against Vehicles and Monsters.

Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.

With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.

With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.

I would keep Meltas as is.

They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.

With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.

I would keep Meltas as is.

They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.

Iv netted quite a few 6 rolls that way vs a few 1-3s

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're not going to do that. Sorry.

They are not going to do ANY of this, Won't stop this ongoing discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would make sense for T9/T10 Vehicles if Melta rule also gave it +2S

Edit
OR
Melta reduced to S6, and Melta Rule gives double S

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.

With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.

I would keep Meltas as is.

They're not "great" at long range, but at short range they get to pick their higher roll for damage. That's a huge deal.

Well, it's mostly a matter of putting them in different roles. Both are a good bonus to have, but if it's on to-wound it means you can very reliably put wounds on stuff, particularly heavy armor. Where as on damage it's less likely to wound and more focused on medium armor, but is devastating when it does.

So it's a tradeoff between being reliable or being punchy, either is a valid preference.

 MinscS2 wrote:


A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?

The toughness of a vehicle is not the vehicle cost plus weapons. It is the base vehicle cost alone. That is how the values are balance and why weapons are separate. The base cost includes abilities and basic melee profiles, which are roughly similar here.

A Russ is 132 for 12W 3+.
A LR is 239 for W16 2+
--181% the cost of a Russ

12 * 1.666 = 19.9
16 * 1.833 = 29.3
--147% the damage of a Russ

That makes a difference of 38 points.

So there is a discrepancy. Why? The Land Raider is also a transport. It has 6 S8 attacks instead of 3 S7.

Does that make up for all 38 points? I don't know, but I do know that making it T9 would be fairly obscene.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:


A Leman Russ, depending on loadout, current costs in the ~150-200 pts region.
A Land Raider Godhammer costs 356 pts, so roughly twice the cost of a Leman Russ.
How is it in any way balanced if the Russ, being so much cheaper, had the same defensive stats as the Land Raider?

The toughness of a vehicle is not the vehicle cost plus weapons. It is the base vehicle cost alone. That is how the values are balance and why weapons are separate. The base cost includes abilities and basic melee profiles, which are roughly similar here.

A Russ is 132 for 12W 3+.
A LR is 239 for W16 2+
--181% the cost of a Russ

12 * 1.666 = 19.9
16 * 1.833 = 29.3
--147% the damage of a Russ

That makes a difference of 38 points.

So there is a discrepancy. Why? The Land Raider is also a transport. It has 6 S8 attacks instead of 3 S7.

Does that make up for all 38 points? I don't know, but I do know that making it T9 would be fairly obscene.

40 points for it's transport capabilities sounds about correct, altho that math seems suspect

Shouldn't it be
12 / (1/3) = 36
16 / (1/6) = 96
(266%)

Or in other words, a Auto Hit, Auto Wound, AP0 1D weapon would require that many shots to kill each target.
Perhaps AP0 is unfair? Since Anti Tank Weapons have AP values.
AP-1
12 / (1/2) = 24
16 / (1/3) = 48
(200%)

AP-2
12 / (2/3) = 18
16 / (1/2) = 32
(177%)

AP-3
12 / (5/6) = 14.4
16 / (2/3) = 24
(166%)

AP-4
12 / ... 1 = 12
16 / (5/6) = 19.2
(160%)

Most Anti Tank Weapons have AP-3 or AP-4, and those are pretty close at around 160%
132 * 1.63 = ~215

Making the cost of the Transport at around 25 points.

If you look at the Vulture against a plain LRBT it will lose most of the time in terms of firepower. As I said a LRBT is better at surviving due to cover, can be concealed, can be upgraded with more weapons cheaply, is better against STR 8 and above weapons, can be given orders, can receive benefits from character auras.

What really should be considered is that as many have said the LRBT is one of the worst offensive units in the AM list. If you want an even better comparison of points look at HWT w/heavy bolters. For the same points as a vulture you can get 12 HWTs which give out a whooping 36, Str 5, -1 AP shots. These units can also be given orders, use aura's, use cover, be concealed, have better range, and are much harder to kill. This outclasses a vulture hands down.

Instead of asking to nerf the Vulture we should be asking how we can improve the LRBT to make it more competitive. I have seen some serious nonsense of people saying Vultures should cost 100-150 more points. This would instantly result in them never ever being used which is what many bitter people want to happen. In reality if anything the Vulture should get a 5-15 points increase maximum to remain playable.


Did no one even notice that the conquerer Leman Russ tank was only 110ponts base? It is now 25 points cheaper than a normal Leman Russ. Maybe this is an incoming change to all LRBTs in the future and would easily make the Vulture/LRBT costs balanced out.

 Talamare wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Basically Anti Tank Weaponry needed to be bumped up in Strength in accordance to the commonly seen Vehicles

If we go by a simple conversion
Av 42 + Vehicles = T10
Av38-41 Vehicles = T9
Av35-37 Vehicles = T8
Av33-34 Vehicles = T7
Av31-32 Vehicles = T6
Av 30 - Vehicles = T5

Av = Front + Side + Rear

So, I really like this idea.

But, instead of giving toughness over 8, I would rather see an invulnerable save. For example, instead of T10, it's T8 with a 2+/5++.

I would also say that strength double toughness should completely negate a base save. For instance, if you hit something with a strength 12 attack and it's T6, that model should not get a base save, it should automatically fall back on its invulnerable save. Not sure how often that would come up, but it definitely would at the lower levels, for instance, marines would not get a save against lascannons, and guard would not get a save against strength 6.

The game has a Ton of S10 weaponry, it makes no sense that they would have little benefit over S9 weaponry.
So, capping at T8 just seems really biased towards Lascannon.

Also, I'm a highly against devastating "On/Off" Scenario... It would basically be like a minor form of the previous Instant Death Rule.
A granular version of that S = AP seems better. For every S2 above your target you get +1 AP?
Seems decent, but a little math intensive for a fast game. It would also mean a need to heavily nerf a lot of base AP values.

The problem with increasing toughness to higher proportions is that it also increases the relative value of weaker weaponry, since everything can wound everything.

 Desubot wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
T5 storm ravens would get curb stomped off the board in seconds.

By what?

Literally every shooting attack.

I uhhhh, I don't think that's the case.

Strengths 1-4 and 8+ would be completely unchanged in a lowering from T7 to T5, and strengths 5-7 have only a 17% damage increase.

It would take on average 19 autocannon shots to wreck a T5 Stormraven, for example, and that's being nice and assuming that the autocannons are hitting on 3's and not the more likely 4s or 5s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Vehicle T and W is very odd this edition. Flyers like the Valkyrie and Vulture ended up tougher than Leman Russ tanks, which are only very minorly more resilient than Chimeras, while Land Raiders have about as great a resiliency advantage over a Russ as the Russ does over a Trukk...

The problem is that they created all this granularity by allowing strength and toughness to go over 10 and then didn't use. 90% of vehicles in the game are bunched in around T6 to T8, with only outliers like the LR going to T10+.

What makes matters worse is that they went to all this trouble to allow S and T to go above ten, and then changed the wound rules so you need double the characteristic to wound on 2's or 6's. So they introduced this massive range and then made it so that heavy weapons are wounding almost everything or 4's to 3's.

Really strange thinking.

broxus wrote:

If you want an even better comparison of points look at HWT w/heavy bolters. For the same points as a vulture you can get 12 HWTs which give out a whooping 36, Str 5, -1 AP shots. These units can also be given orders, use aura's, use cover, be concealed, have better range, and are much harder to kill. This outclasses a vulture hands down.

You make a decent point there, but it sort of throws the balancing mechanic on it's head. GW clearly had a formula in mind for weapons e.g. 20 point LC for IG and 25 point LC for SM. They didn't see fit to point weapons on vehicles differently.

There is a basic trade off that holds mostly true - more weapons or less weapons, but more durability. Space marines could spam HBs, but they would get less of them comparatively. So, yes, you have more power in those HWTs, but they're way more fragile and you'll start losing HBs very quickly to the TPGC.

The TPGC is not appropriately costed for this dynamic. It does seem like FW used SOME form of formula, but they were way too rushed and didn't spot check their work. TPGC is mathematically about twice as good as the equivalent points in HBs. You can likely also fit more TPGCs in a list than HWTs.

 Marmatag wrote:
The problem with increasing toughness to higher proportions is that it also increases the relative value of weaker weaponry, since everything can wound everything.

 Talamare wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a really dilly of a pickle isnt it.

when weapons get way too expensive and tanks become harder to field. its just going to be massive amounts of dudes with bolters running around hopping to roll 6s like bizzaro orks

We just need a new Wounding Table
If T is 3x S, it does nothing

Lasguns are the only real concern here
Bolters and other S4 guns aren't saturated enough to be an issue.

Feel like this discussion has gotten way off topic, and delved deep into something that sounds more like a drastic reinvention of 8th edition for vehicle's sake - not sure how realistic or productive a discussion that might be, but regardless would ask that become a new discussion while we focus on OP's original point.

As to the Vulture, while I won't necessarily join the chorus screaming OP, it does lend strongly to the continued notion that Forgeworld rules/units/data sheets are poorly balanced/playtested.

Still, one thing to note beyond sterile mathhammer conjecture is that the 24" of the twin punisher gatling cannons make it a bit more difficult to better/more safely position the Vulture compared to a Leman Russ, for example, without going into hover. Harder to quantify outside of anecdotes and conjecture but it may have an impact on the Vulture's actual effectiveness on the battlefield.

My personal opinion - Forgeworld remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Forgeworld designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, lances definitely need their lance rule back and in my opinion the melta's special rule should apply to its to-wound roll, not damage.

With just those two changes, lances and melta-equivalents would both be top-tier heavy armor busters again.

Dark Lances being so abundant, Assault weapons, and having -4AP makes them more than powerful enough. They do not need to tweak them at all unless they recieved a massive points increase.

GhostRecon wrote:
My personal opinion - Forgeworld remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Forgeworld designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.

My personal opinion - Games Workshop remains poorly balanced and playtested, and until drastic changes occur in how Games Workshop designs, balances, and integrates things into 'mainstream GW' units it should be restricted from Matched Play games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why are we crying over the fact that STR 8 weapons might be mediocre anti-tank if LRBTs get a toughness boost? It's a heavy tank, it's supposed to be difficult to kill! STR 8 weapons were weak against AV 14 in all previous editions, why should they suddenly become effective LRBT killers in 8th? This attitude is just a symptom of the dumbing down and over-homogenization of 8th, the idea that everything should be able to hurt everything and you should never be punished too severely for bringing the wrong weapon/unit choices.

Are we really sure this is even a Forgeworld's fault? Certainly I am not the only one to notice that space marine list composed of nothing but flyers have been winning game tournaments. Not FW flyers, but regular, standard GW codex flyers. Perhaps it is not FW that is at fault, but the balancing of the flyers themselves.

One of my biggest problems with flyers ever since they have been introduced is that they have been terribly balanced, and it's not just flyer vs non-flyer balance, but flyer vs flyer as well, and arguably the latter situation is worse. Ever since flyers have been introduced Imperial flyers have been far stronger than their non-Imperial counterparts with only a few exception, namely 100 point nightscythes and heldrakes in 6e, and possibly wraithfighters currently. Imperial flyers are better armed and better armored then their xenos counterparts and tend to come with twin-linked on all their weapon systems along with hover standard. They also tend to get additional benefits such as transport capacity, strafing run, grav chute depolyment, PotMS, etc. in addition to the aforementioned benefits. And outside the Stormraven/Stormwolf line of flyers they don't even seem to pay any additional points for any of these benefits. They are just plane better for no clear reason, which is especially odd considering that before flyers where introduced large flying shooting things were kind of Tau and Eldar's hat, but Tau have been thoroughly shafted in this regard while Eldar do ok.

In any case, flyers were held back in 7e because of numerous rules. They had to start in reserve and didn't come in until turns 2-4, not good in such a alpha strike heavy game. Limited maneuverability plus firing arcs meant that often couldn't be used to good effect once they did come on the table. Hover provides a workaround but shed a flyer's primary defense of forcing snap shots, and without said defense they were vehicles that suffered the dual liabilities of both hull points and the damage table. And they couldn't score while flying. 8e has eliminated all of these disadvantages. Flyers now start on the table and are as resilient as any other vehicle with an extra -1 to hit when fired upon to boot. They are durable enough that hovering is no longer a major risk, which makes hover capable flyers essentially better than regular vehicles in every way. If they want to stay in the same spot they can, if they want to cross the board in one turn they can. And thanks to twin-linked weapons becoming simply two weapons, they tend to be much better armed than normal vehicles as well. They are basically over-sized versions of the scatter bikes from last edition, stupidly fast while maintaining massive amounts of firepower, and they don't seem to be paying for these advantages. It is a convergence of the old Imperial vs. non-Imperial flyer imbalance of the past two editions with a new flyer vs. non-flyer imbalance of the current edition, and this unholy union has created some severely overpowered units without the aid of Forgeworld.

Phanixis wrote:
Are we really sure this is even a Forgeworld's fault?

Despite popular opinion the core points are mostly logically consistent with a formula derived mindset.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Phanixis wrote:
Are we really sure this is even a Forgeworld's fault?

Despite popular opinion the core points are mostly logically consistent with a formula derived mindset.

And the Vulture gunship is consistent with the precedents established by the "main GW" index books.

 Peregrine wrote:


And the Vulture gunship is consistent with the precedents established by the "main GW" index books.

No, it isn't. FW is most definitely a rush job and it's hard to say what was lost in translation.