Re: [Epic] SM2 -> E40k Orky injustice

From: Matthew J. Silvernail <msilver_at_...>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:23:35 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Scott Shupe wrote:

> Matthew J. Silvernail wrote:
> >
> >[snipped SM/TL Stompa stats]
> > Okay, let's take a summary of what's happened between
> > editions here. Stompa had: Better armor than LR, better
> > armor-piercing weapon (by far) than LR, and the equivalent
> > rule to E40k's stubborn ability. In E40k, Stompa has:
> > Worse armor than LR, no anti-tank shot, and has lost
> > stubborn while the LR has gained it. So what's wrong
> > with this picture?
>
> Well, it did get faster... Also it's gun range has
> been increased (relatively; 45cm in E40k is equivalent to
> 75cm in SM/TL).

Good point about its range, I'd not done the range conversions.
As to the speed however, it looks like most 'walker' class
vehicles got a speed increase in E40k, dreadnoughts, etc.

> > By the way, the reason I looked at this in the first
> > place is that I've noticed that Stompas just plain suck
> > on the battlefield in E40k. Now that I see how much
> > they've been downgraded without an equivalent decrease
> > in points cost, its obvious why they perform so poorly.
>
> How much do they cost in E40k? And this could be a
> problem with the LR being under-priced, as opposed to the
> Stompa being over-priced. I have a feeling that any unit to
> unit comparison with a LR is going to make the non-LR unit
> look bad.

   Agreed about LR's being undercosted. Stompas cost 32
points a pop in E40k, IIRC 3 points less than LRs. Actually,
the conversion I listed out for the Stompa isn't what I
would want out of the vehicle, its just as straight of a
conversion as possible. What I would want out of the Stompa
is just to have it have an armor value of 6+. Considering
that it used to be better armored than the 6+ armor LR, it
seems only logical that it have that value in E40k.

   In fact, that was what I was looking up when I noticed
the overall Stompa downgrade - armor 5+ seems far too
lightweight for what it is: the main battle tank of the
Ork army. Most of the time, 6+ armor gives twice the
survivability of 5+ armor. That is not* a small factor at
all. Overall, the entire Ork army is under-armored, which
strikes me as odd when comparing with SM2, in which the
Orks had a good variety of vehicles as heavily or more
heavily armored than the imperials. You'd think if there
is one thing Orks are good at, its welding on more big
slabs of steel... apparently they lost that technology
when E40k came out.

   Now, if you were just to give stompas an armor of 6+,
and not touch their points cost, what would you get? A
land raider with 2 better assault, less speed, no transport
ability, and no stubborness. From everything I've heard
and seen, 2 FP = 1 AT shot, so that's equivalent. If*
we are to assume that Land Raiders are priced properly,
then Stompas would be properly balanced by keeping the
points the same and giving them armor 6+. If, as several
people have said, Land Raiders are undercosted (which I
think I agree with), then Stompas with 6+ armor should
cost a few points less than whatever you set LR cost at
in your house rules.

[snip my translation]
> If you're going for a straight translation, the 50cm
> range in SM/TL would be equivelent to a 30cm range in E40k.
> And the 3+ to hit, -4 save mod is the same as a volcano cannon
> without the damage-to-titans bonus. So I'd say make it:
>
> Troop | Speed | [AF] | Range | FP | Armor | Special
> -------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+--------
> Stompa | 15cm | [4] | 30cm | 1xDR | 6+ | Stubborn

   You're right, this is more accurate. To Michael Looney,
please feel free to my version however you like. I guess you'd
have to ask Scott about this version, though I doubt anyone's
going to start lawsuits over house rules. :) The above copy
is probably more in spiritus fidelis with SM2 than my version,
if that's what you're going for.

-- Matt Silvernail
Received on Tue Nov 04 1997 - 22:23:35 UTC