Some of the point options in the Codex seem...kinda off

[Trevak Dal]

The points values on the various special/heavy weapons seem to be a bit jumbled in the Codex, and I just checked the FAQ from GW and didn't see any clarification on the issue. PA Grey Knights the Incinerator is the most expensive option, with Psycannons being cheaper, while Terminator Armor units see the reverse as true (which in my mind makes more sense, as the Incinerator is a 'Super heavy Flamer', and a Psycannon is a 'super assault cannon' and flamers are usually cheaper than Assault Cannons on units)

 

What's the deal, or is this just generally accepted as a "balancing" factor of Power armored guys (smaller, sweeping Advancable) vs Terminator Armored (relentless, not sweeping advancable) guys?

[benmothershaw]

Terminators are relentless which makes them stronger (with the pyscannon (not include any special abilities)) than power armoured varieties because of there ability to move and shoot.

 

From what I believe the reason behind this is their ability to deepstrike. I.e. Interceptors and strikes can deepstrike therefore should pay more points for the incinerator Vs. Purgation and Purifiers who do not have the deepstrike rule in their entry, hence cheaper incinerators.

 

This doesn't mean that if you can deepstrike you should take an incinerator however.

[nurglez]

Terminators are relentless which makes them stronger (with the pyscannon (not include any special abilities)) than power armoured varieties because of there ability to move and shoot.

 

From what I believe the reason behind this is their ability to deepstrike. I.e. Interceptors and strikes can deepstrike therefore should pay more points for the incinerator Vs. Purgation and Purifiers who do not have the deepstrike rule in their entry, hence cheaper incinerators.

 

This doesn't mean that if you can deepstrike you should take an incinerator however.

 

+1 :pinch:

 

Games workshop price weaponry differently depending on how effective it is for the unit (generally). As terminators get 4 shot psycannons, they are more costly. They do the same in other codexes with heavy weaponry (generally more expensive in squads that can take multiple, as firing 4 lascannons in 1 go is better then firing 4 seperate squad's lascannons).

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Its still retarded, and it makes fitting units into your army silly at times (as one classic example, 10 Purifiers with quad psycannon = 10 Purgators with quad psycannon, but the Purifiers are better in a thousand different ways).

 

The same pricing policy is why Devastators aren't used, but Long Fangs are. If you make lascannons 60pts (or whatever) apiece, people won't field those units. It doesn't matter what GW thinks is 'balanced', it doesn't work in practise.

[Abaddonshand]

Apparently the cost of incinerators in strikes is linked to the fact that interceptors and strikes were the same unit, and the higher price was required on interceptors. They simply forgot to lower the price on strikes when the units were split. The ability to deep strike argument doesn't was with me, as terminators and paladins can still deep strike with their cheap incinerators. 10 points would probably be a fair price for incinerators on strikes tbh.

 

Also, on the note of the value of psycannon on strikes, remember to fire them on the heavy setting on over watch!

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Well yeah, I mean it's not really an argument, we take psycannons on every unit by default. Just about the only units that its worth bothering with (ie giving up delicious multi-purpose guns) are Interceptors (and they're quite suicidal backfield harassment), Dreadknights (not as suicidal, but they are the hacky counterpart to our shooty PsyDreads) and of course Purgators (who pay obscene amounts for psycannons, because GW forgot how much 'Astral Aim' actually sucks).

 

The same problem occurs in other armies. Most Marines have zero reason to take flamers on anyone, a plasma or meltagun is just hands-down a better option (as their built-in bolter weaponry already handles the same threats flamers are meant for). Heavy flamers never see the light of day for much the same reason, the platforms they are on (Speeders, Sternguard, Tactical Terminators) just have far better specialist weaponry to choose from. It doesn't matter if they make them free (which they frequently do with template weapons, perhaps belatedly realising they just aren't as useful as other specialist weapons), flamers are still a sub-pair choice almost every time (Flamestorm cannons excepted).

[AnImA8]

I personally take a different approach to analyzing units and justifying costs. I usually do it on a unit role, points efficient basis, and then most points values start to make sense. For instance lets compare Terminators to Strikes.

 

The oft spoke of mantra is: Terminators are relentless, therefore Psycannons are more effective on them than Strikes. This is false. Lets take a holistic approach. Both units have comparable statlines with the exception of the Power Armour and Terminators Dreadnought Armour. Lets hold the points to be the same for a squad of 5 Terminators and a squad of 10 Strikes, and judge the durability of the squads. What we see is that in order to "force the statistics" and wipe either squad with bolter fire we need 90 bolter shots from bs4 enemies, and this is true for both squads. This equivalence between the two squads is actually true for anything ap4+. For ap3 weapons (assuming 2+ to wound) the Strikes lag behind the Terminators needing only 18 of such shots to wipe the squad, as opposed to 54 such shots to wipe the Terminators. Finally for ap2 the Strikes just barely are ahead still soaking 18 shots to the Terminators 13.5. So on a points/model basis the two squads durability are comparable: equivalent with AP4+, Terminators superior against AP3, and Strikes running slightly ahead against AP2. So where else are they distinguished then?

 

Strikes are distinguished in two ways: warpquake and assault options. Warpquake is clearly an option for a static defense, lineholding unit. The notion here is that while you sit this squad on an objective at home, you Warpquake from Turn 2+ to ensure Deepstrikers don't uproot you before you have a chance to respond. This is also an option that Terminators do not have. Now the assault options for Strikes are also prohibitively expensive while being extremely affordable to Terminators. This combined with the proliferation of ap3 in assaults (Power Swords, and unusual Power Weapons) suggests to me that Terminators prefer assaulting while Strikes prefer standing and shooting. This is also backed by the fact that 10 Strikes have double the shots of 5 Terminators, increasing the points efficiency of Psybolt Ammunition. If anyone claims that Terminators support Psycannons better with Relentless point out that 10 Strikes with 2 Psycannons at 220 pts have 4 shots on the move and 8 while standing still (or even 8 while moving and Snapshooting) which is far more points efficient than the 5 Terminators with a single Psycannon (4 shots always) at 225 points. Thus to me, Strikes call for Psycannons while Terminators call for Incinerators, since I prefer to compliment both units roles with the weapons best suited to those roles.

 

Now note that this is just my method of viewing my troops. Obviously a lot of people have found Psycannons on their Terminators effective, and my approach is not meant to demean their understanding of the game. It does however, in my mind, justify best the points values of a lot of units and options. The unit that baffles me under this interpretation is the Interceptors, and that's part of the reason why I find it so difficult to justify their points cost, when they should be using Incinerators, but units like Terminators or Purifiers exist.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Both units have comparable statlines with the exception of the Power Armour and Terminators Dreadnought Armour

 

That's kind of a huge exception. TDA grants a number of things. First, Relentless (which is huge, it means double psycannon output all the way into combat). Secondly, the difference between a 2+ and a 3+ save is orders of magnitude higher in 6th edition (with lower cover, and power weapon nerfs all around). The 5+ invul isn't often invoked, but its a nice free extra as well (it means you don't auto-die to the now fewer things that ignore your 2+ save).

 

 

Lets hold the points to be the same for a squad of 5 Terminators and a squad of 10 Strikes, and judge the durability of the squads. What we see is that in order to "force the statistics" and wipe either squad with bolter fire we need 90 bolter shots from bs4 enemies, and this is true for both squads. This equivalence between the two squads is actually true for anything ap4+. For ap3 weapons (assuming 2+ to wound) the Strikes lag behind the Terminators needing only 18 of such shots to wipe the squad, as opposed to 54 such shots to wipe the Terminators. Finally for ap2 the Strikes just barely are ahead still soaking 18 shots to the Terminators 13.5. So on a points/model basis the two squads durability are comparable: equivalent with AP4+, Terminators superior against AP3, and Strikes running slightly ahead against AP2. So where else are they distinguished then?

 

You're forgetting the other side of the coin, which is close-combat. 5 Terminators are a pain to deal with in close-combat, 10 Strikes are not. And being mid-field units (Terminators actually want to be in combat, moreover), combat is an inevitable prospect; you will get charged. Strikes are not going to get the charge, as moving gives up psycannon shots (you're not paying 200pts+ for four psycannon rounds and some storm bolter, they only make sense standing still and holding ground). Terminators have even better prospects of getting charges off now (average 7"), and they are scary to charge (free I6 halberds and a few hammers mixed in).

 

Strikes are distinguished in two ways: warpquake and assault options. Warpquake is clearly an option for a static defense, lineholding unit. The notion here is that while you sit this squad on an objective at home, you Warpquake from Turn 2+ to ensure Deepstrikers don't uproot you before you have a chance to respond. This is also an option that Terminators do not have.

 

Warp Quake matters against only a handful of armies; Chaos Daemons (who auto-lose to us anyway) and Drop Pod armies (rare nowadays, and their inertial guidance means they don't even need to land near you, especially with the changes to rapid-fire weapons like bolters). Deathwing overwhelming walk nowadays, DS just doesn't work if you can't all-Reserve. DoA lists also don't work anymore, as they're forced to field 50% on the table now. Its a very marginal ability, Terminators don't care about units landing next to them, they're just more meat to slaughter next Assault phase.

 

If anyone claims that Terminators support Psycannons better with Relentless point out that 10 Strikes with 2 Psycannons at 220 pts have 4 shots on the move and 8 while standing still (or even 8 while moving and Snapshooting) which is far more points efficient than the 5 Terminators with a single Psycannon (4 shots always) at 225 points

 

Terminator combat squads suck, yeah we knew that already. That's why you take Paladin combat squads, or the Terminator blob (as they do get two psycannons). That does mean more points to invest obviously, but its artificial to talk about what 5 Terminators do. Strikes give up a lot of efficiency when moving, and their whole focus is on camping objectives (defensive marginal power, no Relentless etc). They're the Tactical squad of our army, but unlike normal Marines we have Terminators to field as Troops (and Paladins can be made scoring by the addition of a Grandmaster).

The upshot of the comparison is that Strikes get you more bodies, and are more suited to camping. They are still an expensive investment however, and arguably shooty Henchmen with Coteaz do much the same job with longer range (whilst giving up MeQ status, which doesn't matter as Strikes fold to assault specialists or hordes anyway). Moreover, if you make Purifiers scoring, for the investment of ~100pts more, you're getting either same durability but tarpit immunity ('Cleansing Flame' is hell on horde infantry) and Terminator hitting power.

 

That is the true comparison you should be making, with Purifiers. Terminators do a different job, and should never be fielded as a 'same cost' unit.

 

Thus to me, Strikes call for Psycannons while Terminators call for Incinerators, since I prefer to compliment both units roles with the weapons best suited to those roles.

 

Where is the logic in that? Terminators can fire at full efficiency with their psycannons (again, don't take the combat squad), and they want weapons that let them engage other targets (storm bolters+charges will annhilate the infantry incinerators are designed to handle). Incinerators are not needed, but psycannons we can never have enough of.

 

The unit that baffles me under this interpretation is the Interceptors, and that's part of the reason why I find it so difficult to justify their points cost, when they should be using Incinerators, but units like Terminators or Purifiers exist.

 

It's to discourage people from taking a lot of them, but GW forgot they already made Interceptors the same price as halberd Purifiers. It's also I think to encourage people to take combat squads of Interceptors, as 40pts for two glorified flamers on the full squad is a bit much (you're quickly talking Purifier squad cost total, and thats before any nemesis upgrades are taken). Eh, GW have made the same mistakes before with Devastators, it's not uncommon. They have major phobias with units taking efficient weaponry, so they actively encourage us throughout the codex to take the completely useless psilencer.

[Gentlemanloser]

While an equal point amount of Strikes are still 'better' than the same points of GKT (More survivability, Shooting Attacks and CC Attacks...), the changes to 6th have made the gap closer.

 

With GKT being the better option for a CC unit (even with less CC attacks), while Strikes remain the better option for a shooting unit.

 

So;

 

General Purpose: Strikes

Shooting: Strikes

CC: GKT

 

Basically. B)

 

Edit: Which is, exactly as they were in 5th, really. GKT just got better in CC in this edition.

[AnImA8]

That's kind of a huge exception. TDA grants a number of things. First, Relentless (which is huge, it means double psycannon output all the way into combat). Secondly, the difference between a 2+ and a 3+ save is orders of magnitude higher in 6th edition (with lower cover, and power weapon nerfs all around). The 5+ invul isn't often invoked, but its a nice free extra as well (it means you don't auto-die to the now fewer things that ignore your 2+ save).

 

Well as my statistics showed it's actually not as huge of an exception as you're making it out to be. When others online asked how we would deal with Terminators now that our power weapons are ap3, I told them that I'll deal with them the exact same way I deal with a squad of marines: shoot them. And I can say that with confidence due to the volume of small arms fire we can put out and the fact that they have the same durability to such fire as PA marines do. And while I agree with you that the 2+ to 3+ save difference is greater now in 6th due to the changes in combat, that was already taken into account later on in my post (which is why I evaluated Strikes as being a shooty unit and Terminators as an assaulty unit.) Finally, yes the 5++ isn't often invoked, however I did invoke it in my statistics. This is also partly the reason why you shouldn't really be trying to dismantle my justification, since it's a comprehensive holistic approach and you've isolated and responded to parts where your responses are already answered elsewhere in my post...

 

You're forgetting the other side of the coin, which is close-combat. 5 Terminators are a pain to deal with in close-combat, 10 Strikes are not. And being mid-field units (Terminators actually want to be in combat, moreover), combat is an inevitable prospect; you will get charged. Strikes are not going to get the charge, as moving gives up psycannon shots (you're not paying 200pts+ for four psycannon rounds and some storm bolter, they only make sense standing still and holding ground). Terminators have even better prospects of getting charges off now (average 7"), and they are scary to charge (free I6 halberds and a few hammers mixed in).

 

As mentioned above, I'm actually not forgetting assault. I very explicitly state in my post that this is where Terminators are distinguished from Strikes, and truly shine.

 

Warp Quake matters against only a handful of armies; Chaos Daemons (who auto-lose to us anyway) and Drop Pod armies (rare nowadays, and their inertial guidance means they don't even need to land near you, especially with the changes to rapid-fire weapons like bolters). Deathwing overwhelming walk nowadays, DS just doesn't work if you can't all-Reserve. DoA lists also don't work anymore, as they're forced to field 50% on the table now. Its a very marginal ability, Terminators don't care about units landing next to them, they're just more meat to slaughter next Assault phase.

 

This may be true about Warpquake, however this is not all that relevant. The point is, someone asked: the points values seem jumbled, what's the deal? My proposed response is not one of whether or not "Terminators are better/worse than Strikes" my response is: these two units have abilities and traits that make them distinct from each other, and the ways in which they are distinct determines the pricing of their weapon options.

 

Terminator combat squads suck, yeah we knew that already. That's why you take Paladin combat squads, or the Terminator blob (as they do get two psycannons). That does mean more points to invest obviously, but its artificial to talk about what 5 Terminators do. Strikes give up a lot of efficiency when moving, and their whole focus is on camping objectives (defensive marginal power, no Relentless etc). They're the Tactical squad of our army, but unlike normal Marines we have Terminators to field as Troops (and Paladins can be made scoring by the addition of a Grandmaster).

The upshot of the comparison is that Strikes get you more bodies, and are more suited to camping. They are still an expensive investment however, and arguably shooty Henchmen with Coteaz do much the same job with longer range (whilst giving up MeQ status, which doesn't matter as Strikes fold to assault specialists or hordes anyway). Moreover, if you make Purifiers scoring, for the investment of ~100pts more, you're getting either same durability but tarpit immunity ('Cleansing Flame' is hell on horde infantry) and Terminator hitting power.

 

That is the true comparison you should be making, with Purifiers. Terminators do a different job, and should never be fielded as a 'same cost' unit.

 

I personally don't think Terminator Combat Squads suck. I field them all the time, and I quite like them. And it's not really artificial to talk about what 5 Terminators do, as it's a points equivalent comparison. Now if you want to talk about 10 Terminators, then I can gladly up the discussion point to 20 Strikes, and the comparison would be the same. I also can't deny that other powerhouse units in our codex: henchmen, purifiers, paladins; can do the same job but even better, however that wasn't the point of the conversation. The point is to break units down into their specified roles (which I'll point out that in that regard you do seem to agree with me) and then make the suggestion that the roles determine the points values for their upgrades (hence why things like Warding Staves are cheaper on Terminators than Strikes, etc...)

 

But regardless I agree: Terminators do a different job, this is the crux after-all of my post. And the point of making them the "same cost" wasn't to say that units should be held to be the same cost in the way they're fielded, it was to say that in order to make a TRUE comparison, we ought to hold the costs as close together as possible.

 

Where is the logic in that? Terminators can fire at full efficiency with their psycannons (again, don't take the combat squad), and they want weapons that let them engage other targets (storm bolters+charges will annhilate the infantry incinerators are designed to handle). Incinerators are not needed, but psycannons we can never have enough of.

 

I have explained my point using logic, I don't see where your argument stands on the other hand... again 220 pts of Strikes versus 225 pts of Terminators, 4 Psycannon shots on the move for both, 8 shots standing still for Strikes. Your Relentless rule just doesn't matter since I still have TWO Psycannons in my Strike squad. It's clear why one is a better platform than the other. Even if you up the Terminators to 10 man, at that point it's 440 for 20 Strikes, versus 450 for 10 Terminators, at which point the evaluation is still: 8 shots for both on the move, 16 shots standing still for the Strikes...

 

While an equal point amount of Strikes are still 'better' than the same points of GKT (More survivability, Shooting Attacks and CC Attacks...), the changes to 6th have made the gap closer.

 

With GKT being the better option for a CC unit (even with less CC attacks), while Strikes remain the better option for a shooting unit.

 

So;

 

General Purpose: Strikes

Shooting: Strikes

CC: GKT

 

Basically. :)

 

Edit: Which is, exactly as they were in 5th, really. GKT just got better in CC in this edition.

 

Again, my purpose isn't to say that Strikes are "better." That was not my intent at all. My explanation was just a justification of points values for weapon options. But after having said that, your evaluation and mine do agree: Shooting goes to the Strikes, while Assaulting goes to the Terminators ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

The Psycannon cost on the GKGM and GKT are too high.

 

Psycannons on GKT should cost less than Paladin, and no where near over twice as much as Strikes.

 

15 would seem to be about right. :angry:

[Zeratul29]

I agree that strikes serve very different roles, and it's really down to which seems to work better for you personally, in my opinion, that extra 5 points for the terminators is worth it, for the 2+ armour save, but I do agree that the pagk still stand up against the terms, butr for different reasons that AnImA8 pointed out

 

AnIm8, I enjoyed your post on what the differences were

[AnImA8]

Well thank you Zeratul29 :D

[Bartali]

Re the GKT vs Strike discussion - Surely you need to factor in Strikes can take cheap transports ? I'd certainly wouldn't leave home without a Psybolt HB Razor for Strikes.

[AnImA8]

Re the GKT vs Strike discussion - Surely you need to factor in Strikes can take cheap transports ? I'd certainly wouldn't leave home without a Psybolt HB Razor for Strikes.

 

I personally didn't include them in my analysis, because they make it much harder to control for points in the comparison. I'm curious though, when you take the Psybolt Razorback for the Strikes, how does that change the dynamic of the Strikes for you? Do you field them in smaller squads so they can actually be transported? Or do you Combat Squad them and carry half forward, and leave half back? Or do you even just take the Razorback as a weapon platform that does its own thing? I guess more directly the question should be: does taking the Razorback affect your decision on taking Incinerators over Psycannons or on taking Psybolt Ammunition or not? I haven't used Razorbacks much with Strikes, so I'm pretty interested in what you think.

[Gentlemanloser]

That depends. I've really got two decisions.

 

1: Am I taking the Razor as a 36" Range Home objective holder? Harder to do in 6th, as you can't score from inside any more, but you can hide out of LoS outside a Razor.

 

In that case, it's 5 Strikes, and no upgrades

 

2: As an extra Weapon Platform.

 

This doesn't usually effect the Squad size or upgrades I plan on taking. I don't generally use Rhinos/Razors to move my Strikes forward, I don't really need them to get into 24" range.

 

Deploying on the edge of my DZ is usually good enough for that.

[Zeratul29]

If you include the possibility of razorbacks, Strikes would be a way to help out with some extra mobile fire support from the razor or help out with defending a firebase

[Bartali]

Re the GKT vs Strike discussion - Surely you need to factor in Strikes can take cheap transports ? I'd certainly wouldn't leave home without a Psybolt HB Razor for Strikes.

 

I personally didn't include them in my analysis, because they make it much harder to control for points in the comparison. I'm curious though, when you take the Psybolt Razorback for the Strikes, how does that change the dynamic of the Strikes for you? Do you field them in smaller squads so they can actually be transported? Or do you Combat Squad them and carry half forward, and leave half back? Or do you even just take the Razorback as a weapon platform that does its own thing? I guess more directly the question should be: does taking the Razorback affect your decision on taking Incinerators over Psycannons or on taking Psybolt Ammunition or not? I haven't used Razorbacks much with Strikes, so I'm pretty interested in what you think.

 

They key thing to remember is that you need to max out on Razors to make transports viable, ie Six Strike squads in Razors. Mixing and matching (say a combo of Razor based Strikes and Terminators/Paladins) doesn't work. I think sixth killed hybrid lists, either go big on vehicles or go foot.

 

So with this in mind, at 1500pts I'd run 6x Strikes w/ Psycannon (optional Justicar Halberd) in Psybolt Razors. At larger points values it gets more tricky. You may feel you need more scoring units, in which case you can start to field a couple of 10x Strikes w/ Psycannonx2 and Psybolt Ammo instead of the smaller squads. Either Combat squadding or keeping the big unit together is viable depending on the game.