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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.

You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.

Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.

30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills.
30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.

And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.

 Galas wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To be fair, a guardsman is flatly better than a cultist despite being the same cost.

We could arguee about perfect unbalance, and how Cultists are chaff in a "elite" army, but with 8th ally sistem it doesn't matter anymore.

Meh, all armies are chaff armies in 8th and armies that don't have chaff are auxiliaries to armies that do. Trust me, I've tried my damndest to run armies with no chaff and it simply does not work.

EricDominus wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.

This kind of behavior is exactly why we ended up with this book.

Let me get it, you are Marine/Death Guard/Wolf Wolfer?

I will bet on the 3rd one. Congrats, GW has given you some bone to chump, clap-clap.

He's a Chaos Marine and Ork player. As far as I know that's it, anyway.

Man, is Chapter Approved some kind of fanfiction-ruleset by some... random dude?

Or is it actually released by GW? Anyway, it doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose. They just felt like changing some... stuff. No matter what it is but they just didn't care.

Things were already just fine. The only thing that wasn't fine was the fact that some of the Codexes haven't been released yet. Give it some time and it'll be alright.

We could have better and more honest discussion if people stoped trying to shame and do cheap ad-hominems to players based in the armies they play. Most of the time they didn't even are right because in the general imaginarium every player that says something bad about IG is a Space Marine player.

Answer to what people said, not attack the one saying it.

For the most part it looks fine to me. All the arch Daemon princes went back to the points they've pretty much been at since 4th (888 for the Khorne, 777 for nurgle, 666 for slaanesh) except the tzeench one. Other than that the LOW tank choices for chaos(and vanilla Marines) made drastic increases. Also for some reason the Xiphon went up. No matter, it still seems playable in my eyes. I don't play that often and when I do, I just try to have a good time playing with my toys.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.

Ah the false idea fluff players wouldn't be happy about balanced game. Actually it's opposite. Competive ones can easily switch army based on power so unbalance affects them less. Indeed for many part of fun is trying to figure out broken armies as part of the challenge. Fluff players have often more reasons to stick to an army

Where did I say fluff players would be unhappy about a balanced game?

Well, and I just said that everything was balanced.... Where these changes written by a drunk or are GW really just that stupid as to think Conscripts are as good as regular Guardsmen, slower, squishier and less-well-armed artillery needs to cost more than a mobile, tougher and better armed version and that anyone would ever bring Melta at these points values?

Then again, some people will never be happy until Guard players are shelving their armies again.

Pretty happy overall. Problems include not having Tau or Necrons since they won't be out for several months. The FW changes are like someone took a dart board with up or down as the targets with really no reasoning. Totally good with the malific lord change and I ran them to a local tournie win. Those are stilll well priced when you look a magus or even other a libby since they have two mortal wound powers, still keep their invul, and can still go super-saiyan.

Maybe Guard should be raised back up to 5pts IF Marines are raised back up to 15pts.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe Guard should be raised back up to 5pts IF Marines are raised back up to 15pts.

Guard Infantry can be raised up to 5 points when Commissars are restored to their pre-nerf abilities and Conscripts have the "Raw Recruits" rule removed from them.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe Guard should be raised back up to 5pts IF Marines are raised back up to 15pts.

In this edition, is one marine equal to three guardsmen? Marines seem worse than that.

I just wish there was an attempt to balance the game around unit-to-unit comparisons instead of these vague measures of whole army performance, which do nothing for internal balance. It should be clear that equal points of guardsmen should have certain advantages and disadvantages compared to equal points of marines or conscripts.

The designers should communicate these goals. I don't even know what each army's advantage is supposed to be any more. It's all about whichever units are currently overpowered.

What I do find strange is that things like Guard/Space Marine Missile Launchers appear to be staying the same points cost.

It is very obvious that it is an inferior choice to both Lascannons or Heavy Bolters, and it's "versatility" is a joke at best.

Or the fact that Grav weaponry seems to be paying for it's crimes against the universe in 7th edition by being lackluster at best in almost every scenario.

I personally wouldn't have been opposed to a 2 point increase for Plasma Guns across all armies (and avoid the silly Guard BS 3+ cost), a 1 point decrease for Flamers, a 2 point decrease for all Meltaguns and Plasma Cannons, and a 4 point reduction for Multi-Meltas.

I also don't mind the increase on Assault Cannons and Hurricane Bolters, but the lack of attention in addressing the points costs of things like the Land Raider Crusader which are overcosted to begin with, is a bit disheartening.

Guilliman really needed a far bigger points increase than what he got. He is still a no-brainer and makes almost every other Chapter seem like a far worse option. He should have gotten a 50 point increase at a minimum, along with the increase in points costs to the Assault Cannon and Hurricane Bolter.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:


Guilliman really needed a far bigger points increase than what he got. He is still a no-brainer and makes almost every other Chapter seem like a far worse option. He should have gotten a 50 point increase at a minimum, along with the increase in points costs to the Assault Cannon and Hurricane Bolter.

Hurricane bolter went up 6.
Asscan went up 1. Twin went up 7 as you know.

Conscripts are the same points as chaos cultists... Are they suddenly BETTER than their Imperial counterpart? Shocking. This can't be right...

The Ork changes were all moves in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a couple went too far (both up and down) and quite a few seem about right.

The more surprising thing was how many things didn't get changed, and what they prioritized changing, but our Codex hasn't come out yet so it isn't worth freaking out over. I'm still in wait and see mode, and I'm still cautiously optimistic.

Daedalus81 wrote:

pismakron 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 anything you want to see.

Except for the killtank which went up by a lot, not that it really matters.

I stand corrected - though on a FW unit that I've never see make a list. And it was half the cost of a Baneblade base for nearly the same stats.

The Kill Tank isn't in the same league as a Baneblade, it's actually pretty close to a Land Raider both in terms of its role and how powerful it is.

The Kill Tank is a little better than a Land Raider, but not a lot better. The Land Raider is more durable and a little bit better at shooting. The Kill Tank is a little bit faster, a little bit better of a transport* and significantly better in melee. The Kill Tank used to be ~50 points cheaper than the Land Raider, which meant it was undercosted. Now it is ~50 points more expensive than a Land Raider, which I think means it is overcosted but closer to fairly costed than it was before the change.

To be honest, I'm basing its cost entirely on comparing it to a Land Raider. I don't know if the Land Raider is currently appropriately costed or not.

*It's a better transport because it holds 12 instead of 10 and has the Hang On! rule. People might make a big deal out of that rule because it allows embarked units to shoot, but really that is not as big of an advantage as it may seem. Embarked units only hit on 6s, so anything other than Burnas and Kombi-Skorchas isn't going to do much. To use Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas the Kill Tank has to get within 8", which is generally a bad idea when dealing with the units that Burnas and Kombi-Skorchas are good against. The Kill Tank is very good at melee, but only relative to other vehicles and it is much better on the charge. Charging into most infantry would be a horrible waste of the Kill Tank, as it is still primarily a gun platform and it can't fall back and shoot. Plus, anything worth shooting with Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas is probably something that it would be worth disembarking and charging with Burna Boyz or Nobz anyway. The best use of the Kill Tank's melee is ramming vehicles that can outshoot it (like Land Raiders and 4x lascannon Predators), and shooting those with Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas is mostly a waste.

 Galas wrote:
I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?

For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.

The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.

Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.

Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts. They all have different tacticals niches. Basilisk vs Earthshaker don't.

I find it interesting that everyone goes on and on about the Basilisk having a move (which you don't want to use), a Heavy Bolter (that doesn't really matter for why you purchased it), and more durability (when you really want it out of LOS to avoid all attacks if possible), but no one mentions the Earthshaker Battery's ability to fire when within 1" of enemy models (which is much better than needing to run away from pesky chargers) and the fact you can shoot models that are within 1" of the ESB (much better way to get rid of pesky infantry than running away). So unless engaged by infantry that can actually do much damage to a T7 4+ AS target, the Battery is better able to do it's job and be rescued than a Basilisk.

 Melissia wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.

You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.

Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.

30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills.
30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.

And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.

There is an IG relic that makes for an old school Commissar.

 Primark G wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.

You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.

Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.

30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills.
30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.

And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.

There is an IG relic that makes for an old school Commissar.

After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't.
Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice.
"But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I believe most of the changes to GW stuff (Not the FW, those were all over the place) were sensible. Many things need more fine tunning like Guilliman, of course, and the change to Conscripts doesn't make sense without making IG Infantry 5ppm.
Some people will say that GK sucks but I don't believe Gk can be fixed by making them cheaper. Of course, they can make them ultra-cheap but then they stop being an elite army. GK should be redone from scratch.

.

Gw stuff that don't make sense. Not even complete&

Coscript
Ig melta
Why ig plasma left untouched?
Vanquisher. That's it?
Wyvern
Where's help for flamers and grenade launchers? Gw really wants us to use only plasma?
Ork way too little help
Ig psykers. Malefic lords get 100% hike, there only few. Well guess that's fw tax. Gw wants gamers not buy resin
Saint, guillimann. Way too small. Easy to see they are gw plastic. Were they fw resin would have been like double price
No hike for shadowsword? Hell no price hike for any baneblade chassis makes fw hikes even more blatant cash grab


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RedCommander wrote:
Man, is Chapter Approved some kind of fanfiction-ruleset by some... random dude?

Or is it actually released by GW? Anyway, it doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose. They just felt like changing some... stuff. No matter what it is but they just didn't care.

Things were already just fine. The only thing that wasn't fine was the fact that some of the Codexes haven't been released yet. Give it some time and it'll be alright.

It was very deliberate changes. You just assumed changes were for balance when it's marketing tactic to drive gamers money from resin to higher margin plastics. It's money driven changes.

Spoletta wrote:

After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't.
Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice.
"But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.

What edge cases make Conscripts as good as regular guardsmen? Normally I'd say that they're better because large squads can get more mileage out of buffs, but the most noteworthy buff available to Guard is orders, and Conscripts are not good with orders thanks to missing them half the time. This still leaves psychic buffs, but that's about the only case, and even then it's only so-so: You don't want to buff your screen units with one-use-per-turn abilities, you want to buff your valuable units that'll benefit a lot more.

Also, the ability to take MSU is a huge boon for regular guardsmen. Back when Conscripts were still the superior choice by a fair margin (pre-codex, basically,) I still saw players taking infantry squads just to save points on a cheap Troop Tax in order to get command points. Gone are the days of being worried about running out of slots, nowadays the game is all about bringing as many units as possible to get command points. (ESPECIALLY troops.) This makes the small squad size of Infantry squads even more of a boon.


Conscripts are stuck with cumbersome squad sizes, the inability to use the most common and powerful buff reliably, worse BS, WS, and Ld. All they get in exchange is... The ability to have more than ten guys. Which isn't even an advantage 99% of the time.


Really, Conscripts didn't need much of a nerf after the Commissar change. At most, they needed some kind of limitation on how many you could take in Matched Play. (Like, one Conscript squad per Infantry squad.)

Did anyone else notice IG plasmagun spam was "fixed" on FW side of things but not on Codex side? Feels like a botched copy&paste job to me...

Tyranid Malanthropes jumped up 50 points. Now are 140. I expected a paints hike but not that far. A fully kitted out Carnifex is cheaper, and does more than a Malanthrope does. And if it was the question of cheap synapse, they JUST released a cheaper HQ option with 2 psychic casts, can heal itself with a full smite, has a 3++, and is untargetable for 70 points.

Mr ghoti wrote:
Tyranid Malanthropes jumped up 50 points. Now are 140. I expected a paints hike but not that far. A fully kitted out Carnifex is cheaper, and does more than a Malanthrope does. And if it was the question of cheap synapse, they JUST released a cheaper HQ option with 2 psychic casts, can heal itself with a full smite, has a 3++, and is untargetable for 70 points.

Shrouding Spores is why people were taking the Malanthrope, and its why the Malanthrope went up in cost. I expect the Changeling to see a similar price hike come Codex: Daemons.

Point changes after codex release is a slap into the customer's face.
The point range is a bit strange and brings GW under pressure.
E.g. should a Voidveawer be 69 pts or 60 or 80 pts. Makes not much sense.
We have seen such point ranges in the first ed of WMH. They changed it in the 2nd ed narrowing down to a very small range which was quite good. In the 3rd incarnation they increased the range a bit but it is still reasonable.

 Weazel wrote:
Did anyone else notice IG plasmagun spam was "fixed" on FW side of things but not on Codex side? Feels like a botched copy&paste job to me...

The codex contains altered plasma point values by BS already. CA is expanding the plasma cost split to melta and bringing FW in line.

Assuming I understood your post correctly.

tneva82 wrote:

Why ig plasma left untouched?
.

What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't.
Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice.
"But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.

What edge cases make Conscripts as good as regular guardsmen? Normally I'd say that they're better because large squads can get more mileage out of buffs, but the most noteworthy buff available to Guard is orders, and Conscripts are not good with orders thanks to missing them half the time. This still leaves psychic buffs, but that's about the only case, and even then it's only so-so: You don't want to buff your screen units with one-use-per-turn abilities, you want to buff your valuable units that'll benefit a lot more.

Also, the ability to take MSU is a huge boon for regular guardsmen. Back when Conscripts were still the superior choice by a fair margin (pre-codex, basically,) I still saw players taking infantry squads just to save points on a cheap Troop Tax in order to get command points. Gone are the days of being worried about running out of slots, nowadays the game is all about bringing as many units as possible to get command points. (ESPECIALLY troops.) This makes the small squad size of Infantry squads even more of a boon.


Conscripts are stuck with cumbersome squad sizes, the inability to use the most common and powerful buff reliably, worse BS, WS, and Ld. All they get in exchange is... The ability to have more than ten guys. Which isn't even an advantage 99% of the time.


Really, Conscripts didn't need much of a nerf after the Commissar change. At most, they needed some kind of limitation on how many you could take in Matched Play. (Like, one Conscript squad per Infantry squad.)

From playing tyranids i can tell you that +1 armor on a wall of 30 conscripts is something i really fear, to make an example. With the cover stratagem they can now survive a devilbomb and correctly screen your units, where 40 guardsmen would have died. Yes, they will melt like snow when morale kicks in, but i couldn't charge past them in that turn, which is all that matters.

Spoletta wrote:

What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.

To me the melta change was not at all expected. One of the quirks of 8th edition is that flamers and melta competes poorly with plasma. In theory each of the three has its niche, but plasma is simply too good vs tanks and too decent vs infantry to bring anything else. And on top of that, there are simply too many ways of getting around the dangers of overcharging.

The fallout from the above is that all two-wound models has struggled from the onset of the edition (as well as for other reasons).

That's why I find the melta-nerf puzzling. Now they are almost as expensive as las-cannons.

What they should have done was make Conscripts 4 points like the regular guardsmen, but give them two rules:

1. Conscripts cannot be affected by any positive modifiers to their leadership, cannot replace their leadership with that of another unit's and cannot be affected by any abilities or stratagems that would otherwise allow a unit to automatically pass or ignore a morale check. Conscripts do not count for the purposes of contesting objectives, victory points, and victory conditions.

2. Conscript units that are entirely destroyed may, at the end of their controlling player's movement phase, be redeployed up to 12" from their controlling player's table edge, and more than 9" away from any enemy models. This does not cost reinforcement points.

There you go. Now they have a fluffy use that functions entirely differently from infantry squads, while still having the potential to be useful.

 alextroy wrote:

I find it interesting that everyone goes on and on about the Basilisk having a move (which you don't want to use), a Heavy Bolter (that doesn't really matter for why you purchased it), and more durability (when you really want it out of LOS to avoid all attacks if possible), but no one mentions the Earthshaker Battery's ability to fire when within 1" of enemy models (which is much better than needing to run away from pesky chargers) and the fact you can shoot models that are within 1" of the ESB (much better way to get rid of pesky infantry than running away). So unless engaged by infantry that can actually do much damage to a T7 4+ AS target, the Battery is better able to do it's job and be rescued than a Basilisk.

I find it interesting you're making this argument, because the Carriage Battery lacks this rule and still went up to 121 points, fully furnished with mandatory crew. This one lacks the mobility, toughness and heavy bolter from the Basilisk, but it also requires crew within 3" (although they are protected from shooting like characters, they still die quite easily and if it has no crew within 6", you lose the entire unit). It is slightly smaller than a Basilisk, although longer, and I doubt much terrain which would be able to conceal the Basilisk can conceal the Carriage Battery. It also cannot benefit from Master of Ordnance etc.

Could it be argued that the Earthshaker Battery has some pro's compared to the Basilisk? Absolutely, it shouldn't cost almost 30 points less. But should it cost 7 points more for an arguably inferior unit? Probably not. However, the Carriage Battery only has its smaller footprint and height, but still costs more than a Basilisk. I would have been content if both the Medusa Carriage and Earthshaker Carriage went to 100 points each, but having it cost more than a Basilisk is just silly.