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.

Like anyone will be regularly playing this in a year’s time anyway. It’s another box shifter - “YOU NEED BIG ARMIES BUY STUFF: THE GAME”.

Salty, I know, but I can’t imagine this will have an active playerbase beyond occasional get togethers. May limit GW’s effort level somewhat.

Having said that and as broke as I am I can see me preordering the Cadian box...

Kdash wrote:
I’m so use to removing a model at a time. It just feels weird seeing something like a multi-melta struggling to wound an infantry unit, when in 40k it basically just removes a model lol.

This was difficult for me too when I started looking, but I think this kind of issue explains some of the weapon stats that seem odd at first: as infantry units have a wound characteristic lower than the number of models, it is reasonable to represent a multiple-shot or blast weapon either with a very high SAP or multiple attacks - after all, even a single wound inflicted in apocalypse is now effectively killing multiple models, so blast weapons should always have relatively SAP even when they are relatively low-strength weapons in 40k. On the other hand, I wonder how they decide between increase the SAP of a weapon or instead increasing the number of attacks? Perhaps different people made the decision on different datasheets, hence some inconsistencies. Alternatively, I wonder if attacks can be split between multiple targets? That might explain some differences in the stats too, depending on whether or not it is realistic for the weapons to split attacks.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Is that different to regular 40K in any way? A lot of units suck, some are good. Some factions are worse than others.

Apoc seems to be on a magnitude greater though. It honestly seems like they had a different person work on converting each faction from regular 40K over to Apoc and none of them coordinated with each other and no one reviewed the final product. There too many instances of what are functionally similar weapons or units with wildy varying stats.

Take the Leman Russ weapons for example.

Spoiler:

There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to these stats. They feel so random and don't reflect their counterparts in regular 40K. I'm still trying to figure out what the point of the Twin Lascannon is when the Vanquisher Battle Cannon is just a flat upgrade compared to it.

Well, to be fair you are comparing the forgeworld-variant LR annihilator to the standard russ. And you might not be taking into account that the Demolisher Cannon and Punisher Gatling options add +1PL.

They had an option to either make the stats of the specific twin lascannon equipped on the LR annihilator different from every other twin lascannon in the game, or give it a full 1PL discount for a single point of SAT and a range differential that probably won't matter anyway. I can see why they'd just keep it consistent and consider that a wash.

As for the rest of the turret options list, the big standouts in terms of damage are the ones you pay more for, and the rest are all on a pretty average curve, besides the Executioner, which you can't really honestly compute without knowing what "supercharge" actually does. The demolisher and punisher do seem like a steal for just +1PL, but 24" vs 36/48 range will probably actually matter a lot more in huge table apoc games.

I guess battlecannon seems a little weak compared to Exterminator Autocannon?

An observation of mine, based solely on the Necron Tomb Blades.

In 40k, the Particle Beamers aren't especially great. Multiple shots, high S, but no AP. Not terribly, but compare poorly to the other weapon options (Tesla and Gauss Blasters).

In Epicopalypse? GIMME THOSE PARTICLE BEAMERS! See....

Gauss Blasters - 24" range, Attacks x 2, SAP6+ SAT 8+, Rapid Fire
Tesla Carbines - 24" range, Attacks x 4, SAP7+, SAT9+

Particle Beamers? 24" range, Attacks x 3 SAP5+, SAT 8+

I mean....you just would, wouldn't you? Reliably more shots than Gauss, and a far more reliable SAP. And just better than Tesla, despite losing out 1 shot.

Wonder if there are any other 'also rans' in 40k which come into their own in Epicopalypse?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
An observation of mine, based solely on the Necron Tomb Blades.

In 40k, the Particle Beamers aren't especially great. Multiple shots, high S, but no AP. Not terribly, but compare poorly to the other weapon options (Tesla and Gauss Blasters).

In Epicopalypse? GIMME THOSE PARTICLE BEAMERS! See....

Gauss Blasters - 24" range, Attacks x 2, SAP6+ SAT 8+, Rapid Fire
Tesla Carbines - 24" range, Attacks x 4, SAP7+, SAT9+

Particle Beamers? 24" range, Attacks x 3 SAP5+, SAT 8+

I mean....you just would, wouldn't you? Reliably more shots than Gauss, and a far more reliable SAP. And just better than Tesla, despite losing out 1 shot.

Wonder if there are any other 'also rans' in 40k which come into their own in Epicopalypse?

I had the same reaction. I really don't understand how they calcultate SAP values but i think they value the Strength (in 40k) a lot. And thing that bypass it like Splinter rifle have excellent SAP (5+ for Kabalite warriors). AP is almost not taken into account (Gauss Blaster Immortals havingthe same SAP as Firewarriors). Of course Intercessors ignore all of this because reasons.

Destroyers seems to get the short end of the stick with a whooping 3A (SAP5+) for 9 models for 22PL. I think they are designed to take the Heavy Gauss Cannon, because i don't see anyone not taking them in the squad.

Voss wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Voss wrote:
This looks like an unfinished draft of army lists which with wildly different standards used for different units, or even the same unit at different sizes.

Sounds about right. It's pretty disappointing to see something with so much potential turn into a half-finished mess just to rush it out by an arbitrary deadline. Or at least I'm hoping that's the explanation, and GW isn't so laughably terrible at math that they didn't realize how bad some of these rules are...

So, you never played the game, you don't know the full rules, but from a quick read of a part of them you already decided that you could do a better work at designing them.

I'm going to define this as "Going full dakka".

We know how shooting, wounds, saves and morale work- they aren't complex or a massive departure from how other GW games work. I'm not sure what mysteries you think await. But 60 cultists in MSU form are better than 40 cultists in a block. More firepower, more wounds, less vulnerable to morale. Simultaneously, 6 chaos bikers for 10 rather than 2x3 for 16 is significantly better, simply because the discount is huge,

That there are problems with the points is mathematically obvious, and they err in both directions.

Uhhh.... I mean, the math for wounding is so completely different in apoc I don't see how you could be right here.

If I take 60 cultists in MSU, they will almost always fail a save when presented with a small blast marker (SV10+). They are then instantly critically wounded when they do so, and have a 50-50 chance of running away entirely.

If I take a 40-block, my firepower at them is effectively halved by the damage system of small blast/large blast, because the difference is only 1/6th of a chance to wound, and a morale failure only does 1 additional damage as opposed to wiping the unit. I need to get four wounds on them to critically damage, which would be 8 successful wounds. In order to reduce the firepower of 40 cultists down to 20 reliably I need to hit them 6 or 7 times (to be safe), If I hit 60 MSU'd cultists 6 times I wound 5 of those squads on average and 2.5 run away.

And do you think maybe, just maybe there could be some kind of signature cultist-based resurrect a squad ability on one of those stratagem cards that might also increase the value of a large cultist blob?

As to bikers, though, they have the opposite problem. Any 5+ save unit you will most certainly want to be dropping large blasts on in order to get them to fail a single save, and moving from a 3-man squad to a 6-man adds the additional 1/6 chance of a morale failure after your first wound, and nothing else. Maybe having it at just +2PL is too much for that small risk, I would expect to see something more like 8/12/15 maybe, but then the third tier would seem like something of a no-brainer, since you'd get two wounds before crit damage.

Ah- I'll admit I wasn't paying attention to the cultists stats- I was using marines (and aspect Warriors)as the norm- 1 wound, better save, less morale concern, because you're better off converting to a large blast to make a kill likely.

The down side I see of larger units is it actually rewards focus fire, where MSU punishes it, while to little fire can easily do nothing.

Depends on the unit. Focus fire against big marine squads is good. Focus firing against big gaunts squad is bad.

If i shoot at 3x10 hormagaunt squads, i can easily inflict a wound and maybe route all 3 of them (low save, even on d12). In any case all 3 will be at half wound and crippled. If i shoot the same amount of fire at a 30 horms squad, i will inflict 2 wounds. No degradation.

So no, focus firing big chaff units is a bad idea. It is more efficient to whittle them down over multiple turns (if you can afford that choice).

Also, morale can only inflict a single wound per turn, so if the target has low morale, it is more efficient to tackle many units instead of going full auto on a single one.

MSU units also take more overall damage from AOE effects like Nurgle's Rot than a single large unit of the same size.

Spoletta wrote:
Depends on the unit. Focus fire against big marine squads is good. Focus firing against big gaunts squad is bad.

If i shoot at 3x10 hormagaunt squads, i can easily inflict a wound and maybe route all 3 of them (low save, even on d12). In any case all 3 will be at half wound and crippled. If i shoot the same amount of fire at a 30 horms squad, i will inflict 2 wounds. No degradation.

So no, focus firing big chaff units is a bad idea. It is more efficient to whittle them down over multiple turns (if you can afford that choice).

Also, morale can only inflict a single wound per turn, so if the target has low morale, it is more efficient to tackle many units instead of going full auto on a single one.

So, you would expect in a system where that is the case, that heavily armored (low sv) elite units would get discounts for higher unit sizes, and lightly armored high-sv units who really benefit from the large blast/small blast system at high unit sizes would...pay....more?

And that this is not necessarily a contradiction?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Ah- I'll admit I wasn't paying attention to the cultists stats- I was using marines (and aspect Warriors)as the norm- 1 wound, better save, less morale concern, because you're better off converting to a large blast to make a kill likely.

The down side I see of larger units is it actually rewards focus fire, where MSU punishes it, while to little fire can easily do nothing.

I'm not saying this is always the case, but with every immediate negative reaction so far I've heard to the unit statlines...this is the case. Hell, I DID IT when looking at Deathwatch Intercessors vs Regular Intercessors - I just noticed that DW intercessors have worse anti tank and went "WTF, stoopid dumb GW can't even make a balance, how is this just a copy error or two people working on the same thing different - what dumdums!"

and then five seconds later I realized that for simplicities sake, special issue ammo is represented by lower SAT and higher range across the board. Which again, in apoc I'm reasonably certain that range is going to be a more highly valuable stat than it is in base 40k given the size of the boards and the number of different target options you'll have on the table.

To be extra clear here: I'm not arguing that the game is balanced. I'm arguing that an assumption of imbalance before a complete understanding of the game's mechanics is a bit of well poisoning, and the default position here is that we've got a bit of "Shrodinger's Game Balance" on our hands.

How is character targeting going to work? how is the mechanics of combat going to work? It seems reasonable to assume that Overwatch is not a thing in this gamemode given that all Ignore Overwatch abilities are gone. Are we going to get Age of Sigmar's blanket ability to attack with shooting weapons in melee combat? We know Fall Back will exist in some form but don't know what it entails. We know Charging is now a doubled move rather than a random 2d6 roll, that would seem to hugely impact certain units like Assault Marines. How about Deep Strike and its effects on charging or shooting?

What we know at this point is basically: how to resolve damage and morale, and how to move. EVERYTHING else is conjecture or just hinted at in the previews.

Tyranid Faction Focus
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/25/apocalypse-faction-focus-tyranid-hive-fleetsgw-homepage-post-4/

Adrenal glands asset looks fun with 9" move Genestealers.

This is what i'm saying.

We cannot just say "We know how the basic mechanic works so we can deem that GW has failed with those profiles" when there are a lot of implications in those rules that we have yet to grasp, like the differences between MSU and big squads.

4 Months from now there will be a meaning in comparing stats, but for now let's just roll with it.

the_scotsman wrote:


It seems reasonable to assume that Overwatch is not a thing in this gamemode given that all Ignore Overwatch abilities are gone. Are we going to get Age of Sigmar's blanket ability to attack with shooting weapons in melee combat?

Whatshername mentioned something in the video about a charged unit still getting to fire their ranged weapons but at -1 to hit? The whole alternating activation + orders thing makes overwatch redundant - it's up to you to activate the right detachments to shoot up the enemies that intend to charge before they gets their chance to move. If you fail to do so, they'll rush you and hand you your butt on a platter, just the way it's supposed to be.

Spoletta wrote:
Depends on the unit. Focus fire against big marine squads is good. Focus firing against big gaunts squad is bad.

If i shoot at 3x10 hormagaunt squads, i can easily inflict a wound and maybe route all 3 of them (low save, even on d12). In any case all 3 will be at half wound and crippled. If i shoot the same amount of fire at a 30 horms squad, i will inflict 2 wounds. No degradation.

So no, focus firing big chaff units is a bad idea. It is more efficient to whittle them down over multiple turns (if you can afford that choice).

Also, morale can only inflict a single wound per turn, so if the target has low morale, it is more efficient to tackle many units instead of going full auto on a single one.

See, the problem I have is things like aspect warriors, where there are two primary stat blocks- the 6+ saves and 8+ saves (and warp spiders and shining spears). But amongst the three units each that use 6+ or 8+, some pay a tax for a 10 squad (banshees, scorpions, reapers) while the others get a discount (avengers, dragons, hawks). That makes no sense to me.

Especially given their abilities- scorpions have a lot of attacks, but they're all 50/50 to wound against their preferred targets, while dragons are nigh certain to wound theirs (2+, rerollable against heavy). Yet its cheaper to 10 man the dragons, while scorpions pay a fair bit extra. Given both are leadership 6 with a 6+ save, it just leaves me baffled.

Interesting to note the sheets include the characters from the forthcoming Combat Arena/BSF Escalation expansion but not the Ambull

Voss wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Depends on the unit. Focus fire against big marine squads is good. Focus firing against big gaunts squad is bad.

If i shoot at 3x10 hormagaunt squads, i can easily inflict a wound and maybe route all 3 of them (low save, even on d12). In any case all 3 will be at half wound and crippled. If i shoot the same amount of fire at a 30 horms squad, i will inflict 2 wounds. No degradation.

So no, focus firing big chaff units is a bad idea. It is more efficient to whittle them down over multiple turns (if you can afford that choice).

Also, morale can only inflict a single wound per turn, so if the target has low morale, it is more efficient to tackle many units instead of going full auto on a single one.

See, the problem I have is things like aspect warriors, where there are two primary stat blocks- the 6+ saves and 8+ saves (and warp spiders and shining spears). But amongst the three units each that use 6+ or 8+, some pay a tax for a 10 squad (banshees, scorpions, reapers) while the others get a discount (avengers, dragons, hawks). That makes no sense to me.

Especially given their abilities- scorpions have a lot of attacks, but they're all 50/50 to wound against their preferred targets, while dragons are nigh certain to wound theirs (2+, refillable against heavy). Yet its cheaper to 10 man the dragons, while scorpions pay a fair bit extra. Given both are leadership 6 with a 6+ save, it just leaves me baffled.

This is indeed a situation that i fail to understand. For all the cases like this in the nid datasheets i can easily find an explanation, but here there is either a typo or some kind of rule at work that we don't know.

Snugiraffe wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


It seems reasonable to assume that Overwatch is not a thing in this gamemode given that all Ignore Overwatch abilities are gone. Are we going to get Age of Sigmar's blanket ability to attack with shooting weapons in melee combat?

Whatshername mentioned something in the video about a charged unit still getting to fire their ranged weapons but at -1 to hit? The whole alternating activation + orders thing makes overwatch redundant - it's up to you to activate the right detachments to shoot up the enemies that intend to charge before they gets their chance to move. If you fail to do so, they'll rush you and hand you your butt on a platter, just the way it's supposed to be.

Ah, that's true. I rewatched that section, must have missed it the first time because I FEAR JAZZ! I FEAR THE LACK OF RULES!

so that makes sense. The alternating activations mean that even if you activate your ranged units first and shoot up the unit that will charge you, all that changes is you don't suffer the negative to-hit modifier - the unit still gets to charge and hit you at full power. I guess all that's left is what happens when you activate a detachment that has some of its units in combat, some of its units out of combat...what does it do?

in Age of Sigmar, units in combat may fire their ranged weapons in close combat but only at units within combat distance of them (1" in 40k, would be 3" in aos). Characters can also be targeted freely but at a -1 to hit if they're within 3" of a friendly unit. Perhaps Apocalypse adds an extra -1 to both of those rules to account for the extra power ranged weapons have in 40k compared to AOS, where they tend to be shorter range, less plentiful and less powerful on average.

But it definitely makes sense they'd replace Overwatch for Apoc. it's a massive timesink, and replacing it with the unit still getting to shoot but at a penalty rather than the unit getting EXTRA shooting on top of their usual shooting as a bonus for getting charged at...I like that a lot. the feeling of "my army is locked down and useless now, welp, better pack up" is gone while also not feeling like shooters have every advantage in the world.

I didn't see anyone else bring this up, but Inquisition gets a new Unit type:

Inquisitorial Retinue

Essentially lets you combine Acolytes, Jokaero, and Daemonhost into a single combined unit. I am not sure why you would do that, though, as it appears you lose the Jokaero's "inconceivable customization," the Daemonhost's "Daemonic Power," and the Acolytes' "Loyal Servant" abilities when you do this, as they are not listed on the Inquisitorial Retinue datasheet.

I'm wondering if this is an oversight, because there's really no reason to bring a Retinue instead of the individual units that I can see. Maybe there's something in the core rules that covers adding one unit to another unit?

However, this does give me hope that there's something coming for standard 40K to allow something similar to the Inquisitorial Retinue.

As a custodes player and comparing stat by stat, I am super disappointed. Particularly in Vertus Praetors which literally shoot better than they fight in combat, and have a bunch of other baffling design choices attached.

Doing a point for point comparison between custodes units and other units leads me to going "Custodes have almost no damage output huh?"

 xttz wrote:
Some interesting math-hammer regarding the Titan / Hierophant stats a couple pages back. For reference:
Ork Stompa 8W, 6+ Sv, 49PL
Nid Hierophant 8W, 3+ Sv, 95PL
Reaver Titan 24W, 5+ Sv, 100-154PL

Assuming average rolling:
You need 10 large blast markers to kill a Stompa (8.3 wounds inflicted after 6+ save on a D6).
You need 35 large blast markers to kill a Heirophant (inflicting 7.6 wounds after 3+ save on a D6)
You need 37 large blast markers to kill a Reaver (36 after void shield rule, inflicting 23.8 wounds after 5+ save on a D6)

So the Stompa is still overpriced by half, as is tradition.

Do we have any rules leaks yet? Like any of the USR for weapons?

stratigo wrote:
As a custodes player and comparing stat by stat, I am super disappointed. Particularly in Vertus Praetors which literally shoot better than they fight in combat, and have a bunch of other baffling design choices attached.

Doing a point for point comparison between custodes units and other units leads me to going "Custodes have almost no damage output huh?"

Comparing Custodes to a basic Dreadnought (Same power level unit, so I figured it'd make a decent comparison) custodes have:

-Worse firepower at 24"
-Slightly better firepower at 12" (Owing to their Ballistic Skill, which makes up for the fact that the Dreadnought basically gets a free storm bolter)
-Slightly better melee (again, owing to the 2+WS mostly, but also the fact that the custodes' multiplicative weapon makes them immune to Critical Damage while the dreadnought gets 1 attack instead of 2 when damaged)
-Solidly better Save (6+ vs 4+).

We don't know whether there's any penalty for the Heavy weapon type as there is in 40k, but absent any penalty for that, Custodes seem pretty on-par with at least one identical power level unit there. Vertus Praetors definitely seem to have bonkers firepower compared to their melee, since they EACH get a hurricane bolter giving them 8 shots at 12" and then only 2 melee attacks...

stratigo wrote:
As a custodes player and comparing stat by stat, I am super disappointed. Particularly in Vertus Praetors which literally shoot better than they fight in combat, and have a bunch of other baffling design choices attached.

Doing a point for point comparison between custodes units and other units leads me to going "Custodes have almost no damage output huh?"

They surely need to use both the ranged and melee profiles to shine. Time will tell if in apoc that will be possible or not.
They are also extremely tanky, so clearly for the same power level you cannot expect the same offensive stats of an Aeldari.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Some interesting math-hammer regarding the Titan / Hierophant stats a couple pages back. For reference:
Ork Stompa 8W, 6+ Sv, 49PL
Nid Hierophant 8W, 3+ Sv, 95PL
Reaver Titan 24W, 5+ Sv, 100-154PL

Assuming average rolling:
You need 10 large blast markers to kill a Stompa (8.3 wounds inflicted after 6+ save on a D6).
You need 35 large blast markers to kill a Heirophant (inflicting 7.6 wounds after 3+ save on a D6)
You need 37 large blast markers to kill a Reaver (36 after void shield rule, inflicting 23.8 wounds after 5+ save on a D6)

So the Stompa is still overpriced by half, as is tradition.

I wouldn't go that far yet. We don't know enough to look at these in a vacuum. There are meks who can repair, and other factors we just don't know about yet. I am not saying it will all even out in the end, just that we don't know enough to come to any conclusions.

the_scotsman wrote:

stratigo wrote:
As a custodes player and comparing stat by stat, I am super disappointed. Particularly in Vertus Praetors which literally shoot better than they fight in combat, and have a bunch of other baffling design choices attached.

Doing a point for point comparison between custodes units and other units leads me to going "Custodes have almost no damage output huh?"

Comparing Custodes to a basic Dreadnought (Same power level unit, so I figured it'd make a decent comparison) custodes have:

-Worse firepower at 24"
-Slightly better firepower at 12" (Owing to their Ballistic Skill, which makes up for the fact that the Dreadnought basically gets a free storm bolter)
-Slightly better melee (again, owing to the 2+WS mostly, but also the fact that the custodes' multiplicative weapon makes them immune to Critical Damage while the dreadnought gets 1 attack instead of 2 when damaged)
-Solidly better Save (6+ vs 4+).

We don't know whether there's any penalty for the Heavy weapon type as there is in 40k, but absent any penalty for that, Custodes seem pretty on-par with at least one identical power level unit there. Vertus Praetors definitely seem to have bonkers firepower compared to their melee, since they EACH get a hurricane bolter giving them 8 shots at 12" and then only 2 melee attacks...

If they really have an hurricane bolter each, i am counting 12 shots at 12" for 2 melee attacks. We still don't know what rapid fire does though, it could just be a +1 to wound or to hit at half range.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Some interesting math-hammer regarding the Titan / Hierophant stats a couple pages back. For reference:
Ork Stompa 8W, 6+ Sv, 49PL
Nid Hierophant 8W, 3+ Sv, 95PL
Reaver Titan 24W, 5+ Sv, 100-154PL

Assuming average rolling:
You need 10 large blast markers to kill a Stompa (8.3 wounds inflicted after 6+ save on a D6).
You need 35 large blast markers to kill a Heirophant (inflicting 7.6 wounds after 3+ save on a D6)
You need 37 large blast markers to kill a Reaver (36 after void shield rule, inflicting 23.8 wounds after 5+ save on a D6)

So the Stompa is still overpriced by half, as is tradition.

Nah not by half. It has a self-repair special rule not included above, more dakka than a Hierophant and defensively is pretty comparable to the Warhound Titan (60PL, 14 large blasts to kill). It seems to be in a decent place, subject to learning further rules.

Voss wrote:


We know how shooting, wounds, saves and morale work- they aren't complex or a massive departure from how other GW games work. I'm not sure what mysteries you think await. But 60 cultists in MSU form are better than 40 cultists in a block. More firepower, more wounds, less vulnerable to morale. Simultaneously, 6 chaos bikers for 10 rather than 2x3 for 16 is significantly better, simply because the discount is huge,

That there are problems with the points is mathematically obvious, and they err in both directions.

You mean 15 for 3x3 bikes.

It really depends on how critical damage is assessed. It it half wounds rounding up or rounding down?

At 3 wounds rounding down would give a 3x3 squad of bikes an advantage over both other setups.

1x3 dies pretty easily.
2x3 is critically damaged at the same rate that 1x3 is killed.
3x3 is potentially never critically damaged.

You could spend 30 PL for 3 sets of 2x3 or 2 sets of 3x3 - both of them provide you the same number of models. So, really it seems the 1x3 might be overcosted and could exist that way to prevent cheaply filling detachments.

It's really too difficult to say until we have all the rules and have played the game, so people should refrain from trying to lord over this at the moment.

I'm looking at Tacticals vs Plague Marines right now. PM are significantly cheaper at larger units sizes, have the same shooting, more than double the melee output, a 6+ FNP, for just -1" move.

Domandi wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Some interesting math-hammer regarding the Titan / Hierophant stats a couple pages back. For reference:
Ork Stompa 8W, 6+ Sv, 49PL
Nid Hierophant 8W, 3+ Sv, 95PL
Reaver Titan 24W, 5+ Sv, 100-154PL

Assuming average rolling:
You need 10 large blast markers to kill a Stompa (8.3 wounds inflicted after 6+ save on a D6).
You need 35 large blast markers to kill a Heirophant (inflicting 7.6 wounds after 3+ save on a D6)
You need 37 large blast markers to kill a Reaver (36 after void shield rule, inflicting 23.8 wounds after 5+ save on a D6)

So the Stompa is still overpriced by half, as is tradition.

I wouldn't go that far yet. We don't know enough to look at these in a vacuum. There are meks who can repair, and other factors we just don't know about yet. I am not saying it will all even out in the end, just that we don't know enough to come to any conclusions.

Comparing the Stompa and Warhound with the laser destroyer/vulcan mega-bolter option (The best approximation I can find to the Stompa's loadout) the warhound deals:

2.77 to tanks (Laser destroyer)
3.75 to infantry (vulcan bolter)
.887 in melee (assuming vs tanks)
and takes 18 blasts to destroy. It's also got a guaranteed auto-repair, rerolls its own morale tests, has what's almost certainly a detrimental explodes rule due to the fact it's almost all shooting at long range meaning itll be behind your lines, and 24" of movement.

Stompa (with extra supa-rokkits, to get it closer to the warhound in cost) costs 9PL less, and deals

2.5 blasts to tanks from the Supa-Rokkits (one-use, but thanks to apoc wounding rules these are guaranteed to happen)
1.332 blasts to tanks from the deffkannon
2.8333 to infantry from the big shootas and super gatler
4.44 in melee assuming vs tanks (slightly less vs infantry, but a simialr number)
it takes 10 blasts to destroy, grants everything around it reroll morale, and has a 50% chance to auto-repair. also transports 20 models.

Seems like if you assume given 36" of movement the stompa will get to melee something turn 2, and turn 1 you make up for the deficit with the supa-rokkits, the warhound and stompa look pretty comparable. I'd chalk most of the difference in their price up to the extra durability on the warhound, though it's tough to calculate the "value" of the 20 transport slots and the reroll morale bubble.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It really depends on how critical damage is assessed. It it half wounds rounding up or rounding down?

I believe the video said 'lost over half wounds', so in effect only units with 3 or more can be critically damaged.