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.

Just as the title reads I am trying to wrap my head around the cost of the battlewagon and I can not.

For 32pts more an IG player can take a Leman Russ battle tank which comes standard with basically a range 72 2D6 S8 -2 D3 weapon and a heavy bolter not to mention T8 and a 3+ save. The only thing the Battlewagon has going for it that the Leman russ doesn't is that its a transport and it has 4 more wounds. I know that IG players love their battle tanks but I can't see a reason why I would ever use the Gun variant of the Battlewagon...ever. The bonebreaker variant has a purpose, however, it pays through the nose to be effective in CC. Realistically we are paying through the nose for a transport ability on a transport that also pays heavily to be okish in CC (Excluding bonebreaker variant) and even fully equipped its shooting is laughable at best.

So with that in mind, can someone please explain to me why the Battlewagon and its variants aren't significantly cheaper, 10-20pts minimum?

Basically, don't compare to a Leman Russ. They are well above the curve for their weight class.

Yep, if you start comparing stuff to Leman Russ tanks you'll never take any units.

Its also partly useful when combined with the "teleporta" stratagem.

though there is no logic, rhyme or reason to the point costs, GW over estimate the survivability of models and fail to consider the impact of BS: 5+

Normally when it comes to Orks being over cost I jump on the band wagon but right now I'm pretty happy with the wagon. I'd compare it more to a land raider (what it was originally based off of), basically a big transportation tank with a few special weapons on it. Decked out the wagon is expensive but you can have 4 rokkits/big gunz, a missle launcher type weapons and a lobba on a pretty tough nut to crack. If anything I think the wagon is pointed perfectly for what it does but the weapons on it are too expensive. People have realised the basic 120pts flat wagon can really soak up a lot of fire power and get mega nobz and elites to where they need to be.

So, in conclusion, while the russ is a great vechile that is cheap, it's nit really comparable to the wagon. However, the weapons on the wagon itself should be cheaper in my opinion for a vechile that has a BS of 5+.

It is because most of the IG stuff is hilariously undercosted. And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

 Crimson wrote:
It is because most of the IG stuff is hilariously undercosted. And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

It's also because everyone takes enough Lascannons to down Castellans, which makes medium vehicles like the Russ a bit of a liability, even if the Russ is the best of them!

I personally suspect it has to do with GW and it's fear of certain intended synergies.

F.e.marines need a pricedrop on various heavy and special weapons, if they don't field roboute.
Csm need the same if they don't field abbadon.
The potential there's two modells have on the Performance of other units is gigantic to the point that they fear to lower the points.

I also suspect this is why Boyz got a 1ppm pricehike but rather then rellying on charachters the threatining synergy stems from the tellyporta stratagem.

Compared to all three other armies, the IG codex has no such huge overlapping synergy and got away with lower point costs therefore.

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

 Crimson wrote:
And IG players think that Leman Russ tanks are bad, because there is even more blatantly OP stuff in their codex.

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

Down at the local clubs I've seen 3 or 4 of them basically wipe the table turn 1. This is the problem with them... a good tournament list will survive easily but the standard fluffy army can't survive two seconds.

SemperMortis wrote:
Just as the title reads I am trying to wrap my head around the cost of the battlewagon and I can not.

For 32pts more an IG player can take a Leman Russ battle tank which comes standard with basically a range 72 2D6 S8 -2 D3 weapon and a heavy bolter not to mention T8 and a 3+ save. The only thing the Battlewagon has going for it that the Leman russ doesn't is that its a transport and it has 4 more wounds. I know that IG players love their battle tanks but I can't see a reason why I would ever use the Gun variant of the Battlewagon...ever. The bonebreaker variant has a purpose, however, it pays through the nose to be effective in CC. Realistically we are paying through the nose for a transport ability on a transport that also pays heavily to be okish in CC (Excluding bonebreaker variant) and even fully equipped its shooting is laughable at best.

So with that in mind, can someone please explain to me why the Battlewagon and its variants aren't significantly cheaper, 10-20pts minimum?

Nobody knows, but GW hasn't ever really made Battlewagons particularly viable outside of things like Deffrolla spam, certainly never as a battle tank. Why that may be, who knows, but I can't recall any edition where Battlewagons were effective gun platforms. Certainly not since they reintroduced the kit about a decade ago.

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

This depends on what role/purpose we're putting the tank to, and lots of battle tanks in the game are fundamentally just bad. The Russ was bad before they updated Grinding Advance, the Fire Prism was too until they similarly buffed them, the Predator is actually really solid in a lascannon anti-tank role but pretty bad in an anti-infantry role, the Hammerhead isn't great either, etc. Even if you removed the Leman Russ from the game, most other equivalents in other forces still wouldn't be seen as particularly good

 Stux wrote:

 godardc wrote:

Basic leman russes are a mediocre unit with a weak firepower. Tank commanders, on the other hand...

Basic Leman Russes outperform the equivalent unit of most other armies. That tells you how good Tank Commanders are! And how skewed the meta is given that we don't see them in top level competitive play much.

The basic leman russ, assuming Catachan, is roughly at the point where I feel "tanks should be like this". The predator just sucks, because it's stated as an APC with a turret and a light gun instead of transport. To be fair, that's also what it's model is, but also like, it really should be treated as a tank because otherwise there's no SM tank. Also, the basic leman russ if not Catachan is pretty underwhelming.

Back to the Battle Wagon:
Compared to a stock Leman Russ, the Gunwagon Battlewagon costs 3 points more, and has:
W16 versus W12. Not only does it have 4 more wounds, it's Ballistic Skill never degrades.
Identical Toughness.
-1 Save
Almost identical weapon. It shoots twice, for D6 shots each time, at S8, AP2. It has fixed 2 damage instead of D3, and 24" range instead of 72".
12 Transport Capacity, versus 0.
-1 Ballistic Skill.
Slightly better melee. Actually, it's a lot better relatively, but it's still nothing to write home about.
DakkaDakkaDakka

As a side note, it also explodes more often, which is situationally a benefit or detriment.


That seems pretty much fair, all things considered. 4 wounds and no degradation for -1 BS and -1 Save is basically what relevant in the trade, with the 12 transport and better melee added on [not for free, though, and I'm sure it would be solid if it didn't pay for the transport and didn't have it].
It does not have access to Catachan, but it does have access to re-rolled 1's to hit or access to +1BS, making it's BS equal to the Leman Russ.


As for upgrade potential
The Leman Russ can buy a Lascannon, and two sponson guns, of which you're going to pick Heavy Bolter, or maybe Plasma Cannon [though I'd stick to HB's and only take PC's on TC's]
The Gunwagon can buy a Lobba, a Stikkbomm Launcha, and 4 Big Shootas. None of those are Lascannons, but it's a solid array of upgrades to still have. Like the Leman Russ, additional guns do not benefit from the fire twice rule. It can also buy Grot Riggers, giving it healing, roughly equal to 1W per tun.


In terms of support:
Leman Russes are theoretically eligible for Tank Orders. In practice, they're not, because the orders are always more powerful when used on a TC.
Battle Wagons can be given an invulnerable save. Leman Russes can be given -1 to be hit, but only one.
Leman Russes have better supplemental material support and prospects for future support, because they're a core unit versus and auxiliary unit.
Both armies have easy protection from melee.




You shouldn't really be using the regular BattleWagon as a Leman Russ, because it's not one. In fact, it's not intended to be one, that's what a Gunwagon is. It's a big rhino, basically.

Also, that brings something up: What's the deal with the outcry over "no looted wagons!"? A Gunwagon is literally a Leman Russ in profile, wouldn't a looted Leman Russ just be a Gunwagon?

My guess is that it's a transport (which GW values very highly), and the melee is maybe better?

Does it have any grot gunners or is it strictly BS5+?

My suspicion is because GW have horrendously overcosted the ability to transport. They thought that transports would actually be able to survive a turn.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My suspicion is because GW have horrendously overcosted the ability to transport. They thought that transports would actually be able to survive a turn.

Surprisingly a lot of them can. They simply pay out of the nose for it and some of them do nothing BUT that.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, that brings something up: What's the deal with the outcry over "no looted wagons!"? A Gunwagon is literally a Leman Russ in profile, wouldn't a looted Leman Russ just be a Gunwagon?

Because way back when you literally got a Leman Russ profile, just with Ork BS. I also suspect that with the release of official kits for a lot of the ork stuff "counts as" has become less accepted as a result.

I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Uh.

Because it's got a transport capacity of 20 and open topped...? Like is this even a question? I can't put 20 anti tank models in a leman russ and have them just continuously shooting at things.

A gunwagon I agree is not as good as a Russ, but I'm perfectly willing to chalk the relatively small difference up to "Gunline faction VS hybrid melee/shooting faction". And even then, looking at the analysis above, it's only 3pts more for roughly the same durability (more, vs AP-4 or AP-3 weapons), a transport capacity of 12 as a small bonus, and a few other little details that leman russes would frigging kill for, I can definitely see why the battlewagon is where it is. I mean, an army trait where you can reroll the dice when determining your battlecannon shots is nice, but Orks have army traits that let them fall back and still shoot, and an upgrade that makes little squads that try to bumpercar the tank into mincemeat...if I could do that with my russes I'd be doing that EVERY GAME.

And for the 32 points you saved can be put towards a KFF that will make the BW more durable than the russ. Huzzah!

You cant compare 1 unit in 1 army to 1 unit in another army its like saying chalk and cheese (who cares if have same or similar unit totally different army... and play style) You prob got your answer before but I hate when people compare units to other units in another army (its a totally different army... )

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And for the 32 points you saved can be put towards a KFF that will make the BW more durable than the russ. Huzzah!

Lol. /thread

Spoletta wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Nah, I meant you have to do like 60-70 wounds in order to get through the 28 you need to kill the Knight.

 Horst wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I think the BW is fairly costed at the moment. For 139 points you get a T8 16W dude that is quite decent in melee and can carry 20 orks. I'd even rate it competitive, along the bonebreakas.

It may just suffer from the fact that many metas are anti tank obsessed thanks to knights, but if you bring a list with only BWs, Bonebreakas, trukks, mek gunz, maybe a flyer or the new buggies, other than some gretchins and characters they should do very well.

If you can't deal reliably 60-70 damage to T8 vehicles in a single round of shooting, you just don't stand a chance of punching through the shields on a castellan. It sucks but it's the way it is.

If you mean punching through 60 wounds of a T8 3+ then i think that they are a bit too much. You are talking about 47 lascannons at B3+. Probably only an IG list with a 2 shadowswords can pull those numbers. The lists you see around at top tables have nothing close to that firepower. Still, they have more than enough to invalidate a lot of heavy infantry/medium vehicles.

Nah, I meant you have to do like 60-70 wounds in order to get through the 28 you need to kill the Knight.

Yep. 72 BS4+ lascannons to have an average chance of killing the Castellan in one round.

the_scotsman wrote:


A gunwagon I agree is not as good as a Russ, but I'm perfectly willing to chalk the relatively small difference up to "Gunline faction VS hybrid melee/shooting faction". And even then, looking at the analysis above, it's only 3pts more for roughly the same durability (more, vs AP-4 or AP-3 weapons), a transport capacity of 12 as a small bonus, and a few other little details that leman russes would frigging kill for, I can definitely see why the battlewagon is where it is. I mean, an army trait where you can reroll the dice when determining your battlecannon shots is nice, but Orks have army traits that let them fall back and still shoot, and an upgrade that makes little squads that try to bumpercar the tank into mincemeat...if I could do that with my russes I'd be doing that EVERY GAME.

I play against a deathskullz gunwagon all the time and it's such a pain in the ass.

Separate for a moment the main cannons:

The KK is 15 points.

7 * 1.167 * .333 = 2.72 hits or 5.5 points per hit

The BC is 22 points

7 * .4 = 3.5 hits or 6.3 points per hit

That means the KK without traits factored in is a better buy at BS5. So that means the real contention is in the base cost of the vehicles.

The LRBT is 122 for T8 W12 3+, grinding advance, smoke, and 3 WS6 S7 attacks.
The gun wagon is 140 for T8 W16 4+, periscope, DDD, 12 transport spots, 6 S8 WS5 attacks.

The LRBT pays 10.2 points per wound.
The Gun Wagon pays 8.75 per wound.

I'd call that pretty god damn fair.

Which is enough Lascannons to on average kill 5 Leman Russes! Which is why Russes and other medium vehicles struggle in this meta.

Obviously people aren't bringing 72 Lascannons, but they are bringing ways to deal with Castelans, and they just work even better on other vehicles.

I think GW somehow overvalues transport capacity and the mobility it provides, I suspect the point appraisal goes something like this:
Question: Does the faction have something scary to put inside that has low mobility?
-No: Ok they don't need transport, remove the unit.
-Yes: Nerf the feth out of that thing right now.

Similar effect can be seen with Marine drop pod and deep strike, assault marines currently pay effectively 2 point per marine for being able to move 12" a turn, deep strike and have Fly keyword. Now drop pod costs 65 points, just giving deep strike ability, which could have been somewhat ok with CA18 new progressive scoring missions but because the 1st turn deep strikes were prohibited this stuff just doesn't add up.