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.

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Though making more mek guns than 1 is pretty ridiculously easy. Add trukk and you get 4 for price of less than 2

You can also get the old banshee sculpts for cheap of ebay, but that's not the point, is it?

TBF the metal banshees haven't aged "that bad" atleast according to my eldar mate, still though.

Also, in the same vein you could argue that you can get more points out of a Eliminator by just using him as an AL sniperlord conversion (which btw would be addmitedly rather sweet conversion if done properly.

Has GW ever given discounts based on how many you need to play before? sure I know they jack the price of HQs etc up because you don't need many, but I recall back when I started to play a pack of tac marines and a pack of guard where about the same price.

BrianDavion wrote:
Has GW ever given discounts based on how many you need to play before? sure I know they jack the price of HQs etc up because you don't need many, but I recall back when I started to play a pack of tac marines and a pack of guard where about the same price.

you got 20 guardsmen for the price of 10 tacticals though.

Then they cut said box in half. same with dire avengers.

Doing the math, the trukk "trick" isn't that cheap at all:
$50 for the gun, $40 for the trukk and $18 for two more boxes of gretchin for crew is $126 132 points of mek gunz +1 gretchin +2 runtherds.

Better, but still not awesome value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Though making more mek guns than 1 is pretty ridiculously easy. Add trukk and you get 4 for price of less than 2

You can also get the old banshee sculpts for cheap of ebay, but that's not the point, is it?

TBF the metal banshees haven't aged "that bad" atleast according to my eldar mate, still though.

Also, in the same vein you could argue that you can get more points out of a Eliminator by just using him as an AL sniperlord conversion (which btw would be addmitedly rather sweet conversion if done properly.

Nah, both are completely missing the point of discussing whether the price tag on a box is worth its content.

But somehow we are discussion eldar banshees in the PA thread (again?), so I'm abandoning the thread now.

Well if I can build 4 mek guns out of 1 box ridiculously easily that's good value for me. It's not good value for those who just want to spam 1 type 18 times or are bad at converting(and I'm hardly good. That's how easy it is that even for me it's easy).

Value depends on what you get out of it. If you get 4 out for less than 2 that's better than 1 for 1.

Easy elementary school logic. Should be easy to grasp for anybody.

Well, personally, I think those trukk-mek guns are utterly ugly. I'd rather have no mek guns than those.
What's the point of saving $74 if you need to invest extra work to end up with an ugly model in a hobby that is about aesthetics.

I'd rather wait another couple of months to save the money to get the real deal.

Hey guys, back on topic please!

did you guys miss the "back on topic" post, jeez.
I do wonder if we'll get a hint of the future PA books (or last one) this Saturday?

I think its hard to stay on topic, because there doesn't seem to be that much to speculate on with regard to Engine War.

I mean I imagine there will be design your own forgeworld and knight houses. Ad Mech are one of the most dated books and while Stygies is 10/10 a lot of them are quite bad. So I'd have thought they could have some fun with these and create some powerful combos.

Knights though are quite good - so... can't really see what more you would add that will do something they don't already have. Without being unkind to knight players (even Chaos ones) I don't want to go back to the meta where seemingly every table has a Knight on it - often more.

Not really sure what they will do with Daemons. Give a selection of 3-6 different Loci per god perhaps?

Tyel wrote:
I think its hard to stay on topic, because there doesn't seem to be that much to speculate on with regard to Engine War.

Then say nothing, perhaps? There are other places for price comparisons and unit utility.

Personally, I'm wondering what Engine War could possibly bring to a recent codex like Chaos Knights. It'll probably be more boring stuff like relics and stratagems, but I wouldn't mind seeing another option for Houses, or something.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think its hard to stay on topic, because there doesn't seem to be that much to speculate on with regard to Engine War.

Then say nothing, perhaps? There are other places for price comparisons and unit utility.

Personally, I'm wondering what Engine War could possibly bring to a recent codex like Chaos Knights. It'll probably be more boring stuff like relics and stratagems, but I wouldn't mind seeing another option for Houses, or something.

Drukhari and Ynnari would've loved "boring stuff" like relics and stratagems. Perhaps 1 each?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think its hard to stay on topic, because there doesn't seem to be that much to speculate on with regard to Engine War.

Then say nothing, perhaps? There are other places for price comparisons and unit utility.

Personally, I'm wondering what Engine War could possibly bring to a recent codex like Chaos Knights. It'll probably be more boring stuff like relics and stratagems, but I wouldn't mind seeing another option for Houses, or something.

More options for Freeblades/ Chaos equivalent would be interesting.

Honestly wouldn't be too shocked if they and Imperial Knights got a shared list of additional stratagems.

Chaos Knights shouldn't have been a separate codex to begin with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaos Knights shouldn't have been a separate codex to begin with.

why?

chaos marines & loyalist should be in the same codex then....

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaos Knights shouldn't have been a separate codex to begin with.

why?

chaos marines & loyalist should be in the same codex then....

I think that's apples and oranges.

Knights seem to be the same basic versions of Knight with different names which are much easier to combine into 1 then a pair of different codicies with completely different units.

But then I'd have wrapped knights into the mechanicus myself.

pm713 wrote:

I think that's apples and oranges.

Knights seem to be the same basic versions of Knight with different names which are much easier to combine into 1 then a pair of different codicies with completely different units.

Disagree...but one of the big things missing in both instances are the Households' troop rules.

But then I'd have wrapped knights into the mechanicus myself.

They were at the launch of 8th. Everything that existed at the time got jammed into the book.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think its hard to stay on topic, because there doesn't seem to be that much to speculate on with regard to Engine War.

Then say nothing, perhaps? There are other places for price comparisons and unit utility.

Personally, I'm wondering what Engine War could possibly bring to a recent codex like Chaos Knights. It'll probably be more boring stuff like relics and stratagems, but I wouldn't mind seeing another option for Houses, or something.

More options for Freeblades/ Chaos equivalent would be interesting.

For Chaos Knights, I'd have thought it would be god-aligned marks and keywords that would then open up the Supreme command detachment for Chaos. Something that might be relevant if some kind of reinvented warpstorm rules come back for daemons - there is some entirely new type of mechanic waiting in the wings for one of these books according to the most recent Voxcast and they are a prime candidate for that sort of thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:

I think that's apples and oranges.

Knights seem to be the same basic versions of Knight with different names which are much easier to combine into 1 then a pair of different codicies with completely different units.

Disagree...but one of the big things missing in both instances are the Households' troop rules.

But then I'd have wrapped knights into the mechanicus myself.

They were at the launch of 8th. Everything that existed at the time got jammed into the book.

Really? Apparently I've missed a trick.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaos Knights shouldn't have been a separate codex to begin with.

why?

chaos marines & loyalist should be in the same codex then....

Because it's unnecessary printed material. You need maybe a couple of pages max to explain how to switch keywords in the main Knights codex, and then a few pages of fluff. Bam, you don't need to pretend like GW put any effort into the Chaos Knights "codex" (which they didn't. It's maybe a little more effort than the LotD "codex" that came out in 6th). You'd still have the basic rules to benefit from for Knights, because it isn't as though House Krast stopped their melee tendencies once going Renegade.

Also I'm for having the Vanilla codex handle Renegade Chapters and consolidating Death Guard and Thousand Sons back into the Chaos Marine codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaos Knights shouldn't have been a separate codex to begin with.

why?
chaos marines & loyalist should be in the same codex then....

Because it's unnecessary printed material. You need maybe a couple of pages max to explain how to switch keywords in the main Knights codex, and then a few pages of fluff. Bam, you don't need to pretend like GW put any effort into the Chaos Knights "codex" (which they didn't. It's maybe a little more effort than the LotD "codex" that came out in 6th). You'd still have the basic rules to benefit from for Knights, because it isn't as though House Krast stopped their melee tendencies once going Renegade.

Also I'm for having the Vanilla codex handle Renegade Chapters and consolidating Death Guard and Thousand Sons back into the Chaos Marine codex.

It's more than that, it's also that Knights exist as their own faction and are only part of the Imperium fluffwise due to alliances. Some swear fealty to the Emperor, some to the Mechanicum...and some to Chaos. Considering how few units are in the codex, it makes total sense to have them as a single book with separate warlord traits, unique strategems, etc. You just have to expand the current Imperium/Mechanicus tree to have a third branch. Just add another 5 or so houses under the "Chaos" banner

People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

Why not Make soup only possible with auxilia detachments.
That would Cut down some excesses..

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Assassins not breaking doctrines would probably be ok as long as you need to use "operative requisition sanctioned" to get them, but a freeblade? If you want a super heavy that doesn't break doctrines take an astreus.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Assassins not breaking doctrines would probably be ok as long as you need to use "operative requisition sanctioned" to get them, but a freeblade? If you want a super heavy that doesn't break doctrines take an astreus.

For the price of the astraeus you might as well build a whole knight army instead.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Assassins not breaking doctrines would probably be ok as long as you need to use "operative requisition sanctioned" to get them, but a freeblade? If you want a super heavy that doesn't break doctrines take an astreus.

Operative Requisition is absolutely a bad idea to keep. It takes list building skill out of the equation. At least summoning requires more effort.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Assassins not breaking doctrines would probably be ok as long as you need to use "operative requisition sanctioned" to get them, but a freeblade? If you want a super heavy that doesn't break doctrines take an astreus.

Operative Requisition is absolutely a bad idea to keep. It takes list building skill out of the equation. At least summoning requires more effort.

Then what would you propose instead? Drop the strategem but increase ppm on assassins some? There should be some kind of price for getting an assassin without breaking doctrines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gaen wrote:
For the price of the astraeus you might as well build a whole knight army instead.

Model price has nothing to do with rules.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Gaen wrote:
People have been talking about assassin getting the inquisitor treatment and not breaking doctrine, think they will do something similar with freeblades?

that would be cool, but....no.

Rather than making exceptions to allow them to fit in, they could actually make them work enuff to make up from losing doctrines.

How much should a 100 point model like an Assassin DO to make up for losing Doctrines across an entire army? They can't do enough unless you make them absurdly broken for the points, which I don't believe is good design. Units that are one-offs for an army like an Inquisitor or Assassin or theoretically a Freeblade (great call, Gaen!) should be more than okay to do that. If you include two or more, sure you might have a point.

Assassins not breaking doctrines would probably be ok as long as you need to use "operative requisition sanctioned" to get them, but a freeblade? If you want a super heavy that doesn't break doctrines take an astreus.

Operative Requisition is absolutely a bad idea to keep. It takes list building skill out of the equation. At least summoning requires more effort.

Then what would you propose instead? Drop the strategem but increase ppm on assassins some? There should be some kind of price for getting an assassin without breaking doctrines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gaen wrote:
For the price of the astraeus you might as well build a whole knight army instead.

Model price has nothing to do with rules.

Honestly the Assassins are fine at 85. An increase to 90-95 isn't welcomed but sure whatever.