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.
What's funny is you think the book was held hostage.
The Chaos book hit testing 2 months before the imperial book did. Both wrapped up about the same time. The reason we are getting leaks on chaos is because the box set was sent out to painters for previews, which includes the codex.
Please don't drive this further off topic with your salt, this thread has been really good about keeping on track.
Yeah, and I've been on topic Sasori. The topic is Knights not just Chaos ones unfortunately. There's not enough to have justified a Loyalist thread, hence why I'm even posting in this one to begin with.
It's ridiculous that there's a swathe of new kits added to the Chaos side of things while they can't even throw the Loyalists a bone and add the ability to double-up on weapons or do something special.
The Imperial Knights book should have been released months ago. Not like there's any reason for it to have to sit and wait.
DreadfullyHopeful wrote: Funny to see the melee variant of the war dogs being the cheaper one. Wonder what it means ?
The gap in point for taking a Rampager compared to a Gauntlet + sword Despoiler shrank to 5 points. Wonder how the two compare for a pure melee army now ?
I don't think you want to take a melee despoiler now. The Rampager is going to be the better option.
In fact, I'm not sure if you want to take a despoiler at all... Those points are pretty hefty, even worse for doubling up...
A Thermal Cannon/Chainsword Despoiler is still 425 if I'm reading the chart right, and that's a good mix of tough shooting and AP-3 melee. You can get three of those and 5 War Dogs. That's pretty tempting to me.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, why would taking two guns make you more expensive suddenly? Don't the guns cost points in the first place?
Same logic that has crisis suits costing more if you double/triple up on weapons: Being able to cram that much firepower on one platform is worth the extra expense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, why would taking two guns make you more expensive suddenly? Don't the guns cost points in the first place?
Same logic that has crisis suits costing more if you double/triple up on weapons: Being able to cram that much firepower on one platform is worth the extra expense.
Not knowing tau how is the pricing structure laid out for the suits?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/25 20:31:34
It's not totally consistent, but generally the Tau weapons cost either an additional +5 or +10 on top of their normal cost when you purchase a second or third of the same gun.
ph34r's Forgeworld Phobos blog, current WIP: Iron Warriors and Skaven Tau +From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
Same logic that has crisis suits costing more if you double/triple up on weapons: Being able to cram that much firepower on one platform is worth the extra expense.
Not knowing tau how is the pricing structure laid out for the suits?
It has a first cost(say, 5 points) then a second cost(ex: +10 points), and then a third cost(ex: +15 points) since suits can take up to 3 of the same item potentially.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/25 20:38:17
Same logic that has crisis suits costing more if you double/triple up on weapons: Being able to cram that much firepower on one platform is worth the extra expense.
Not knowing tau how is the pricing structure laid out for the suits?
It has a first cost(say, 5 points) then a second cost(ex: +10 points), and then a third cost(ex: +15 points) since suits can take up to 3 of the same item potentially.
OK, but then why are the weapons priced as they are? Why is 3 single weapons cheaper/worse than 3 of the same? Or 2 in the knights case?
If a rapid fire battle cannon or w/e they're called now is worth X points, why are 2 if them worth 2X+20? There's no balance or rules reason unless you assume the cost of an individual weapon is wrong.
I believe that the theory is that specialists will be better than generalists, and should therefore cost more points. Ultimately it is the way it is and probably won't change.
How are people looking at the Havoc Launcher option for War Dogs? 5 points seems like a reasonable boost to Str 5 and D6 shots with the option for indirect. I get that indirect took a hit in the update, but A: you're on speedy platforms that have better chances of getting line of sight and B: better to have a crappy shot than no shot at all.
bmsattler wrote: I believe that the theory is that specialists will be better than generalists, and should therefore cost more points. Ultimately it is the way it is and probably won't change.
How are people looking at the Havoc Launcher option for War Dogs? 5 points seems like a reasonable boost to Str 5 and D6 shots with the option for indirect. I get that indirect took a hit in the update, but A: you're on speedy platforms that have better chances of getting line of sight and B: better to have a crappy shot than no shot at all.
It doesn't make sense that two Knights with each a Gatling and Cannon costs less than one Knight with two Gatlings and one with two Cannons.
They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
bmsattler wrote: I believe that the theory is that specialists will be better than generalists, and should therefore cost more points. Ultimately it is the way it is and probably won't change.
How are people looking at the Havoc Launcher option for War Dogs? 5 points seems like a reasonable boost to Str 5 and D6 shots with the option for indirect. I get that indirect took a hit in the update, but A: you're on speedy platforms that have better chances of getting line of sight and B: better to have a crappy shot than no shot at all.
Havoc launchers are cool, but at the same time, they're not really that far off from a heavy stubber.
ph34r's Forgeworld Phobos blog, current WIP: Iron Warriors and Skaven Tau +From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Yes, that's my assumption as well. Or just take one as a soup option in another faction, where you could have a lot more of those ablative bodies.
Downside to souping one in is that those ablative bodies can't actually ablate to save the Knight. Opportunity cost to not killing them/the knight instead, certainly, but they can't die to save it.
I like your point about limited units Laughing Man, and that raises another point. GW is pushing the 'one knight as an ally' option in a couple different ways, which would benefit more from specialization as you are often taking an ally knight to shore up a weakness in your army. I'm looking at you, Thousand Sons!
also since stratagems are one use only (usually) having a dual weapon knight specialised at anti infantry or anti elite, etc then buffing it with a stratagem and possibly a pshycher buff now could make it wipe out 2 squads easily. altho it never happens like that they still need to balance for an """average"""
"An open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"
bmsattler wrote: I like your point about limited units Laughing Man, and that raises another point. GW is pushing the 'one knight as an ally' option in a couple different ways, which would benefit more from specialization as you are often taking an ally knight to shore up a weakness in your army. I'm looking at you, Thousand Sons!
Dreadblade is unit at least, so you could have up to 3 wardogs.
Same logic that has crisis suits costing more if you double/triple up on weapons: Being able to cram that much firepower on one platform is worth the extra expense.
Not knowing tau how is the pricing structure laid out for the suits?
It has a first cost(say, 5 points) then a second cost(ex: +10 points), and then a third cost(ex: +15 points) since suits can take up to 3 of the same item potentially.
OK, but then why are the weapons priced as they are? Why is 3 single weapons cheaper/worse than 3 of the same? Or 2 in the knights case?
If a rapid fire battle cannon or w/e they're called now is worth X points, why are 2 if them worth 2X+20? There's no balance or rules reason unless you assume the cost of an individual weapon is wrong.
Something like a crisis suit, having all of the same gun means you A. Can invest only in buffs that effect that specific gun, B. Can invest only in the best gun, and C. Can (generally) target units that are weakest to that gun.
For knights...idk why they're doing it. Not like running 6 gatling guns is that much different than 3 gatling guns and 3 battle cannons at 2000pts.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
I -really- like three Helverin's with a Rubric/Scarab heavy Thousand Sons army. That sounds kind of awesome to me.
I agree that the double-weapon points thing is annoying, but its there. Honestly I'm not seeing the point in complaining here about it. Go with another option and it becomes a non-issue.
Do people think that the War Dog's powerfist option will include a -1 to hit? I ask because the rumors say that the Thunderstrike Gauntlet lost its penalty to hit. I could see them making it closer to a Glaive strike option without the sweep option but hitting a little harder. They have to be giving the Karnivore some buffs, because otherwise it seems just worse than the Chain Glaive + Thermal Spear option.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
The efficiency tax is meant to cover everything from the simple ability to concentrate firepower (two knights cannot be in the same place), to taking less bodies for the weapons, and maximizing usage of stratagems and upgrades. Only time will tell if 20 points is enough, too much, or too little.
Gadzilla666 wrote: They used to do something similar with Havocs and Devastators back in 3rd/4th. They paid extra for their heavy/ special weapons compared to other units that couldn't take them in the same concentration, like basic CSM, Tacs, and Chosen. It's basically a "specialization tax".
And it made no sense back then either. Make the grunt worth taking to begin with and you'll not have that issue.
Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with the "grunts". It was a tax on concentrating firepower across less bodies, and in a single unit, which was a strong ability considering the Target Priority rules and lack of splitfire in 4th. What exactly it's supposed to do here, I'm not sure yet.
Same thing: Concentrate more desirable firepower on a single body. The two situations that make that useful are having more ablative bodies to block for it (in multi-model units), or only having to take one model for twice the fire power (in Knights, where you are reasonably likely to take a Despoiler and a shedload of wardogs).
Except, as established, the same amount of firepower on the same amount of bodies costs more depending on how those guns are allocated. Knight AA + Knight BB costs more points than Knight AB + Knight AB, despite identical firing capacity. Specialization is worth something, but on such high point models versatility is often worth as much or more.
The efficiency tax is meant to cover everything from the simple ability to concentrate firepower (two knights cannot be in the same place), to taking less bodies for the weapons, and maximizing usage of stratagems and upgrades. Only time will tell if 20 points is enough, too much, or too little.
There is no concentration of firepower onto less bodies in this instance; is the exact same output from the exact same number of models, but one way costs more.
I am thinking I must be falling through on communicating the concept, maybe someone else can step in to explain?
Communication seems fine, its just being rationalized in a way that doesn't really make sense (concentration of fire just doesn't matter on a handful of big expensive models coupled with the way shooting works in 9th)
Though to be honest, I don't think GW did this for game reasons. I think they did this for their weird 'the army is supposed to look like _this_ ' reason. Like the restrictions on cultists/tzaangors per marine unit or the overpriced grots. In this case, knights are 'supposed' to have gun and CCW or specific, different guns.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There is no concentration of firepower onto less bodies in this instance; is the exact same output from the exact same number of models, but one way costs more.
I am thinking I must be falling through on communicating the concept, maybe someone else can step in to explain?
Because you're assuming that people wouldn't simply use all the same best weapon option available. Just as with battlesuits it prevents skewing into one type of weapon. The points exist to dissuade Knight AA in allied detachments or Knight AA / AA / AA / AA in full knight armies.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
Opportunity cost to not killing them/the knight instead, certainly, but they can't die to save it.
