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.

A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".

To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".

To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.

But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".

To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.

But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.

I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.

GhostRecon wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".

To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.

But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.

I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.

So if there is trouble, ban the trouble, don't ban a category. If you don't like Vultures with TPGCs but think the Vulture is an awesome model, then ban taking TPGCs on a Vulture. Frankly, I think that's too much effort, but banning things like Vaylund Cal (the Sons of Medusa special character) because Vultures with TPGCs are a problem is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though. Really a lot of this seems to be less about the unit itself and more about "I don't like Forge World".

To be honest though I think being able to put a Punisher on a Chimera or Sentinel would be pretty awesome.

But it's not, in the game. They are two distinct entries. Just like how the Eldar have a "shuriken catapult" for 0 points and a "twin shuriken catapult" for 10 points. It's pretty common for twin versions of weapons to cost different amounts of points than the single versions, because they're taken on different platforms and are competing with different other options.

I certainly don't hate FW. I think the Vulture is an awesome model and would love to field one. DKOK and Elysian Drop Troops are awesome models and make for great lists in terms of adding new flavor to a 'vanilla AM' list. Believe I own every one of FW's volumes. But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.

So if there is trouble, ban the trouble, don't ban a category. If you don't like Vultures with TPGCs but think the Vulture is an awesome model, then ban taking TPGCs on a Vulture. Frankly, I think that's too much effort, but banning things like Vaylund Cal (the Sons of Medusa special character) because Vultures with TPGCs are a problem is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I would agree if it was just Vultures w/TPGCs, but it isn't - by far.

Daedalus81 wrote:
The rules are consistent. The points are not. A Valkyrie is 130 base. The Vulture is 112.

What's the Transport of a Vulture, again?

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not sure that you're understanding the point.

Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.

They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?

So, supposing we want to come up with an appropriate point cost for each of these choices that make them viable but not overpowered, we follow what seems to me to be the obvious process. We compare them to similar sorts of units.

We compare them to units that also have no point costs? You have to start somewhere.

We ask ourselves if we'd be happy taking them in a list if they cost X points.

Someone that may be more than "happy" to take just tactical squads is not a method of balance.

Throughout, we're doing a lot of math to see how they perform against different targets and how durable they are against different kinds of weapons.

You have hundreds of units and likely millions of combinations between weapons, platforms, and targets. Removing the weapons lets you analyze their effectiveness against all potential targets with complete clarity.

We don't want them to be killing 100% of their cost in a single volley, etc.

That's really a nonsense metric, because enough inexpensive fire power can do just that.

9 HW lascannons can kill a rhino in one salvo - 250 or so points.
Our mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons takes over 570 points to do the same thing.

Generally we want the HWS to be significantly more efficient as a source of firepower, because it's going to be a lot less durable. And then we playtest them, and we see if they perform significantly better or worse than we'd expected, and if so we adjust their costs some more.

A HWS *IS* more efficient, BECAUSE it is on a less durable platform that costs less and can take MORE weapons for the overall cost.

Both these units do the *same* damage. Ergo this makes the weapon *completely* removable from the equation. Then you're tweaking the balance based on the durability of a unit.

Now the point you seem to be driving at is why would you take HWS when they can die so easily and you spent points on their expensive weapons?

If I took a near equivalent number of lascannons with CSM Havocs it would cost 330 points. That's 10 T4 3+ wounds compared to 18 T3 5+.
- Slightly less fire power
- Fewer, but more durable wounds
- An 80 point difference that can be filled by almost 30 conscripts

Sure HWS are going to die a lot. Just like devastators will. They're a softer target than a tank. So you make a decision on how much you're willing to risk in a softer unit to gain a benefit if you get to shoot first or if they don't die. If you were to make lascannons 10 points on HWS to make up for the ill perception of their weakness you'd wind up with 18 lascannons in 324 points. If you took it to 15 then it's 18 in 414. If you cut HBs to 4 you'd see 18 of those for 144 points. Throw them into 4 spearheads with some commissars and conscripts...yea..good luck.

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.

It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.

It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.

It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".

 ross-128 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.

It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.

It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".

And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.

 ross-128 wrote:

It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".

Based on the analysis earlier in this thread, that doesn't seem to be a fair trade-off.

Vendetta is a pretty baller unit too. Especially if you compare to LRs or even the Terminus Ultras.

GhostRecon wrote:

FW is not balanced and should not be allowed in ITC/Matched Play tournaments. One can point out balance problems in mainstream GW's rules, and they exist, but FW adds an even greater degree of imbalance only exacerbated by the FW design team's unfortunate lackadaisical application of the 8th ed points value system.

But why should we draw the line at Forge World? Is there a reason we should just arbitrarily ban some publications, and allow others? Eldar vs Orks has a massive powergap in previous editions, but I never saw any call for for banning Eldar entirely even though they very clearly were T1. Or Dark Angels with Space Wolves.

Yes, some FW options may lead to certain T1 teams being better than others because FW gives better options (Skathach vs normal WK is one comparison people have used), but when the gap is even larger between Eldar and Orks, should we not just ban Eldar, because evidently, GW cannot balance?

I have never understood why people just outright ban everything because a few things are bad. Especially when they are not in any position of power whatsoever. Why should ITC or tournament organisers listen to you instead of making their own, informed decision?

GhostRecon wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.

It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.

It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".

And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.

Why would putting 40 points of weapons into the turret be OP, if we can already do that with the Demolisher cannon without sacrificing sponsons? Of course whether a Demolisher cannon is worth 40 points in the first place might be debatable, but "the Demolisher is fine as long as it's underpowered anyway" doesn't sound like a good argument.

GhostRecon wrote:


And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.

It would be ok, but not as strong as the vulture since it's a 24" weapon and wouldn't have +1 to hit.

On the move it'd kill...3 marines. Stationary 4.4. Or 6 to 9 guardsmen. Not a lot to write home about there.

 ross-128 wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
A twin Punisher is just two Punishers though.

It kinda isn't though. Let me try to explain it this way: part of the point cost for Russ is the 'hardpoint' for powerful turret weapon. It only has one such hardpoint. It for example cannot have punisher sponsons. Vulture has effectively two such hardpoints, and should pay extra for it but it doesn't.

It sacrifices three other hardpoints to fill those two hardpoints. It would basically be like if the LRBT had a rule that said "The LRBT may take a twin turret weapon, but if it does so it cannot take sponsons".

And 40pts for a TPGC on a Leman Russ would be OP too. Or twin battlecannons, for that matter, for 44 pts. Considering twin HBs cost 16 to fill the sponsons. But taking twin turret weapons isn't an option on mainstream LRBTs, so we have no idea how the main GW design team would have tweaked the price of the LRBT and its component turret choices to compensate had twin turret weapons been an option.

Why would putting 40 points of weapons into the turret be OP, if we can already do that with the Demolisher cannon without sacrificing sponsons? Of course whether a Demolisher cannon is worth 40 points in the first place might be debatable, but "the Demolisher is fine as long as it's underpowered anyway" doesn't sound like a good argument.

I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.

GhostRecon wrote:


But FW has never been great at balancing their rules and unfortunately remain so.

I mean, that's not different than GW.. so I'm not sure it's a good argument to use.

 Aenarian wrote:

I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.

What matters is whether or not the options available make sense and offer legitimate choices. If the LRBT could take both it would be stupid to never take the TPGC.

Because the weapon costs are separate and the cost is tied to the general BS of the army then what you pay for the weapon is the average effective cost of it overall. The TPGC and the PGC might be a little undercosted. This is the PGC versus marines as compared to 8 bolter shots (roughly 20 points worth). I can't think of other weapons that could perform as well for that class.

The PGC *should* be better than it's simple equivalent in HBs, but probably a bit less than it is now.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

I guess it's a power versus points. If we assume the Leman Russ with 1 PGC is balanced and costs 160 points, we would almost double its firepower for 20 points more if the TPGC costs 40. A ~87% increase in firepower for a 12.5% increase in cost.

What matters is whether or not the options available make sense and offer legitimate choices. If the LRBT could take both it would be stupid to never take the TPGC.

Because the weapon costs are separate and the cost is tied to the general BS of the army then what you pay for the weapon is the average effective cost of it overall. The TPGC and the PGC might be a little undercosted. This is the PGC versus marines as compared to 8 bolter shots (roughly 20 points worth). I can't think of other weapons that could perform as well for that class.

The PGC *should* be better than it's simple equivalent in HBs, but probably a bit less than it is now.

I did bring up much earlier the possibility that the Punisher itself might be a bit underpriced, but because the LRBT's hull is overpriced we haven't really noticed until it was put on a different unit. Or more accurately, instead of seeing "underpriced gun on an overpriced hull", we were seeing "the Punisher Russ is the most viable and the rest of the turret weapons are poor".

And this is 4 HB (32 points) and 5 HB (40 points) vs the PGC. Even at 40 points it has a reasonable advantage. I'd put it to 35 and the TPGC at 70.

I think a 30-35 point PCG probably would be pretty reasonable, and bring it more in line with the rest of the turret weapons while addressing the Vulture at the same time.

However, I would take those 10-15 points off the hull of the LRBT at the same time. That will keep the Punisher Russ in the same place overall, but make the other turret options (such as the battle cannon) more viable. That should put the Russ in a relatively good spot overall, though the Executioner plasma cannon and Vanquisher cannon would still need a bit of tweaking to fix their relationship with the battle cannon.

 ross-128 wrote:
I think a 30-35 point PCG probably would be pretty reasonable, and bring it more in line with the rest of the turret weapons while addressing the Vulture at the same time.

However, I would take those 10-15 points off the hull of the LRBT at the same time. That will keep the Punisher Russ in the same place overall, but make the other turret options (such as the battle cannon) more viable. That should put the Russ in a relatively good spot overall, though the Executioner plasma cannon and Vanquisher cannon would still need a bit of tweaking to fix their relationship with the battle cannon.

I'm reluctant to say a T8 platform is overcosted. Let's look at the BC though.

Now this graph is sort of reversed from the other one. This is chance to kill a rhino in x rounds so the further to the left the curve is the better.

Ignore this one


So this is 3 BC vs 3 LC and LC definitely get the edge statistically, because of the variable nature of the BC. Though it comes down to the role we define the BC as playing. It's not quite anti-tank and would probably overperform against T2/3W models.

Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.

Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.

 ross-128 wrote:
Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.

Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.

I do think the HH might be one of those that falls outside the norm, because of it's limited options and range. T8 offers some pretty solid defense under the proper conditions.

 ross-128 wrote:
Well, if it needs an underpriced gun to be competitive that can be a pretty strong indication.

Though another thing to consider is we can get T7 and 11 wounds with the same save for 73. Is T8 and 12 wounds worth 59 points more? I don't know, that's a lot of points, even if you discount it for having more hardpoints/options.

If the earlier estimates for the cost of hard points and wounds on T7 are accurate enough, then the vindicator suggests around 8 pts/wound for T8 BS3+.
So T8 BS4+ would likely be around 7 pts/wound, and the LRBT with 5 hard points "should" be 114 points, plus whatever value you want to assign to Grinding Advance.

The idea of +15 points to the PGC and -15 points to the LRBT seems pretty reasonable IMO.

A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.

 Aenarian wrote:
A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.

Think of it different way... You're paying 8 points for the additional wound and 1.8 points per wound to bring them up to T8. Or something like that.

Take plasma -- it loses 33% effectiveness at S7 and 25% at S8. Yes, it means nothing to S6 and down or S9 and up, but there are quite a few weapons in the S7/8 space. Yet T8 is also immune to being wounded on 2s by all but the very strongest models.

A contemptor in melee can average 7 versus a rhino and 5.5 versus a LRBT for example.

Im a tad bit confused by all the mathhammer going on here.

Vulture is a flying vehicle that must move 20" and has a heavy 40 weapon that is hitting on 5+ if it moved.

If it does not want to move and hover, it is now a sitting duck for HWT and any weapon doing dX damage.

You are paying for a supersonic death trap the second you want to "effectively" fire that heavy 40 cannon at a 4+ (which btw you cant modify). 160 Points seems to be pretty good cost to replace everything for a chassis heavy bolter and flying punisher cannon

Rickels wrote:
Im a tad bit confused by all the mathhammer going on here.

Vulture is a flying vehicle that must move 20" and has a heavy 40 weapon that is hitting on 5+ if it moved.

If it does not want to move and hover, it is now a sitting duck for HWT and any weapon doing dX damage.

You are paying for a supersonic death trap the second you want to "effectively" fire that heavy 40 cannon at a 4+ (which btw you cant modify). 160 Points seems to be pretty good cost to replace everything for a chassis heavy bolter and flying punisher cannon

It is hitting on a 4+ if shooting at anything on the ground. The punisher vulture should be priced upwards at 250-300 points, right around the price of two dakkajets. As it is now, it is simply wildy OP. And tha is no surprise, as the ForgeWorld bozos clearly has done zero playtesting of anything in the 8th edition. They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW. They dont sell games, they sell lumps of cured thermosetting resin.

pismakron wrote:
They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW.

No they aren't. Forge World is a brand name used by GW for some of their product lines. At no point has FW ever been an independent company.

And sure, FW didn't playtest for 8th. The rest of GW didn't either, as demonstrated by the extensive day-one FAQs on things that were spotted by the community within minutes of getting the rules.