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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.

Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 108. Good Changes. Change is good.

Sorry, but i still don't get it.
You have access to that weapon in a unit full of T4 ablative wounds, which is always considered a great advantage. If you don't like that, then you can put that on really cheap bodies (tankbustas), disregarding durability for maximizing fire power. As you also noted, you can load that unit onto a transport that is FAR from undercosted, 76 points before weapons for an open topped transport is really good (the closest comparison is with the raider, 95 points before weapons but has a 5++). Damage 3 is considered better than Damage D6, or at least equal, for obvious reasons.
Not saying that orks are fine, results show that they are not, but hearing your comments i'm getting really confused on the reasons for that...

Note: Any comments on the line of "This was like this in 7th" will be ignored. Everything changed with 8th.

In a unit of ablative wounds.....boyz want to be stuck in the entire game. If they aren't then they are worthless. So spending 36ptz (which is 20% the cost of the mob) on 3 rokkitz which should be advancing every turn is not a good investment. Now if you want to put them in a shoota mob then that's fine. But shootas are worse then choppas and you won't be doing much even if you don't advance. 36pts for 1s8 hit a turn. Add to that the fact that it still has incredibly short range and what's the point?

And tankbustas are cheap? In what world are they cheap? 17pts for a model that had T4 and a 6+ save is not cheap. Ohh but he has a rokkit so he is cheap!!! Well no. He is still BS5+ so unless they are shooting at a vehicle they are terrible. And even then they aren't great. Cramming 20 into a wagon brings you up to 500pts that is capable of slightly hurting a T8 vehicle with a 2+ save. (6-9 wounds on average). our premier anti armor unit isn't very good. But what about when they are mounted on vehicles? They aren't. They are so prohibitively expensive that people take Big shootas or KMBs instead. When I tried using them on deff lootas I found they were so expensive I couldn't afford them.

Finally in regards to transports not being over priced....I have nothing for you. That comment is so patently wrong that I can't even fathom it. That isn't true I can answer it. I am assuming you play guard or SM and didn't rely on transports so I'll explain this to you from an Ork perspective. When Orkz do something they do it redundantly to make sure it gets done. This is why you don't see a list with 1-3 trukkz 6 kanz, 1 flyer maybe a squad of lootas and some boyz. You always have to go all in or you won't make it. Trukk boyz require 6 trukkz minimum. Based on the new costs that went from being 180pts or roughly 1/10th of a competitive 1850 list to about 500pts or 1/4th a 2,000pt tournament list. Trukk boyz got weaker as well compared to their foot sloggin brethren. So when I say overpriced it's because Ork lists depended on cheap transports and when the vehicles costs more then the unit it transports then they ARENT cheap.

EricDominus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.

Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.

Well, yes, this change is good. The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway. The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard. So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.

Dionysodorus wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.

Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.

Well, yes, this change is good. The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway. The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard. So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.

You make as much sence, as every other Forge World hater does.



None.

Are those the platforms or the carriages for 115 pts?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.

Ahhh....wat?


Salamander Command tanks needed a 50% points increase? Rapiers, Heavy Quad Launchers, Heavy Mortars, Griffons, and Armageddon pattern Medusa's, and Twin Heavy Stubbers all really needed nerfs? None of these were exactly balance problems before, most were seen as already notably overcosted. The Earthshaker and Medusa carriages really needed to be made *more* expensive than their more resilient, Ld-immune, and mobile tank counterparts? Conscripts needed to be made the same cost as Guardsmen, who are superior in every way?


Those were all good changes? Really?

IG BS3+ Meltaguns going to 17ppm means they're probably never going to be taken, as they're only advantage they have over plasma guns is being about 20% more effective against vehicles and big monsters at under 6" and under, against any other target or against vehicles at any other distance (particularly at that critical 9" Deep Strike distance) the Plasma Guns (with Overcharge option) are superior, and the Plasma Guns aren't exactly terrible even where the Meltagun is at its best It's just going to further push All Plasma All The Time.

Dionysodorus wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.

Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.

Well, yes, this change is good.

Change just for its own sake is not good. It's what drives people to leave the hobby.

The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway.

Mostly not, but having the option is nice, and often critical, if something outflanks or clears a screen from one side of a table, you want to be able to scoot away if possible.

The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard.

It still means the unit is fundamentally less valuable and easier to destroy and that should absolutely be reflected in their points costs. There's a whole lot more tools to deal with the Earthshaker platforms than the Basilisks.

So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.

Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units. The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them. Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units. So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points. It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.

It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.

But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.

But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?

I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.

But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?

I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?

Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.

My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".

Neat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.

But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?

I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?

Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.

My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".

Neat.

I mean, I would hope that everyone can see how it can be a reasonable tradeoff to make people in this very specific situation worse off in exchange for not having to worry at all about the competitive balance of 2 whole units. Yes, I'm sorry your friend will have a harder time winning competitive tournaments with his super-fluffy Civil War themed army. Of course, he can still use this army just fine in less competitive settings.

EricDominus wrote:

Conscripts are now 4 ppm per model. *sigh*

This in addition to all the other hits?

Does the game really have to be balanced around the whining inept?

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units.

The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them.

By that token, the stuff they're targeting is relatively minor in the grand balance scheme of things and lots of other stuff that didn't get touched. GW certainly doesn't seem to be communicating this thought process in any other way...

Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units.

So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points.

This assumes a whole lot about GW's mindset, that we've never seen in the past or anywhere else (and the Titans already weren't really cheap enough to take in normal games anyway), and that basically tells people "don't go out and buy the cool fluffy stuff we make". A lot of the stuff that got hit with nerfs was already underpowered and unpopular.

It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.

Why make the kit and offer the option in that case at all? It's certainly not going to get people to buy these things. And if they really don't want these units in competitive games, they really should give some sort of indication other than a monstrous surprise mega points nerf that people are just supposed to somehow extrapolate that such units aren't intended to do anything but sit on pretty shelves. That seems like the most roundabout and underhanded, and post-facto way of doing it. They certainly didn't appear to have that mindset a few months ago that such units shouldn't be fielded competitively. We really have no data other than supposition to back this up, and it certainly doesn't track with GW's methodology in any previous cases of dealing with their competitive environments or updates to units.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.

But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?

I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?

Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.

My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".

Neat.

I mean, I would hope that everyone can see how it can be a reasonable tradeoff to make people in this very specific situation worse off in exchange for not having to worry at all about the competitive balance of 2 whole units.

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Daedalus81 wrote:
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.

Killtank went from 215 to 365. Yeah, that is a nerf but please continue. Nothing in the ork army should be seeing a point increase.

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

I think his point is that... the track and the heavy bolter are useless. Is the same as the problem with Astropaths and Primaris Psykers. If they had the option to have no wargear, people will take them without wargear to make them cheaper, because it doesn't do anything for the purpose of the job the units must do.

Of course, in this case the solution is not to make the Earthshaker battery more expensive than the basilisk, but making both more expensive, with the Basilisk being more expensive but not by much, because it shouldn't be paying very much for things that in a piece of artillery you normally aren't gonna use.

pismakron wrote:
1) I really like the general principle that unit rules and unit costs are decoupled, and that balance changes can be published outside of the main rulebooks.
.

Eh. Locating the point costs elsewhere in the book doesn't decouple them from the rules. It just puts the burden of cross reference on the reader.

It's only really useful if you want to look at all the point values at once, which frankly is of limited utility for game purposes. For list building purposes, this is actually one of the worst approaches to book design.


If they were doing full page complete point lists every time they updated points, it would make some amount of sense. But since they're doing selected find and replace anyway, separating the point values out just makes things more aggravating on the usability end.

Dionysodorus wrote:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units. The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them. Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units. So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points. It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.

I'd like to introduce you to Chess. It only has six different types of units, the rules are very simple, and it has a huge following so you'll never have trouble getting any games.

M.

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

I'm more disappointed by what *isn't* in here than what is. The lack of Necron and Tau updates is really disheartening for people with those armies (2 of the big players in my local meta).

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.

Killtank went from 215 to 365. Yeah, that is a nerf but please continue. Nothing in the ork army should be seeing a point increase.

Go ahead and build your case around the single exception out of 20+ point decreases.

I'd love to know the percentage of Ork lists using one at a tournament - < 1%?

People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"

This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I'm more disappointed by what *isn't* in here than what is. The lack of Necron and Tau updates is really disheartening for people with those armies (2 of the big players in my local meta).

But I think it has been mentioned a few times that this is probably because their Codices are in the works. Why make so many changes back-to-back?

EricDominus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?

I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.

M.

About what 28 pts your are talking about?

Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.

Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.

Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.

Do you get it now?

 Infantryman wrote:
I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.

M.

Of fething course it doesn't make sense.

People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.