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.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
You've been infected with tneva's conspiracy theory too, huh?
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 13:07:28
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
A lot of people will be building them swappable too, as its pretty easy with the kit.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
A lot of people will be building them swappable too, as its pretty easy with the kit.
Yep. So 1 variant out of 3 build kit being bad and kit selling out is not proof of anything.
Now if all 3 variants are super bad, it's not marines and it sells out like hot cakes we are talking. Marines, by sheer number of players(especially kids with parents who don't know rules when looking at presents etc) will sell well enough with decent rules so don't need to be super op. Especially when by sheer layer of buffs unit needs to be really bad to be bad
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 13:11:32
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
Right or wrong the concept behind that assumption is wrong though.
I really like X forgeworld unit.
It has pants rules
I don't buy anything
GW make less money
Your making the same corprate middle manager decision that forgets people won't buy something just because the thing they wanted has been made too expensive to be justified.
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
Right or wrong the concept behind that assumption is wrong though.
I really like X forgeworld unit.
It has pants rules
I don't buy anything
GW make less money
Your making the same corprate middle manager decision that forgets people won't buy something just because the thing they wanted has been made too expensive to be justified.
That and it's not like some people leaned heavily on relic dreads, terrax assault drills, malanthropes or whatever decent FW units exist. There's a long history showing that good rules sell FW models time and again, for the first time in years we're in a position where none seem objectively too good and the "bad" ones aren't terrible.
But agree that the point still stands, there is no objective reason for GW to not recoup money through FW.
fraser1191 wrote: I'd say the Lancer is my favorite of the 3, and it may be lacking slightly in comparison but as far as damage goes I'd say it's much more consistent than a quad cannon pred seeing as it's d3+3. Plus it's got T8 which seems to be flying under the radar. I can't form a complete opinion since I don't own one and obviously haven't played with one, but it fills a role that I've been wanting for a while, long range anti tank that can also reposition quickly.
woah, it totally did for me, i just assumed it would be t7 like all (non vindicator) rhino-chassis tanks.
It getting T8 is actually huge.
Who ever justified the points for the riptide alternatives as Levianth dreadnaught was higher than snoopdog.
Can't comment about those but never know, next tau book might make the point costs make sense (maybe?).
That's bad because it means they are over costed for another 3 months minimum probably longer potentially as long as a year.
Also it really would be terrible news for game balance as the level of buffing that Tau's doctorines equivalents would have to give would be bigger than marine's currently rediculous buff stack.
More like they just need to 20-30% points premium they have been charged taken off.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
Yeah, they essentially are space marine Leman Russ Vanquisher, Punisher and Demolisher. Only the lancer gets BS2+ though.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
A Clarification because that reads as d6 damage, it is in fact flat 6 damage. S14 AP-5 Blast,re-rolls wounds against titanic, if that matters.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but it doesn't. Average damage from a Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon against it's favorite target: T8 3+ 5++: 18.148. Average damage for a Falchion's twin Volcano Cannon against the same: 9.481. So roughly half as effective for twice the gun. If Shadowswords remain the same in the new Guard codex I think Falchion owners have every right to be salty.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
Or it's a case of gw trying to make the Falchion reasonable at a playable points cost. Literally giving it twice the output of a Shadowsword would make it ridiculous, unless it was exorbitantly expensive. So instead they tried to make it's twin Volcano Cannon equal the damage output of the Fellblade's accelerator cannon AE profile + it's demolisher cannon, and then gave them the exact same price. Which is stupid, as one is a general purpose super-heavy tank and the other is supposed to be a LOW killer, but I think that's what they were trying to do.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
You've been infected with tneva's conspiracy theory too, huh?
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
No, not really. Compare the Lancer (200 PPM) to the fw equivalent "tank hunter" for marines, the Sicaran Venator ( 170 PPM+1CP). Lancer gets 2 S10 AP-3 Dd3+3 shots averaging 4.636 damage against T8 3+ targets and 3.704 against T8 3+ 5++. Venator gets 3 S12 AP-3 D6 shots (if it stays still) averaging 6.667 damage against T8 3+ and 5.333 against T8 3+ 5+++. So, no, gw isn't just "making fw units worse".
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 16:56:53
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/02 17:18:37
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
You are also forgetting the secondary weapon on the reaper. which is a significant 12 more ap-1 shots. I did the math. It is about 4 average damage to 5. AKA almost the same. Plus granted we are talking about 36 shots compared to 2 (10).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The fact that it can't take battlecannons just means it's more specialized - as people have said, like a Vanquisher. Take a look at some of the maths.
Would you say the vanquisher is good at it's job? Or do people take battle cannons and demolishers instead...
Wait don't answer...just get the point. These weapon systems are bad and they should stop making them. The only reason the repulsor executioner was good was because it got 4 automatic shots. Then they nerfed it because it was already not great for 370ish points.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 17:25:31
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
You are also forgetting the secondary weapon on the reaper. which is a significant 12 more ap-1 shots. I did the math. It is about 4 average damage to 5. AKA almost the same. Plus granted we are talking about 36 shots compared to 2 (10).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The fact that it can't take battlecannons just means it's more specialized - as people have said, like a Vanquisher. Take a look at some of the maths.
Would you say the vanquisher is good at it's job? Or do people take battle cannons and demolishers instead...
Wait don't answer...just get the point. These weapon systems are bad and they should stop making them. The only reason the repulsor executioner was good was because it got 4 automatic shots. Then they nerfed it because it was already not great for 370ish points.
So you're acknowledging the reaper is less effective (albeit only just) at AT than the lancer for more points? If so surely you answered why the lancer has a place still, even if it's not hyper competitive.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more.
10 points is significantly more Or is this typical Marine Player Hyperbole?
2 BS2+ S10 Ap -4 Dd3+3 +1MW at 200 points for 6 damage vrs T8 3+
3.5 S8 Ap-2 3D at BS3+ at 180 for 2.3 damage vrs T8 3+
A russ fires twice and there's no mortal wound randomly appearing so they're pretty comparable.
New Railgun stats assuming the railgun profile in FW transferred across which given it's comparible to a Lancer it should.
Vrs ioncannon on a Hammerhead
That Xeno says you're always taking as it's just soo much better.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 17:59:10
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more.
10 points is significantly more Or is this typical Marine Player Hyperbole?
2 BS2+ S10 Ap -4 Dd3+3 +1MW at 200 points for 6 damage vrs T8 3+
3.5 S8 Ap-2 3D at BS3+ at 180 for 2.3 damage vrs T8 3+
A russ fires twice and there's no mortal wound randomly appearing so they're pretty comparable.
New Railgun stats assuming the railgun profile in FW transferred across which given it's comparible to a Lancer it should.
Vrs ioncannon on a Hammerhead
That Xeno says you're always taking as it's just soo much better.
Oh I see the flow of the conversation wasn't quite right there, it looked like you were trying to compare a lancer to a russ lol
