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.

Spoletta wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.

Did Veterans, Command Squads, and Tank Commanders suddenly disappear from the codex when I wasn't looking?

Wouldn't be the first time units have disappeared from the IG codex on me without explanation

One will notice that Sniper Rifles in an SM army are 4pts and are only on BS4+ models (unless I'm forgetting something), but are 2pts for IG models regardless of BS3+ or BS4+.

Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing.

No, because it ignores the critical fact that different units get different value from different weapon because they have different capabilities. It also doens't help that only a couple of weapons are held to this standard. Consistency is good where it's needed, not so where the only consistency is there because it's hamfisted into place for its own sake.

It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.

I would disagree in the case of 40k 8E, for two reasons. First, there is almost certainly not going to be a change to the melta or plasma gun. Second, it means that if you do change something, it's going to cascade down to different platforms in different ways that you won't know ahead of time, instead of having units already at least somewhat adjusted relative to their basic performance.

This is also the first and only edition to break apart weapons values within a single army based on BS, and for whatever reason only applies to Plasma and Meltaguns.

Colonel Cross wrote:It's a shame because I loved my vets with meltas jumping out of a Valerie. At least I can go back to using the flamers and heavy flamer vet squad.

I probably will still do that, as it fits my fluff. Well, moreso the "Special Weapon Squads" but most "Veterans" in my army fluff show up as air-assault infantry.

Daedalus81 wrote: Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem? (Yes degradation exists and the meta looked down on ACs, but not likely as much with the point drop).

And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.

Raises the question.

But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now? They're a nifty model (I had like 4 in my old Guard force, when you could Deep Strike them), but I didn't think they fit well with my theme.

As for being Mechanized, the only special weapon I have in my 1500 point list is just Sniper rifles - infantry are only there to support / capture - it's the tanks that do the heavy lifting!

M.

Deadalus. I think you give GW far too much credit when you think there's some sort of formula for how they decide point values, comparing transports to other armies' transports and doing some sort of wound/point ratio.

And yes, I did conveniently leave out the couple good things guard got (like cheaper autocannons). It's because my post was listing my complaints with chapter approved from a guard perspective, not a thorough analysis of the pros and cons. Yes, I admit, there were a couple nuggets of good out there. I don't deny that.

And just as I conveniently left that out, I think it's pretty convenient you only really focus on the taurox (and the wyvern a bit). Which, to be fair, I think you swayed me on. I never thought of it in terms of "why ever take an armored sentinel w/autocannon when the taurox costs the same, can carry two, and is more durable." So in the end a taurox went up by 6 points. I guess that's fair. I'll still field them.

But I think it's somewhat silly to try and compare something like a wyvern to a taurox prime. They're completely different units that serve completely different roles with completely different weapons. You can't just look at "wounds/point" in a vacuum. One will be in back probably behind cover. One will be up front taking fire. One is BS4. One is BS3. One can transport. One has double the range of the other. LOS ignoring. Rerolls. Regiment benefits. There are too many differences. And it's especially silly to determine that "rerolling wounds = weapon should cost double" for a guard artillery piece based on a marine melee weapon.

We can try to rationalize why the points for a certain thing changed the way they did, but all I can do is point out that if something wasn't being used before, increasing its cost proooobably won't do it any favors.

People weren't taking melta guns or ratlings or wyverns or conscripts (since the FAQ). They sure as hell aren't gonna start now. I believe Chapter Approved messed with a lot of things that didn't need messing with.

*shrug* But that's just my opinion. We'll see how it pans out.

 Infantryman wrote:


But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now?

Sentinels are sadly an eternally bad unit. They're an FA unit that isn't actually Fast (and in fact are slower than all the vehicle HS choices...), they don't have the resiliency of an actual tank, they don't have the firepower of an actual tank (even as a squadron of 3), and are always relatively expensive next to alternatives that fill the same role.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.

Did Veterans, Command Squads, and Tank Commanders suddenly disappear from the codex when I wasn't looking?

Wouldn't be the first time units have disappeared from the IG codex on me without explanation

One will notice that Sniper Rifles in an SM army are 4pts and are only on BS4+ models (unless I'm forgetting something), but are 2pts for IG models regardless of BS3+ or BS4+.

Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing.

No, because it ignores the critical fact that different units get different value from different weapon because they have different capabilities. It also doens't help that only a couple of weapons are held to this standard. Consistency is good where it's needed, not so where the only consistency is there because it's hamfisted into place for its own sake.

It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.

I would disagree in the case of 40k 8E, for two reasons. First, there is almost certainly not going to be a change to the melta or plasma gun. Second, it means that if you do change something, it's going to cascade down to different platforms in different ways that you won't know ahead of time, instead of having units already at least somewhat adjusted relative to their basic performance.

This is also the first and only edition to break apart weapons values within a single army based on BS, and for whatever reason only applies to Plasma and Meltaguns.

Didn't actually now that veterans could form heavy weapon teams! Guess this speaks a lot about how much used veterans are...
And then there are HQs, but those are an exception in all codices, and right now Ta'u are abusing that exception as much as possible.

Anyway i agree, that rule isn't being enforced consistently.

Incredibly disappointed with CA's treatment of Dark Eldar, with our whopping six point changes, one of which was a Forgeworld unit no one was complaining about, one of which was already handled in an FAQ, and the remaining four were the Court of the Archon, which are really just a single unit. No wargear price adjustments, (The Heat Lance is inexplicably 25 points despite being worse than a Dark Lance is just about every scenario), no mention of our most grievously overcosted units (Hellions are T3, 1 Wound, 5+/6+++ Models and are 17 points.).

The kick in the teeth, however, is our Warlord Trait for the Wych Cults, activating on a 6+ to hit. Our signature HQ for the Cults is the Succubus, who's base wargear incurs a -1 to Hit. With how Power from Pain works out, it essentially means it's impossible for our HQ to make use of her Warlord Trait till Turn 3. Turn 3.

For a book supposedly about bringing non-codex armies up to speed, they seem to have taken the backseat.

This really just feels like an FAQ you have to pay for.

Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.

tl:dr - my wallet already voted

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.

tl:dr - my wallet already voted

Yeah, we basically gain 20-40 points in a 2000 list with CA, unless you play with several buggies. Better than nothing but pretty much near nothing anyway

I'm stoked by the CA points changes; Death Guard staples got cheaper, making Plague Marines usable and our Deathshroud Termis may see some tabletime now. Not to mention I can use PBC's for slightly less. Much needed changes

Spoletta wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.

Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing. It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.

Veterans can form Heavy Weapons Teams. So can standard Command Squads.
Veterans are BS3+.

Anyway, we don't know if in the next months the plasma will still be the best choice like it is now. There are already targets around that are best served with melta, rather than plasma, like a carnifex with sporocyst rushing your lines.
Top SM lists are already switching it for grav.

That's nice for "Top SM lists". Doesn't do diddly for anyone who doesn't have Grav though, now does it?

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.

no, they underestimated the fact that meta gamers will turn every stone in order to find the moust cheesy and broken unit combos in order to win. THAT is the biggest issue of ALL games.
as stuch GW faild to place restrictions to conscripts the moment the indexes was released, and are now forced to inderectly remove the conscripts from the meta untill they can remake the rules for them.

conscripts do belong in the codex, but not they way they was, or currently is.
they are a filler unit, something you bring just to add in the last missing points. they are not ment to be more important or effective in ANY task then a normal 10 man infantry unit.

Well that's kind of the issue I think. They were a filler unit, but then GW tried to give them a specific role -- a role that it turned out was difficult to fill without making them overpowered in other ways.

 Infantryman wrote:


But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now? They're a nifty model (I had like 4 in my old Guard force, when you could Deep Strike them), but I didn't think they fit well with my theme.

Only use I can think of for Sentinels is taking 3 Scout Sentinels, keeping them as cheap as possible to unlock a Brigade detachement, and then making use of their pre-first turn movement for area denial.

Other than that, both the Armored and the Scout Sentinel seem like a bad unit all around. They go down in no time, which means the Flamer+Chainsaw variant is never going to make it to the enemy alive, and the Heavy Weapons options have to stay stationary in order to shoot better than 5+, which makes their alleged mobility obsolete.

Maybe they're interesting in a Tallarn list but other than that, nah.

Regarding Sentinels, it probably doesn't help that their default (and cheapest) weapon - the Multilaser - is complete garbage.

What's more, Armoured Sentinels got further shafted with the changes to plasma. Previously, one of their main advantages was the ability to take Plasma Cannons - something neither Scout Sentinels nor HWTs could access. However, with the changes, any roll of 1 on a Plasma Cannon shot will kill the Sentinel outright.

What's more, both versions (but Scout Sentinels in particular) are supposed to be mobile gun-platforms. Now, though, unless you're using Tallarn, your Sentinels are basically no more mobile than Heavy Weapon Squads - and those can easily put out three times the firepower for around the same cost.

Oh, and the Sentinel Chainsaw is quite possibly the worst melee weapon in the game (relative to its platform). "So, if I take this upgrade, my Sentinel's single S5 attack at BS4+ will be made at AP-1? Where do I sign!"

Put simply, their cost doesn't appear to reflect their minuscule firepower and lack of mobility, and they just don't have any meaningful niche.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Base abilities, but in either case you'd be ok with someone fielding 200-250 (or more) melta guns in a 2,000 point game? Do you view smite spam as a problem?

Smite spam is a problem because it's actually hard to deal with. 200 T2 7+ bodies that have to footslog and have melta guns is not actually that hard to deal with. Why do you think it would be? If you have sufficient bolters to kill 60 GEQs then you can kill 112 of these things. Guardsmen shred them.

ProwlerPC wrote:Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.

tl:dr - my wallet already voted

See you in 2022, then?

Esmer wrote:

Only use I can think of for Sentinels is taking 3 Scout Sentinels, keeping them as cheap as possible to unlock a Brigade detachement, and then making use of their pre-first turn movement for area denial.

Other than that, both the Armored and the Scout Sentinel seem like a bad unit all around. They go down in no time, which means the Flamer+Chainsaw variant is never going to make it to the enemy alive, and the Heavy Weapons options have to stay stationary in order to shoot better than 5+, which makes their alleged mobility obsolete.

Maybe they're interesting in a Tallarn list but other than that, nah.

Vaktathi wrote:Sentinels are sadly an eternally bad unit. They're an FA unit that isn't actually Fast (and in fact are slower than all the vehicle HS choices...), they don't have the resiliency of an actual tank, they don't have the firepower of an actual tank (even as a squadron of 3), and are always relatively expensive next to alternatives that fill the same role.

Brutal :(

They were a cool looking model and an interesting concept - but as par usual, anything "neat" is junk.

Such is life.

One thing it also lost - to my recollection - is that Rough Terrain is no longer A Thing - so this means its other advantage (not throwing tracks) is gone. I don't know when that rule disappeared, but it was there in 4e. That said, in all truth, basically no table I played on other than my own ever featured much terrain at all - let alone rough ones. Always basically Line Battles with tanks and stuff. Seems to be supported with what I've seen here, too.

Time for a Terrain Revolution! (this will not happen because the staggeringly vast majority of any wargamers I've known are too lazy to even paint their own damn armies half the time).

M.

Did the Fire Raptor, Spartan and Barbed Hierodule get a crazy FW point hike too?

 Eldarain wrote:
Did the Fire Raptor, Spartan and Barbed Hierodule get a crazy FW point hike too?

The Fire Raptor actually went down by 60 points, crazily enough. Not sure on the others.

I think the Spartan is the only LOW tank that didn't go up. But it didn't go down either.

 Galas wrote:


I agree with this. GW making Powerfist cost different for a space marine, a guardsmen and a Ork was a good thing. You can't value one weapon generally, thats one of the biggest problems of Warhammer40k balance-wise. They put a cost to a weapon, and that weapon can be used maybe by 6-9 units in one Codex alone (Not even talking about different Codex). How can you balance a Lasscannon with a single point cost? A Lasscannon shouldn't cost the same for a Space Marine than for a Vehicle or a Tank. Even with the same BS, the tank is just gonna be much more tought. And you can say "Yeah, but you put the cost of that tougthness on the tank", but as others have said, units are more than the sum of their parts. You can have a platform that is very expensive and very tought, but if it doesn't have options for good weapons nobody is gonna use it.

The same goes for Deepstrike. Should a Tactical squad with max +1 special weapon +1 heavy weapon +1 combi weapon pay the same for Deepstrike than a Sternguard that can have all combi weapons? No, because is obvious that the deepstrike hability sinergizes much better with the Sternguard squad.

One unit of Conscripts don't receive the same value from Deepstrike than a Bloodthirster of Khorne.

This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.

About the sentinels: they are the victim of this new design: remove universal rules that were a staple of the units; and add it back, but not for everybody. Sentinels need Relentless. Like EVERY walker.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.

I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.

I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.

M.

In that case, it will be the right moment to quit, I guess.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.

Vehicles in the same Toughness and Save bracket have very similar costs.

Rhino (W10): 70 Predator (W11): 90 //1 big heavy and 2 sponsons Whirlwind (W11): 70 //1 big heavy (previously 75) Chimera (W10): 75 //2 heavy weapons Razorback (W10): 70 //1 big heavy at the cost of transport space (previously 65)

Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.

Armored Sentinels are really durable for the cost and great objective holders, but they certainly aren't an amazing gun platform (heavy flamers aside). This further reinforces the need for a Taurox packing 4 more wounds to get a bump in cost. Think of it this way:

Make an armored sentinel pay 5 points per wound. That's 30 points and cheaper than it is currently. And perhaps it will see reductions.
The Taurox has the same T6 3+ body. Make it pay 5 points per wound. It's now 50 points.

For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.

18 T6 wounds dispersed across 3 models is going to limit damage spreading. A LRBT has 12 wounds (at T8 of course). Sentinels are potentially better at holding an objective. Easier to hide than a tank. A lascannon wounds both on a 3+ and gives both the same save. On average it takes just over 3 lascannon hits to kill a sentinel. And because the damage won't spread that makes it 4. So 12 hits for the squad. The LRBT needs 6.2 hits to be finished off. That makes the sentinels almost twice as durable for the cost.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

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.

8 S8/10 attacks with WS3+ is no joke.

It's also trivial to get a big mek onboard and give it the same survivability as a land raider against anti-tank, but with 8 more wounds.

So previously landraider - T8, 2+ 18W @ 239 - 13.3 per wound
Killtank - T8, 4+/5++ 24W @ 290 - 12 per wound

Then slap on good melee and mortal wounds. Then take 3 of them and stick the mek on a bike to save on costs.

Sure you could shoot assault cannons at them, but that's going to be a long slog and they're not exactly slow. Maybe 365 is too far, but they needed to go up.

I think we're actually mostly in agreement. I also think that Kill Tanks cost too little at 215. Now I think they cost too much*, but they are closer to being fairly priced than they were before. Of course, I'm talking about them maybe being ~25 points too high which probably isn't a huge deal when we're talking about a ~400 point model. It does add up when taking three of them, though.

The Kill Tank definitely packs a punch in close combat. I think that it's ability to do mortal wounds on the charge is even better than all the S8/10 Attacks, which as you say are no joke themselves. The main point I was trying to make was that the ability of passengers to shoot (but hit on 6s) was actually a pretty small advantage. Anything that doesn't auto-hit is mostly just going to miss. Burnas and skorchas will still auto-hit, but they're good against things like hormagaunts which I absolutely do not want my Kill Tank to get charged by as the Kill Tank can't fall back and shoot.. I want to charge things like Land Raiders and 4x Lascannon Predators with my Kill Tank. These targets are dangerous to my Kill Tank in shooting but are not dangerous to my Kill Tank in close combat. If I charge one of these units it can either stay there and get ground down under S8 while the rest of my enemy's army can't shoot the Kill Tank, or it can fall back in which case it can't shoot and if my Kill Tank survives it gets to shoot and charge in to do mortal wounds again. The things that I want to charge with my Kill Tank are not good targets for Burnas and Skorchas, and more often then not if those units want to shoot at something they'll want to hop out and charge it anyway.

So that was a long-winded way of saying that the Kill Tank is good in melee, but the Hang On rule is only really useful in edge cases.

You are right that the Big Mek with KFF synergizes very well with Kill Tanks. I didn't bring it up because synergies* can get pretty complicated. Aren't there Space Marine units that can also buff a Land Raider? Like Captains that give re-rolls and psychic powers that can make them tougher? Those probably aren't as good as the KFF, though. The Kill Tank is actually about as tough against anti-tank weapons as the Land Raider even without the KFF. The place where it is at a disadvantage is against high-volume, mid-strength shooting. The extra wounds don't make up for the 4+ armor save. Granted, a bunch of autocannons and heavy bolters would take forever to bring down a Kill Tank by themselves, but when you shoot a bunch of them at a Kill Tank there is a good chance of doing a few wounds and that can matter for knocking it down a tier on the degredation chart or when there's nothing better to shoot at. (On a side note, I really like that Ork vehicles tend to have a good amount of wounds but bad armor saves compared ot Imperical vehicles. You shoot a bunch of heavy bolter rounds at a Leman Russ and they bounce off. You spray down a Trukk or Battle Wagon and bits and pieces start flying off. On the flip side if a Lascannon or Krak Missile punches through an Imperial vehicle's armor it can be in serious trouble, while if it blows something off of an Ork vehicle there's a good chance they didn't really need those bits anyway. I think it's really fun and thematic.)

*I didn't consider that in terms of buffs and synergy the Space Marine Chapter Tactics don't effect vehicles while the Ork Clan abilities might, and we might also get a bunch of stratagems that might buff the Kill Tank. So yeah, it's entirely possible it might actually be a great unit for the points depending on what we see with the codex.

I was actually planning to run 3x Kill Tanks with a Big Mek on Bike. This was going to be the core of my tournament list as I'm too slow to play Green Tide. It still might be viable after the codex drops (and it's not even assembled yet so I have time) so I'm not too worried about it. I'm holding off on building my Nob Bikers as Big Mek bikers since I think they might get axed in the Codex, and while I could probably still play them out of the Index I don;t know if I want to bother with that.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Deadalus. I think you give GW far too much credit when you think there's some sort of formula for how they decide point values, comparing transports to other armies' transports and doing some sort of wound/point ratio.

And yes, I did conveniently leave out the couple good things guard got (like cheaper autocannons). It's because my post was listing my complaints with chapter approved from a guard perspective, not a thorough analysis of the pros and cons. Yes, I admit, there were a couple nuggets of good out there. I don't deny that.

And just as I conveniently left that out, I think it's pretty convenient you only really focus on the taurox (and the wyvern a bit). Which, to be fair, I think you swayed me on. I never thought of it in terms of "why ever take an armored sentinel w/autocannon when the taurox costs the same, can carry two, and is more durable." So in the end a taurox went up by 6 points. I guess that's fair. I'll still field them.

But I think it's somewhat silly to try and compare something like a wyvern to a taurox prime. They're completely different units that serve completely different roles with completely different weapons. You can't just look at "wounds/point" in a vacuum. One will be in back probably behind cover. One will be up front taking fire. One is BS4. One is BS3. One can transport. One has double the range of the other. LOS ignoring. Rerolls. Regiment benefits. There are too many differences. And it's especially silly to determine that "rerolling wounds = weapon should cost double" for a guard artillery piece based on a marine melee weapon.

We can try to rationalize why the points for a certain thing changed the way they did, but all I can do is point out that if something wasn't being used before, increasing its cost proooobably won't do it any favors.

People weren't taking melta guns or ratlings or wyverns or conscripts (since the FAQ). They sure as hell aren't gonna start now. I believe Chapter Approved messed with a lot of things that didn't need messing with.

*shrug* But that's just my opinion. We'll see how it pans out.

Can we all just take a moment to sit down and appreciate how measured and polite this response was? Exalted, for something that is sorely lacking in these forums.

I'm kind of surprised they don't just cruise the forums and scoop up community discussions on it to at least inform their decisions.

We kinda sorta do some of the leg work for them, there.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
I'm kind of surprised they don't just cruise the forums and scoop up community discussions on it to at least inform their decisions.

We kinda sorta do some of the leg work for them, there.

M.

people still playing 8th are more or less beta testers for them, just like AoS. Not saying its bad, but not good either.

And I wouldn't mind that, if there was at least an open discussion between the playerbase and GW in developing those updates. I like the core of 8th edition, and appreciate the initiative to try to better moderate the game, but GW spraying blindly against a wall while doing nothing to explain some very questionable decisions does not bode well for the long term health of the game, or the enjoyment of myself and others.

If GW is going to treat 8th edition as a beta, they need to also treat their dealings with the community as a two-way street.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.

Vehicles in the same Toughness and Save bracket have very similar costs.

Rhino (W10): 70 Predator (W11): 90 //1 big heavy and 2 sponsons Whirlwind (W11): 70 //1 big heavy (previously 75) Chimera (W10): 75 //2 heavy weapons Razorback (W10): 70 //1 big heavy at the cost of transport space (previously 65)

Hrm, not sure I agree with drawing too much from this, we don't know the rationale behind them, I'd argue that in the Chimeras case it's painfully overcosted (and as a result you see very few on tables), and the Predator has a *notably* higher cost despite having only one addiitonal wound and fewer features (no transport ability, no self repair, no out-of-LoS weapons) than the other platforms there (before buying its weapons, only one of which is mandatory).

Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.

Armored Sentinels are really durable for the cost and great objective holders, but they certainly aren't an amazing gun platform (heavy flamers aside).

In what context?They're worth shooting big AT guns at when fresh, they're wounded on 5's by Lasguns and S3 melee attacks, and mid-strength weapons like Plasma Guns and Autocannons are spectacularly effective against them. Nobody particularly sees Armored Sentinels as fantastically resilient units.

This further reinforces the need for a Taurox packing 4 more wounds to get a bump in cost.

If the line of thinking is "X is bad, so lets nerf Y", there's a huge number of issues with that. There's zero context of where the two units actually perform, the reasons for taking them, what roles they fill and what places they take in the army? Just because Sentinels are bad and Tauroxes are better Autocannon sources doesn't mean that nerfing the Taurox is going to make people take Sentinels or that the Sentinel a good landmark for balance decisions.

It's not like Tauroxes were exactly Grade A competitive list units, aside from attempting to tie performance to units that are seen as decidedly uncompetitive, there's very little rationale for nerfing them, nobody thought they were an issue.

Think of it this way:

Make an armored sentinel pay 5 points per wound. That's 30 points and cheaper than it is currently. And perhaps it will see reductions.
The Taurox has the same T6 3+ body. Make it pay 5 points per wound. It's now 50 points.

If we're strictly sticking to this concept, to the exclusion of all other context, sure. By this rationale however the Predator above would be similarly *overcosted* relative to its Rhino counterpart (probably moreso), and nobody seems to think these are particularly bad units currently (aside from not getting chapter tactics which is another discussion altogether).

However, we have zero evidence that this is how GW costs units (who have themselves stated many times through many editions, including this one, that such formulae tend to be little more than passing fads around the studio and most costing is subjective), this costing paradigm ignores all context in which these units are used and employed, focused solely on wounds per point to the exclusion of all else. Stats don't always scale linearly, FoC slot location, tabletop role, armament choices, transport ability, etc and more all factor into costs in ways every analysis of yours is failing to capture.

For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.

18 T6 wounds dispersed across 3 models is going to limit damage spreading. A LRBT has 12 wounds (at T8 of course).

Sure, if we're talking about overkill from big AT guns, but we're really trying very hard to make a unit nobody thinks is any good into some sort of reasonable balance landmark.

Sentinels are potentially better at holding an objective.

Again, pretty reachy here, that's going to be very circumstancial. Possible, but very circumstancial and they're going to have a harder time getting there while being much more vulnerable to the types of weapons many objective holding units are likely to hold (particularly infantry weapons).

Easier to hide than a tank.

In theory? Potentially, sure. In practice? Not really, the Sentinel is taller than a Russ, the bulk of its mass is higher (with some things like fences or low walls or an Aegis line its actually quite possible to get an LRBT 50% obscured but not a Sentinel because its body is so high), and in a squadron of two or three they don't really have any smaller of a footprint.

A lascannon wounds both on a 3+ and gives both the same save. On average it takes just over 3 lascannon hits to kill a sentinel. And because the damage won't spread that makes it 4. So 12 hits for the squad. The LRBT needs 6.2 hits to be finished off. That makes the sentinels almost twice as durable for the cost.

This is getting really reachy, we're really struggling to take a unit nobody rates and attempting to tie it as some sort of balance measure through the aspect of heavy anti-tank guns being overkill and less effective than against the heavy battle tanks they're intended for. The sentinels are much easier to hurt and destroy with small arms fire and mid-range weaponry like Plasma guns and Autocannons, and the big heavy anti-tank guns are still rather effective against the Sentinels, even if more circumstancial as to when you want to bring them to bear.

Again, the Sentinel is not a highly thought of unit. They're not particularly hard to kill (vulnerable to small arms fire, vulnerable to mid-strength weapons in ways heavier vehicles are not, big anti tank guns can still whack them not-inefficiently), their shooting is anemic and pathetic when moving, their mobility is actually rather limited next to proper tanks, etc. Trying to use it as a standard measure of balance is difficult to concur with. I'd argue they need to be notably cheaper.

A classic example of a unit that has a context in-universe, and maybe in specific forms of engagements, but doesn't fit the way Warhammer battles are actually played.

Same with the Salamander, I suspect - recon-type units work in an operational context, but you don't usually want to bring them into a tactical one...

I'd say the Scout version would make a half-decent platform for rushing up a hunter-killer missile to pop some choice units but heaven forbid THAT bit of wargear ever be worth its weight!

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.

I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.

M.

I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.