PDA

View Full Version : Bolt Throwers - Now useless ?



knightime98
26-02-2012, 22:50
I performed the usual search for a thread on Bolt Throwers and nothing popped out at me.

With the advent of 8th edition and horde rules, I believe the Bolt Thrower has now been placed in the super under performing category.
The only BT's that are even "worth" taking are the super cheap Orc N' Gobbo ones.

I think that the points paid for the one shot is just a bit much for Dark Elves and High Elves, especially since it cost them specifically 100 points.

Well here are some questions and/or queries...

Do you the community think the Bolt Throwers will be reduced in points cost ?

if not, how then will the Bolt Thrower(s) become more effective than what they are now ? (Which is underperforming, imo).


On a side note, there are rumors that the mortar for the Empire may be reduced to the small template (thus making it also less effective)...

Why are warmachines being reduced in power ? On another thread, one poster stated that Cannons should only do d3 wounds?

Where is this all coming from?

The armies that benefit from less shooting are the ones that are good in combat (i.e WoC, Daemons, and etc..)

I guess more than anything the main question is what will GW be changing with regards to war machines in general and overall.

Let me know your thoughts as this is becoming a bit more of a concern as I play a lot of armies that have war machines.

thesheriff
26-02-2012, 23:02
I think we need to make the distinction between "Bolt Throwers" (Goblin ones, Dwarves) and "Repeater/Reacer Bolt throwers" (HE/DE). Elf bolt theowers are bad because of there expense. And, the fact that with 2 6's being the only thing separating the opposing archer unit from 100vps, they are too risky.

What amazes me is that people overlook the mechanics of 8th. While it is true that Hordes have impacted on there usefulness, I would wager I see as many steadfast units as I do hordes. For every horde of stormvermin and bloodletters I see, I will usually see a 5-wide block of horrors and slaves next to them.

Also, hordes present a very welcome bonus. If positioned on the flanks of a deployment zone, when combat hordes close, having bolt throwers spear several models, with the potential to kill 10 models, where as in 8th, you'd be luck to see 4 dead.

To conclude, No there not useless. Goblibs can pick up a pair of them for 70pts, and they can sit on the flanks and perhaps get a hit or two a game. Or, fielded en masse they can cause some decent damage.

thesheriff

Jind_Singh
26-02-2012, 23:13
I agree to a point - warmachines are less effective than they used to be.

Bolt Throwers

I ALWAYS take two per army - as I'm a Goblin player and I find them SO handy for 70pts! Sometimes it's been known for them to even hit and wound (dare I say) KILL a target - so I like them!

But are they viable? I think so - even armies like High Elves have a need for them as they lack a high strength ranged weapon. But at 100pts...it's price is higher than needed - pretty sure that the next book for HE will seem them reduce to 75pts or so.


Dark Elves are well priced - as they have access to so many nasty things that cheaper bolt throwers would just cause a headache!!

Dwarf are fine to as they can upgrade them.


Cannons

D6 wounds to D3 - interesting concept - personally I prefer D3 + 1 wounds per cannon ball. There was a time when Cannons were worth D6 wounds with str 10 - but now with no guess ranges those things are toooooo dangerous! They don't even get slowed down for going through a forest or wood for petes sake!!

And now that they class as templates it's spelled the end of characters on large mounts as BOTH get smashed in their respective faces by the laser guided cannon ball!!

I hope that when the Empire book is redone they bump their costs up - and maybe even move them into the rare section - though I doubt that will happen - however got my fingers crossed that they go UP in price to say 200pts a cannon - longest range/strength in the game. And most players would pay 200pts for them still (ok, even 150pts is fair)

Stone Throwers

Not so impressed by these anymore - I dropped mine from the Gobbos list. Only other army to use them are Dwarf - who upgrade them and make them nasty - and the powerful Bret Treb of doom!

T10
26-02-2012, 23:14
I think it's important you voice your opinion on the matter. If GW is left to believe that the gaming community is satisfied with the current volt thrower status, then they will never change anything about them.

Personally I think they are just swell.

I suspect the High Elf and Dark Elf bolt throwers are going to see a change of sorts. Perhaps they'll get the Multiple Shots (x6) and Armour Piercing special rules to streamline them a bit, with a points cost reduction.

Duke Ramulots
26-02-2012, 23:19
I use a pair of spear chukkas in almost every battle, they almost never fail to earn their points back several times over.

knightime98
26-02-2012, 23:25
@theSheriff

Two points which you have pointed out are that the Elves BT's only can take 2 hits. That really sucks.

The second point is that you claim you can do 10 wounds. It is unclear if you mean a pair of BT's in aggregate can do 10 wounds (which is weakly implied) or that because a single BT is firing into the flank of a horde unit that you can somehow muster 10 wounds. If it is the latter after the 6th wound, the strength of the BT goes to 0, thereby only 6 models can be wounded.

For me, I haven't fielded a BT in ages and I believe it is because of these factors.

As you have mentioned the risk vs reward is greatly too much.

This is the main reason for starting this thread. How can the BT be of either more use or should it just be great reduced in points.

I think the points reduction to 50 for the HE and DE BT's would be better. Remember, they only have the equivalent of 2 wounds. At 50 points or so they would be possibly worth taking.

I'm still undecided on how to redress this so they become worth taking again.

I have 4 armies that have BT's (OnG, Dark Elves, High Elves, and Dwarves) and can't remember the last time I fielded one...

The Low King
26-02-2012, 23:32
it's spelled the end of characters on large mounts as BOTH get smashed in their respective faces by the laser guided cannon ball!!

I hope that when the Empire book is redone they bump their costs up - and maybe even move them into the rare section - though I doubt that will happen - however got my fingers crossed that they go UP in price to say 200pts a cannon - longest range/strength in the game. And most players would pay 200pts for them still (ok, even 150pts is fair)

Honestly...i would sigh and put my cannons up there with the flame cannon if they were 200 points......they simply wouldnt be worth it. I (and many other dwarf players) are going off cannons in favour of grudge throwers as it is. The main reason i still use them is the fear factor they cause, they usually dont kill much but my opponant will hide anything of value from them.



Bolt throwers:

I would agree that they (talking about dwarf ones here) are often ignored in favour of their bigger brother, the cannon. This is mainly because against monsters they are only S6 and D3 wounds and against troops they lose a point of strength every rank so tend to stop after 3 ranks.

However, i have been increasingly using them because of their higher reliability (with an engineer) than cannons (who misfire, miss, blow up etc). I can pop of shots from different sides of the board (2 for the price of 1 cannon) and have a much more predictable hit output. Monsters are then wounded on 4s or 3s and chariots often lower. I also feel much more inclined to use the shots agaisnt RnF (and they ace cavalry) than with cannons as i can split shots.

Peopl also tend to ignore them alot more, whilst with cannons most opponants manage to take them out shortly after combat starts.

I also had an epic combo in SoM with one. +1 strength, +1 to hit anything with fly and flaming attacks was deadly against a lot of SoM monsters.

theunwantedbeing
26-02-2012, 23:49
This is the main reason for starting this thread. How can the BT be of either more use or should it just be great reduced in points.

I think the points reduction to 50 for the HE and DE BT's would be better. Remember, they only have the equivalent of 2 wounds. At 50 points or so they would be possibly worth taking.

Bs5 or better yet, being able to fire D6 single bolts at a time.
I'de much rather have an improvement to match the cost, rather than a points reduction to match their current abilities.

Few people really want to pay Ģ20 for a single 50pt bolt thrower with a minimal impact on the game afterall.

knightime98
27-02-2012, 00:13
Even if you increase the ability of the HE and DE bolt throwers, one of the key issues to me is that they only have 2 wounds.

A single fire ball with d6 hits scores 3 or 4 hits... if you get a pair of 6's (however unlikely) the BT is gone. It's just too fragile.

On the other side of the coin, with the Orc N Gobbo Spear Chukka - if a Fire ball goes that way. The On'G player will scoff at it. Let it go through. It's only 35 points and a wasted 1 or 2 Power dice.

This is where the balance comes in... 35 points for 3 wound BT On'G vs 100 pts for 2 wound HE,DE BT. The deviation of points is too much for less points.

The idea of having d6 bolts though is a bit much, now you are making it too good and a vastly superior target to go after. I could understand a d3 bolts, or d3+1 bolts. Considering you are going to miss with 1/2 of them anyways and 1/2 of the hits will regen (HPA, Hydra anyone).

Now we are getting to the meat and potatoes of the situation.

The bearded one
27-02-2012, 00:34
2 crewmembers for an elven bolt thrower is too few. They need an extra crewmember and a couple points off, or stay at 2 but have a far more significant pricecut.

An issue that the single-shot bolt thrower has, is that it's really a case of "all or nothing", that generally has only 50% chance of hitting, or 2/3 if the situation is optimal (short range, no modifiers at all), and often then still has to roll a 3+ or 4+ to wound the larger targets (chariots, monsters) or 5+ to wound opposing warmachines, and even then you have a good chance of doing only 1-2 wounds. The damage potential is fairly low and in order to inflict decent damage you need to roll well several rolls in a row. Skewering several models in a unit will generally also stop after about 3-4 models, or sooner if unlucky.

The fact that they use ballistic skill kinda screws them in the face of template weaponry, which is generally more accurate and has a higher damage potential.

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2012, 01:03
The idea of having d6 bolts though is a bit much, now you are making it too good and a vastly superior target to go after. I could understand a d3 bolts, or d3+1 bolts. Considering you are going to miss with 1/2 of them anyways and 1/2 of the hits will regen (HPA, Hydra anyone).

Average from a D6 shot St6 bolt thrower is 0.875 wounds on a HPA, 1.167 on a Hydra.
Not a great deal from a machine that costs slightly under/slightly over half of those things.

On T3 infantry the damage output is 4.05 wounds
On T4 infantry the damage output is 3.11 wounds

That's not exactly overpowered given a cannon will do similar damage levels to the same targets but can strike multiple units, is far better at hurting things in buildings, has a greater range and better survivability.

knightime98
27-02-2012, 01:35
I'm guessing the d6 single shots are at S6 then ?
or are you inferring the rules of the HE/DE s4 armor piercing with those stats?

I'm just besides myself on this whole situation.

Obviously, I believe at least we all concur on the idea that the BT in general are not up to par.

I'm relieved in that aspect of it.

So, we have 2 camps for ideas here.

1) Make them better to justify their cost.

2) Leave them as they are but reduce their points. Thus, making up for their ineffectiveness.

Specific to the HE/DE BT's I think both should be done somehow. They need to brought up to 3 wounds like the cheap OnG BT (which can actually be bolstered to 4 with an Orc Bully). 100 pts is just too steep a price to pay, period. The thing isn't a cannon and black powder isn't coming to the HE or DE so...

anyhow...

anymore ideas ???

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 02:24
Guys, both HE and DE throwers have 3 wounds each, its in the back of the rulebook.

They are mostly taken for the 6 S4ap shots. If you compare them to the equivalent number of handgun-wielding troops, they come out on top (do it by hits - so 4 hits from the BT at 24, so equvalent of 12 empire handgunners/8 dwarf thunderers - either of those two is more expensive). Being able to use it as an actual bolt thrower is a situational benefit.

They see quite a lot of use in HE armies. Not so much in DE, but that is because there are other overpower/underpriced options, and the BT gets left on the shelf - whcih isn't a problem with the BT, but with the rest of the army.



Don't know if anyone is actually discussing normal BTs, but I don't think they are massively underpowered - its more to do with the fact that they count as 1 warmachine in a meta where if there is any comp present, it will cap warmachines. In uncomped, I'd be happy to take a dwarf BT and deploy it away from my line to force my opponent to send a unit to deal with it or get poked all game long.

TsukeFox
27-02-2012, 02:49
It is sad that Elven Bolt throwers are crap compared to the Skaven bolt thrower/Jezzial Teams.

Despite the negative of low leadership, with their pavise they have a 4+ armour save, magical attacks, &-4 to the armour save. A team cost 60-70 with champion.
Personally i am sad that Jezzails lost their damage output of D3 wounds (5th edition?)

80 for Elven Bolt throwers is fair.

The bearded one
27-02-2012, 03:07
Guys, both HE and DE throwers have 3 wounds each, its in the back of the rulebook.

And on the other hand the warmachine section says the number of wounds remaining on a warmachine is determined by the number of remaining crewmembers.


Don't know if anyone is actually discussing normal BTs, but I don't think they are massively underpowered - its more to do with the fact that they count as 1 warmachine in a meta where if there is any comp present, it will cap warmachines. In uncomped, I'd be happy to take a dwarf BT and deploy it away from my line to force my opponent to send a unit to deal with it or get poked all game long.

I did use a lone flaming bolt thrower in that manner for a while, and every time units far more expensive flocked its way.

sulla
27-02-2012, 04:08
Also, hordes present a very welcome bonus. If positioned on the flanks of a deployment zone, when combat hordes close, having bolt throwers spear several models, with the potential to kill 10 models, where as in 8th, you'd be luck to see 4 dead.

To conclude, No there not useless. Goblibs can pick up a pair of them for 70pts, and they can sit on the flanks and perhaps get a hit or two a game. Or, fielded en masse they can cause some decent damage.

thesheriffI don't think I've ever killed 4 r'n'f with a single shot. The odds of not rolling a 1, or a 1 or 2 or a 1,2 or 3 on the first 3 shots are low and there are rarely t3 targets deep and expensive enough to be worthwhile. Better targets out there and better tools in the list to deal with them.

knightime98
27-02-2012, 04:25
I don't think I've ever killed 4 r'n'f with a single shot. The odds of not rolling a 1, or a 1 or 2 or a 1,2 or 3 on the first 3 shots are low and there are rarely t3 targets deep and expensive enough to be worthwhile. Better targets out there and better tools in the list to deal with them.

Let's start with hitting first,

most BT's need 4,5 and sometimes 6's to hit...

Then at S6 - need in most cases a 2, S5 a 2, S4 a 3, S3 a 4....and so on.
for rnf T3.

So, the idea that BT's are great at mega damage against hordes is a bit looney tunes.

On a side note, Cavalry has been virtually eliminated from tactics and use. Steadfast really has limited their role and/or use in 8th edition.

for 70-75 points the Skaven get the ratling gun with a 4+ward and it can do d6 hits without any mishaps (to be absolutely safe).

dementian
27-02-2012, 05:08
Whoa whoa ratling guy with a 4+ ward? Mine only has a 5+ armor save.

The bearded one
27-02-2012, 05:12
for 70-75 points the Skaven get the ratling gun with a 4+ward and it can do d6 hits without any mishaps (to be absolutely safe).

~55 IIRC, but they need to roll to hit. Autohits have been removed. They used to be the most popular weaponteam of them all, and the current book even has a line mirroring this ingame popularity with fluffpopularity amongst the warlord clans. But then the autohits got removed in their current book and bam, I have never seen a ratlinggun ever again.


Whoa whoa ratling guy with a 4+ ward? Mine only has a 5+ armor save.
4+ ward when within 3" of the parent unit.

dementian
27-02-2012, 05:22
Oh my goodness how did I miss that? I rarely bring them in my lists because I thought they were way too squishy...this helps.

knightime98
27-02-2012, 05:26
All this points out is the scragging of warmachines and their ability to deal damage.

Everything seems to be doing less and less damage.

MOMUS
27-02-2012, 06:44
I recently played a HE amry with 5/6 bolt throwers and they did nothing all game. Too many modifiers against my skirmishers and not enough damage done to affect my hordes. When i asked how much they were i could not believe they were 100pts each. :wtf:

sholcomb
27-02-2012, 06:52
I think the High/Dark Elf Bolt Throwers should definitely change their mechanic. Maybe they could have a strength 8 single shot, and still have rank penetration with the multiple shot option. Maybe even an upgrade to make them BS 5 (so they aren't out-shot by their Dwarf counterparts). That might make them worth 100 points.

Another thing that makes bolt throwers less useful in 8th is the rarity of heavy cavalry, and characters on monsters, which the bolt throwers were particularly good at dealing with. Cavalry now suck because of the overpowered steadfast rule, and monsters are not viable with the laser guided cannons and rock lobbers lurking around.

AlphariusOmegon20
27-02-2012, 06:59
I do just fine with my 4 reapers doing 6 shots a turn each.

I wound on 3's usually.

Misfratz
27-02-2012, 07:00
Why are warmachines being reduced in power ?...Where is this all coming from?On this general question it's worth looking at 8th edition as a whole compared to 7th. In 7th edition people talked about CR as the most important thing. Tactics were about flanking, to deny CR from ranks, and hw+s was chosen to minimise CR lost to enemy wounds. With steadfast, hordes, stepping up, supporting attacks, etc, GW have moved the focus from CR to killing things in combat. Monsters are also notably tougher (arachnarok, sphinxes).

I think that as long as people field gunlines with a reasonable chance of success GW will tone down war machines to encourage people to go towards killing things in combat, with war machines playing a supportive role.

The Low King
27-02-2012, 07:25
I think the High/Dark Elf Bolt Throwers should definitely change their mechanic. Maybe they could have a strength 8 single shot, and still have rank penetration with the multiple shot option. Maybe even an upgrade to make them BS 5 (so they aren't out-shot by their Dwarf counterparts). That might make them worth 100 points..

Dwarf Bolt throwers with BS4 are 60 points. I guess it depends on how much you think multiple shots is worth, 20 points maybe?

At what points cost would people start taking bolt throwers?
At what damage output would people start taking them for 100 points?


Another thing that makes bolt throwers less useful in 8th is the rarity of heavy cavalry, and characters on monsters, which the bolt throwers were particularly good at dealing with. Cavalry now suck because of the overpowered steadfast rule, and monsters are not viable with the laser guided cannons and rock lobbers lurking around.

Please dont. This is a discussion on bolt throwers, dont try to provoke people into turning it into somthing else.

sholcomb
27-02-2012, 07:40
Dwarf Bolt throwers with BS4 are 60 points. I guess it depends on how much you think multiple shots is worth, 20 points maybe?

I think the Dwarf Bolt Throwers are under-powered too, until you start upgrading them with runes and engineers. Goblin bolt throwers are nice, since they are so cheap, but High Elf bolt throwers should have a little more zing to them.


Please dont. This is a discussion on bolt throwers, dont try to provoke people into turning it into somthing else.

I was just pointing out the reason why juicy bolt thrower targets weren't around anymore.

Trains_Get_Robbed
27-02-2012, 07:56
Bolt Throwers are terrible.

Coming from a competitive stand point a 100 points is quite pricey for what you get. 2 wounds a piece, only D6 shots, or a single S6 shot -that use BS4 to hit mind you, and then wound on a +3, +4 against monsters makes them nigh but un-takable. When list building for my H.E they won't see the light of day, unless I'm playing a "friendly" and even then I'll only take one.

100 points in both elf books (mainly H.E) can be spent on units that have such a better K/D ratio, and fullfill a better need. For example, for two bolt throwers, I can get a G.E and 5 naked Dragon Princes. Need to hold up that Horde? Instead of shooting it down I'll just redirect it with the eagle turn 3 and boom just saved my 150 points, or have my D.Ps take out that cav. support or small monster.

Elfs solve monsters issues with ASF/Hatred and high I. Really, whats a HPA or Hydra going to do against a block of W.L or Black Guard with BoEF? Both units I can take if I don't buy a couple of Bolt Throwers.

Essentially, Bolt Throwers cost-damage output is poor, and only having 2 wounds puts it over the top in the non-take category.

Bolt Thower could be fixed by lowering the points to 80, adding another crew member, and then making the multi-shots a larger quantity or shots in addition to making the bolt S8 D3+1/D6 wounds, and allowing differing ammos to be used based on race ie; posion bolts, flaming, etc. . . another idea is to increase S4 volley, make it similar to the Rattling Gun where you roll a D6 and add the shots together -like the crew is trying to get in a actual "quick" volley.

knightime98
27-02-2012, 08:07
I think that as long as people field gun lines with a reasonable chance of success GW will tone down war machines to encourage people to go towards killing things in combat, with war machines playing a supportive role.

Well when you take the word 'supportive' out of loop, that leaves no 'role' for the war machine.

Here are the nerfs in general to war machine or war machine like things.

Helblaster Volley Gun - got super nerfed, it's a permanent fixture in my Empire storage case and has been for 2 years at least.
Granted it needed a nerf, but not a super nerf. It has 3 times to blow itself up each firing and you have to roll to hit afterwards.

BT's - This is where, I am at a loss and why I put this thread up. I look at my BT's for all my armies and thought to myself, When was the last time I fielded a BT for this army.... Then I thought, when was the last time I fielded a BT period... Then I asked myself why ??? and now it is a thread here...

Ratling Gun - Got nerfed, as it should have been but now as with most warmachine's you have to roll to hit.. (Exception which will change is the Organ Gun for Dwarves).

Rumor about Mortar for Empire - Supposedly it will go to a 3" template and for no apparent reason.

Although, some very good thoughts and ideas have crossed the thread so far. I'd like to see the 100 pt BT's go to 50-75 and be slightly better for what they do. Without the damage output or the threat to actually do some damage - they are over pointed. Which I believe is the general consensus so far.

As for the Dwarven BT being 60 points... I still think that is over pointed considering the OnG one goes for 35.... Granted the BS is one higher but is one higher BS worth a 70 percent increase in points (35 points * 1.70 = roughly 60). Also, from the 60 point standpoint to 100 point version that allows you to shoot 6 times... Just not worth it... Once again this may be rehashing previous ideas or thoughts. I'm just trying to combine all the ideas together.

Evil Hypnotist
27-02-2012, 08:17
Reading people's views on this it seems a long time ago now when Elf reaper bolt throwers were 50 points each, GW actually doubled the price becuase they were so effective (and at the time, still cheap for 100 points!) :D

knightime98
27-02-2012, 08:24
Oh, and one really quick note that seems to go unnoticed or actually is a reason not to take a bolt thrower. The idea that it really does not have the ability to one shot one kill something. The cannon and rock/stone/grudge - lobbers/throwers have the d6 wounds and s9/s10 rules... It's all coming together like pieces of a puzzle.

N1AK
27-02-2012, 08:30
if not, how then will the Bolt Thrower(s) become more effective than what they are now ? (Which is underperforming, imo).

Why are warmachines being reduced in power ?

Most Warmachines became considerably better during the change to 8th. BS based ones like bolt throwers were basically the exception. I would like to see GW make repeater bolt throwers multi-shot only and improve that 4xS6 AP, 6XS5 AP perhaps or even 8xS4 AP. Perhaps with a minor drop in cost (~85pts) or same cost with an extra crew member.

In general players want warmachines (Cannons and Stone throwers) toning down because the current rules make monsters pretty useless, with a couple of exceptions.

theunwantedbeing
27-02-2012, 10:00
Dwarf Bolt throwers with BS4 are 60 points. I guess it depends on how much you think multiple shots is worth, 20 points maybe?
The multiple shot rule is instead of firing a single bolt, you pay a little extra for getting the option to fire differently of course but that isn't worth a whole lot.
Also dwarf bolt throwers with bs4 have 4 crew, not 2 and in combat those crew are T4 as well as stubborn whereas the elven crew are t3 and not stubborn.
So while the dwarven ones might seem pricey they're much better value than the elven ones.
As an extra dwarf bolt throwers aren't a rare slot either, so you can take more of them.


At what points cost would people start taking bolt throwers?
At what damage output would people start taking them for 100 points?
50pts for an elven bolt thrower seems about right.
Sure it's 10pts less than a dwarf one for the same Bs but you also have to factor in the notably lowered survivability and being unable to field as many of them.

As for damage output having D6(or D3 +1) multiple bolts would be about right for the cost.

The Low King
27-02-2012, 10:47
The multiple shot rule is instead of firing a single bolt, you pay a little extra for getting the option to fire differently of course but that isn't worth a whole lot.
Also dwarf bolt throwers with bs4 have 4 crew, not 2 and in combat those crew are T4 as well as stubborn whereas the elven crew are t3 and not stubborn.
So while the dwarven ones might seem pricey they're much better value than the elven ones.
As an extra dwarf bolt throwers aren't a rare slot either, so you can take more of them.


50pts for an elven bolt thrower seems about right.
Sure it's 10pts less than a dwarf one for the same Bs but you also have to factor in the notably lowered survivability and being unable to field as many of them.

As for damage output having D6(or D3 +1) multiple bolts would be about right for the cost.

I feel that 50 points would be a bit good. Realistically they should have about the same damage output as a unit of archers, possibly slightly less as they also have the antimonster S6 shot. How about 2D3 shots to increase reliability?

In comparison to dwarf warmachines: The toughness of the crew isnt worth that much as bolt throwers are predominantly shooting, once they get into combat they are effectively out of the game. I agree that runes are useful but once you start adding them to a bolt thrower you start paying far more for not much more (for example, +2 strength costs more than the bolt thrower itself).


Most Warmachines became considerably better during the change to 8th. BS based ones like bolt throwers were basically the exception. I would like to see GW make repeater bolt throwers multi-shot only and improve that 4xS6 AP, 6XS5 AP perhaps or even 8xS4 AP. Perhaps with a minor drop in cost (~85pts) or same cost with an extra crew member.

Considerably...not really.

They did become stronger but they also now get less shots as combat happens earlier.

In general players want warmachines (Cannons and Stone throwers) toning down because the current rules make monsters pretty useless, with a couple of exceptions.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Read the thred about artillery a few pages back, it was very equal sided in terms of numbers, losts of players dont want changes and presented very good arguments.


I think the Dwarf Bolt Throwers are under-powered too, until you start upgrading them with runes and engineers. Goblin bolt throwers are nice, since they are so cheap, but High Elf bolt throwers should have a little more zing to them.



I was just pointing out the reason why juicy bolt thrower targets weren't around anymore.

Runes add a lot to the cost for not much gain. The main runes added to them are the cheap flaming attacks or special ones like immolation (explody)



I agree that the reason they arnt around any more is because of bigger units and cannons/grudge throwers being better....it was just the way you put it 'Overpowered steadfast' being the best example.



Helblaster Volley Gun - got super nerfed, it's a permanent fixture in my Empire storage case and has been for 2 years at least.
Granted it needed a nerf, but not a super nerf. It has 3 times to blow itself up each firing and you have to roll to hit afterwards.

Rumor about Mortar for Empire - Supposedly it will go to a 3" template and for no apparent reason.

Hellblaster volly gun...ive seen that thing do wonders..the number of shots it can get off is crazy....ive seen it delete units

Mortar is 60 points for a large blast template. Most other stonethrowers cost more for a smaller template. You can take 3 of them for the price of one fully upgraded Grudgethrower.



A lot of the power of certain warmachines is because of perceptions. Organ guns are deadly because people fear their lack of to hit rolls.


Bolt throwers are overcosted but not that overcosted....75 points would be entirely reasonable.

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 10:49
Since the BRB is the newest publication, I would say that the number of crew on the repeaters has been 'updated' to 3 to represent the 3 wounds. This is the only way I've seen it played, and I'm pretty active on the tournament scene. If for some reason I am wrong, then lets just assume that I completely agree with everyone who wants a third wound, and lets not derail and further in a silly rules lawyering direction :).

I would agree that a BT (with 3 wounds) could be 50 points for the BT aspect of it only. I think you guys are approaching this warmachine from the wrong perspective - the multiple shots is its primary and therefore more effective function, where it shoots 'gunshot' replicas - and as I showed in my last post, in that aspect it is on par cost-to-output with other gunwielders (handgunners, thunderers, outriders). The single str6 shot is an 'extra' benefit - so the cost calculation won't be "60 pt bt with 20 pt extra for being able to shoot like a handgun unit', but more 'a handgun-type replacement worth 90 pts with 10 pt extra for being able to shoot like a BT". 90 pts for 6 shots at BS4/48" with 360 LoS is a very good deal.

If you want to make the argument that HE should also have the option to take basic BTs at a much lower cost, than that is a completely different point (and tbh I'll be inclined to agree - although they should 'share' slots with repeaters so players can't spam); however saying the repeaters are overpriced based solely on their secondary function is not a fair evaluation.

If you want to discuss BT effectiveness, I recommend using dwarfs or O&G. Dawi are particularly useful, because the BT can be directly compared to the cannon.

TsukeFox
27-02-2012, 11:48
I like ratling guns...I like to make machine fun sounds when I roll for the number of shots- it helps get more.
& as I only use to them to shoot at fast calv they tend to earn their points back.

jtrowell
27-02-2012, 13:10
Whoa whoa ratling guy with a 4+ ward? Mine only has a 5+ armor save.


Look at the weapon teams rules, they get a 4++ special save when near their parent unit, somewhat like a "Look out sir"

theJ
27-02-2012, 13:53
As for damage output having D6(or D3 +1) multiple bolts would be about right for the cost.

I like the idea of a multi-shot bolt thrower. It fits with both the fluff of the thrower itself, and with the elite feel of the army.
I would however argue that they are random enough already without a random number of attacks. I'd much rather they have a straight 3-4 attacks total.

While an eagle's claw/reaper might be more effective than handgunners point for point, we've also got to factor in that said handgunners are core choices, not rares. A proper comparison would be with the hellblaster or organ gun (those are rares, right? don't actually play those armies).
I dare say the eagle's claw/reaper comes off on the bad side.

The Low King
27-02-2012, 14:04
While an eagle's claw/reaper might be more effective than handgunners point for point, we've also got to factor in that said handgunners are core choices, not rares. A proper comparison would be with the hellblaster or organ gun (those are rares, right? don't actually play those armies).
I dare say the eagle's claw/reaper comes off on the bad side.

Not really.

Firstly: Rarity is often more a matter of fluff than balance.
Secondly: They have different rolls in the army, empire ad dwarfs rely on their warmachines a great deal but lack the high elf infantry power.
Thirdly: They are compeltely different armies, high elves rely on their elite and rare choices more. It depends on what the unit is competing against (for example, Organ gun vs flame cannon vs gyro...)
Finally: both can misfire

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 14:24
I actually agree with theJ on the rarity thing; but my point was that the elven BTs are already more effective than the equivalent points spent in handgun-toting core due to the 360 LoS (all handguns are move-or-fire, its a big drawback), which more than accounts for its rarity.

Handgunners of various types (not only cores, outriders are specials) are the most apt comparison because they do the same things as the reaper. The Organ Gun's selling point is ignoring to hit rolls, so its more comparable to a mechanical magic missle machine than to a BT. The hellblaster lands templates like a stone thrower which is completely irrelevant, I don't know why you brought it up.

In the context of HE BTs don't come off on the bad side - they are neither a bad/fluffy pick, nor are they mandatory; I'd say they are exactly where they should be - used in a lot of army builds, but not all. DE are a very powerful army, and in their context the BT would really need to be 80 points for someone to take it - but its not the BT that should be getting reduced, its evetryhting else that should go up.

innerwolf
27-02-2012, 17:16
I never understood why elven bolt-throwers pay a premium for an ability they can use instead of the regular shooting mode. You don't get one on top of the other, you switch them. If you still think the flexibility must be taken into account, lets make that premium 10,20 or even 30 points. But 50?
It should also be noted that a non-repeating elven bolt-thrower shouldn't cost more than 45 points. Having only two crewmen is a huge liability.

Maybe they could be St 5, volley-fire only, to make them distinct enough and both good against infantry and monsters.


The hellblaster lands templates like a stone thrower which is completely irrelevant, I don't know why you brought it up.

You are wrong, you are talking about the Hellstorm Rocket battery. The Hellblaster is a three barreled volley gun.

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 18:03
You are wrong, you are talking about the Hellstorm Rocket battery. The Hellblaster is a three barreled volley gun.

oops, my bad. The hellblaster is indeed a good comparison, as it rolls to hit.


Your mistake with the costing is that you are costing for the BOLT. Whcih is crappy. Cost for the 6 S4 Ap shots with a tiny premium on top, and it becomes much fairer.

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 18:05
Derp post, please erase

innerwolf
27-02-2012, 18:44
oops, my bad. The hellblaster is indeed a good comparison, as it rolls to hit.


Your mistake with the costing is that you are costing for the BOLT. Whcih is crappy. Cost for the 6 S4 Ap shots with a tiny premium on top, and it becomes much fairer.

100 points still seem expensive for 6 longer ranged, bs 4 handgun shots.

The bearded one
27-02-2012, 18:55
With a 24" short-range, 360 degrees and T7 against ranged, don't forget those.

Handgunners will hit enemies between 12" and 24" on 5's. The elven bolt throwers on 3's.

Von Wibble
27-02-2012, 19:16
The Low King - Twice now on different threads I've noticed you claim the empire mortar is 60 points. Its 75, not 60. Your empire opponent is having you on ;)

I thought the RBT was rubbish in 6th edition so I'm hardly going to differ in opinion now. Its problem is that it has 2 roles, and doesn't do either of them well.

My suggestion is that you have 2 variants instead. 1 of them fires only single shots. Push it to S7, (dark elf one gets S6 but interesting choices of poison to help weaken big monsters) and knock down the price to 75 points.

The other fires single shots. This should be a horde killer therefore you get 5 shots + 2 for every rank of 5 or more models in the enemy unit. (note that makes 6 shots for a snigle rank unit, as it is now). Price reduced to 70 points.

Edit - in this I would add you'd need to prevent spamming. 0-2 of each type as rare choices per 3000 point should do the job (ie high elves can't ignore this limit as their current rules allow).

Add an extra crewman and its job done.

For dwarf bolt throwers maybe + 1S and D6 wounds to make it the monster killer, then D3 wounds for cannon to give strengths and weaknesses for each. Btw I think the empire cannon is worth 130 points and cannon in general are overpowered.

The bearded one - twice the number of shots for half the hits makes 12 handgunners as good in shooting as a RBT for a few less points. But the RBT is a rare choice (which means it should be better at its job for the same points) and can't fight in combat. With 2 wounds the T7 is less relevant. It takes 12 S3 hits to take down an RBT, 24 for the handguns, and more than 12 hits at any strength more to the point. The only edge the rbt has is a slightly smaller footprint and a larger field of vision.

Warlord Gnashgrod
27-02-2012, 19:39
I'm actually surprised there's been no FAQ on the number of wounds a HE/DE bolt thrower has, especially considering the point cost. I do think the HE/DE ones are a bit better than others, thanks to the bs4 and multi-shot abilities they have. But I agree that it's not worth a whole 100pts.

Petey
27-02-2012, 19:49
I performed the usual search for a thread on Bolt Throwers and nothing popped out at me.

With the advent of 8th edition and horde rules, I believe the Bolt Thrower has now been placed in the super under performing category.
The only BT's that are even "worth" taking are the super cheap Orc N' Gobbo ones.

I think that the points paid for the one shot is just a bit much for Dark Elves and High Elves, especially since it cost them specifically 100 points.

They're paying for BS 4 warmachine, with the ability to multi shot 6 lesser bolts or one greater bolt. 100pts is still too much for this, but it is what they're buying. It s not just a regular BT.


Well here are some questions and/or queries...

Do you the community think the Bolt Throwers will be reduced in points cost ?

BS 3 w/3 crew 50 pts. BS 4 w/3 crew 75pts. I see this as where it will likely end up


if not, how then will the Bolt Thrower(s) become more effective than what they are now ? (Which is underperforming, imo).

It performs fine. Most armies in history didn't bother with them. Warhammer does because we think they're cool


On a side note, there are rumors that the mortar for the Empire may be reduced to the small template (thus making it also less effective)...
Why are warmachines being reduced in power ? On another thread, one poster stated that Cannons should only do d3 wounds?
Where is this all coming from?

They should be reduced in power. If we are to assume that the changes in the BRB are not going to come with a price change in warmachines, then warmachines need to be reduced in power. In 7th and before, much of warmachine damage was mitigated by partial hits. In those cases, you would hit 50 percent of the partials, and you would score more partials than solid hits. If you no longer have partials and don't want to raise the points of the warmachine, then you must reduce template size and/or strength of the attack.
Warmachines also seem to be poorly thought out in the first place. There s no reason for a cannon to be S10, or d6 wounds. Certainly, that makes some sense if all it does is kill humans, but honestly, you don't kill just humans with it. To a dragon, that cannon is more like a pistol would be to a man, should pistols be S6? No. It makes no sense. If you need to shoot buildings with the cannon ball (in order to destroy them), then the stats also don't work because traditionally, the buildings are t8 to 10; There are plenty of buildings that can take many many cannon hits and still be fine (early cannons anyway), just like there are others that the cannon could epically level. Again s10 is not the answer.
Additionally, warmachines never saw much use against armies. They are too mobile. Here and there you would see them, and they would be beneficial to have, but the majority of the work was done by other elements of your army. They make more sense in WH, since there are more giant monsters that you would need to throw a boulder at, but really, they re only in the game because we think they're cool.
All this, combined with GW's efforts to make infantry better leads to warmachines needing to be worse.


The armies that benefit from less shooting are the ones that are good in combat (i.e WoC, Daemons, and etc..)

I guess more than anything the main question is what will GW be changing with regards to war machines in general and overall.

Let me know your thoughts as this is becoming a bit more of a concern as I play a lot of armies that have war machines.

See above. But yes, expect your warmachines not to be as good at teh end of 8th ed, as they are at the start of 8th ed. As each book gets updated, we will see the warmachines come in line with the new rules expectations.

The Low King
27-02-2012, 19:51
The Low King - Twice now on different threads I've noticed you claim the empire mortar is 60 points. Its 75, not 60. Your empire opponent is having you on ;).

Woops.....i have never actually checked the book, i just remembered discussing it with someone who said they were 60 points.


I thought the RBT was rubbish in 6th edition so I'm hardly going to differ in opinion now. Its problem is that it has 2 roles, and doesn't do either of them well.

My suggestion is that you have 2 variants instead. 1 of them fires only single shots. Push it to S7, (dark elf one gets S6 but interesting choices of poison to help weaken big monsters) and knock down the price to 75 points.

The other fires single shots. This should be a horde killer therefore you get 5 shots + 2 for every rank of 5 or more models in the enemy unit. (note that makes 6 shots for a snigle rank unit, as it is now). Price reduced to 70 points.

Edit - in this I would add you'd need to prevent spamming. 0-2 of each type as rare choices per 3000 point should do the job (ie high elves can't ignore this limit as their current rules allow).

Add an extra crewman and its job done.

For dwarf bolt throwers maybe + 1S and D6 wounds to make it the monster killer, then D3 wounds for cannon to give strengths and weaknesses for each. Btw I think the empire cannon is worth 130 points and cannon in general are overpowered.

The bearded one - twice the number of shots for half the hits makes 12 handgunners as good in shooting as a RBT for a few less points. But the RBT is a rare choice (which means it should be better at its job for the same points) and can't fight in combat. With 2 wounds the T7 is less relevant. It takes 12 S3 hits to take down an RBT, 24 for the handguns, and more than 12 hits at any strength more to the point. The only edge the rbt has is a slightly smaller footprint and a larger field of vision.

Make Bolt throwers worth taking rather than cannons so bad that they arnt.

Eyrenthaal
27-02-2012, 20:05
I play My empire army against he on ā regular basis. Bolt throwers are not too cheap and they're definately usefull.. At bs4 they hit at 4s most of the time and at 48". They then wound on 3s against average units. Armour piercing at that. Leaving You without an armour save in most cases. In the case of ā heavy Units You Have the possibility to shot singles. ā great allround weapon. Ā normal bolt ie dwarf, goblin etc. Couldnt force ā unit of 20 crossbowmen 2 ranks deep to take ā panic test in one round. The he can.. Id gladly pay for the equivalent for My army..

knightime98
27-02-2012, 20:12
Well if you make cannons only d3 wounds, I don't think I'd be able to play Empire or Dwarves anymore. For one reason, the d6 wounds from the cannon really is the only answer to keep the monsters in check. The opponent will go to great lengths to hide their prized monster from the cannon. The one shot, one kill aspect would be gone. Also of note, the Ogre Kingdoms has one of their beasties that takes 1/2 damage from multiple wounds (either the Stone Horn or Thundertusk). So, GW has already started on the path of minimizing Cannon/BT effects.

What made the cannon a bit more powerful is the idea that it now automatically hits both rider and mount. The randomization has been removed. For this aspect of it, I'm not sure what to do. GW is trying to simplify the rules to its own demise (Which means to simplify the rules - they made them a bit worse).

I like the idea of the Bolt Throwers getting what the Goblin Hewer had in the Storm of Chaos book in 6th edition. You get d3 hits for each rank or so. It can thin the ranks down. In essence the damage factor needs to be increased with a slight points decrease. In that regard they will meet in the middle and again become a model that is fielded with some regularity. At least, that is what I have been interpreting so far.

erana
27-02-2012, 21:17
common BTs : You take 4-6 in a dwarf army or goblin army. The thing is you do not pierce ranks, you hit large targets with it (Str6+D3W.) Or use them as an add-on to every army for e.g. 50 points as in our gaming group's campaign (ST are 100 pts.)

DE/HE BTs : You do the same thing but you get more hits but you cannot sack them for the high points cost.

As Nigel Stillman used to put it you can move them around for that final rank piercing volley.

Just my 2 cents.

Lorcryst
27-02-2012, 21:44
I had to re-read my rules and FAQs, just to be sure, but I can't say that I agree with the OP ...

The Toughness of the crew of a warmachine is never used, so saying that HE/DE are more fragile than other BTs is irrelevant ...

HE and DE RBT's are defined as having three wounds on their profile in the BRB ... we MUST use that rule ... and since Crew are only wound-counters these day, you just have to put another model behind the RBT ... even more easy for the HE one, as you get enought bitz to make a small diorama ... surely that big quiver full of bolt can count as a wound-counter ?

Yes, the Goblin Spear Chukka is the cheapest of all the Bolt Throwers ... it's also the ONLY one that can misfire (roll a 1 to hit, then roll on the Stone Thrower misfire chart ... if my math is good, that's 1/6 + 2/6, so roughly 3/36 or 1/12 chance of blowing up, each turn).

And about their use on the battlefield ... DE ones I don't mind, there are MUCH MORE terrifying things in that Army Book ... but HE ones, that they can take 4 of in a 2K game ? Yes, pricey, but quite deadly against my Gobboes ... and they make a mess of my Manglers too ...

About the crew of those RBT's, unless and until GW makes a new model for them, I think that we should use the THREE wounds given on their profile in the BRB, but the TWO attacks (with ASF or Eternal Hatred) of the crew models, but that's just me ...

Petey
27-02-2012, 22:43
I had to re-read my rules and FAQs, just to be sure, but I can't say that I agree with the OP ...

The Toughness of the crew of a warmachine is never used, so saying that HE/DE are more fragile than other BTs is irrelevant ...

HE and DE RBT's are defined as having three wounds on their profile in the BRB ... we MUST use that rule ... and since Crew are only wound-counters these day, you just have to put another model behind the RBT ... even more easy for the HE one, as you get enought bitz to make a small diorama ... surely that big quiver full of bolt can count as a wound-counter ?

An interesting point. I'm surprised I missed that. I couldn't find anything to contradict that in the FAQ anywhere either.


Yes, the Goblin Spear Chukka is the cheapest of all the Bolt Throwers ... it's also the ONLY one that can misfire (roll a 1 to hit, then roll on the Stone Thrower misfire chart ... if my math is good, that's 1/6 + 2/6, so roughly 3/36 or 1/12 chance of blowing up, each turn).

And about their use on the battlefield ... DE ones I don't mind, there are MUCH MORE terrifying things in that Army Book ... but HE ones, that they can take 4 of in a 2K game ? Yes, pricey, but quite deadly against my Gobboes ... and they make a mess of my Manglers too ...

About the crew of those RBT's, unless and until GW makes a new model for them, I think that we should use the THREE wounds given on their profile in the BRB, but the TWO attacks (with ASF or Eternal Hatred) of the crew models, but that's just me ...

If the wounds count as crew, and crew each get an attack, then it seems clear that the crew will ahve 3 attacks. I will re assess my thoughts on this warmachine, but I still think it's worth 80pts tops

Don Zeko
27-02-2012, 22:58
HE and DE RBT's are defined as having three wounds on their profile in the BRB ... we MUST use that rule ... and since Crew are only wound-counters these day, you just have to put another model behind the RBT ... even more easy for the HE one, as you get enought bitz to make a small diorama ... surely that big quiver full of bolt can count as a wound-counter ?

The trouble with this argument is that Army Book trumps BRB, and the models and army books each specify two crew. if the 8th edition errata gave a profile with 3 wounds that would be a different story, but given the fact that the FAQ/Errata doesn't mention them at all, I think two wounds is probably a safer assumption.

medevilmike
27-02-2012, 23:03
heres my humble opinion, dwarf and o&g bt's are fine the way they are(d6 wounds would be nice, but meh)
Elven bt's are only awful in friendly games and because they have 2 wounds, most tournys comp elite units to 28ish and hordes at 50 model caps. Although de has much better things to spend points on, at 3w each I would gladly take 4 RBT with every high elf list I ever brought to a tourny as with the 24 shots at s4 ap, you will kill most elite units to nothing in 2 turns.

Unfortunitly, at 2w and 100pts each they are far to easy to kill and hard to come back from if killed. (dwarfs and orcs are fine from a tourny standpoint, as you have better machines to spend points on....)

Tygre
27-02-2012, 23:07
The Toughness of the crew of a warmachine is never used, so saying that HE/DE are more fragile than other BTs is irrelevant


The toughness of the warmachine crew is used in close combat. You do not use the warmachines toughness of 7 in close combat.

Valnir
27-02-2012, 23:47
The High/Dark Bolt thrower has two wounds period. It says in the bestiary quite clearly that the crew is composed of two members. The profile showing three wounds refers to 7th ed where the bolt thrower machine had 3 wounds on it`s profile.

DenWhalen
28-02-2012, 00:24
The High/Dark Bolt thrower has two wounds period. It says in the bestiary quite clearly that the crew is composed of two members. The profile showing three wounds refers to 7th ed where the bolt thrower machine had 3 wounds on it`s profile.

The Bestiary (BRB p. 484 for HE, 486 for DE) lists these bolt throwers as having three wounds. That's the 8th edition rule book. Now, it might just be referencing 7th edition, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

Snake1311
28-02-2012, 00:44
100 points still seem expensive for 6 longer ranged, bs 4 handgun shots.

They are essentially the equivalent of bs 5, because they are at half range when handguns are at max range.

So as I said before, at 24" the RBTs get on average 4 hits.

4 hits at that range from handgunner units are costed as follows:

thunderers: 112
handgunners: 96
outriders: 84
RBT: 100

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, considering the RBT has an alternative function as well. And also a good highlight of why there isn't a single thunderer in any competitive dwarf list.

Valnir
28-02-2012, 08:09
The Bestiary (BRB p. 484 for HE, 486 for DE) lists these bolt throwers as having three wounds. That's the 8th edition rule book. Now, it might just be referencing 7th edition, but that doesn't make much sense to me.
How does it not make sense? The ARMY BOOKS clearly states that the elven bolt throwers have 2 crew and the BRB section about war machines state that "the crew are used only to indicate the remaining number of wounds and the number of attacks the warmachine can make in close combat"

The "3" wounds part comes from 7th when the WARMACHINE had 3 wounds+crew and it was carried over just like everything else in the BRB Bestiary.

knightime98
28-02-2012, 08:19
You know right wrong or indifferent - My philosophy on this matter should be that the Elven Bolt Throwers should have 3 wounds with 3 crew.

For the life of me, I'm not even sure why GW made the model with only 2 crew to begin with... That's just baffling from the onset.

Nonetheless, with 2 books both contradicting each other - it's a matter of whatever the 2 players decide. 7th Edition army book vs. 8th edition rule book.

For the moment, I'd have to side with the crew members as being the "wound markers" and thus the Elven BT's have 2 wounds. That of course is my opinion and it stinks as I think they should have 3. Perhaps, with the 8th edition book HE will get a great spell Lore to be feared AND a BT lower in points with 3 crew. However, I will not hold my breath as GW has a way of screwing things up. Although, recently, I will say that the army books thus far have been fairly balanced all across the board (Speaking of 8th edition now).

Trains_Get_Robbed
28-02-2012, 08:46
The incomprehension and unit discrepancy on this thread is astounding.

First off: BOLT THROWERS HAVE 2 WOUNDS.

Secondly, I'm betting that the majority if not all but three people (including myself) play an elf army, as I have seen numerous posts trying to "justify" bolt throwers. You can't justify taking them, they're horrible, (most worse in a H.E army where you can't have a decent saturation of good missile fire) and comparing them to other units like Handgunners and basic missile troops doesn't make any sense and is actually backward -Warmachines can't: fight, redirect, bunker etc . . . comparing the two is like comparing screw drivers to installation foam. Just because they're both at he hardware store doesn't make them the same tool.) Competitively they will never be taken (if you see some. . . then they're doing it wrong -or just trying to play on hard-mode) as 2 wounds as I have aforementioned is a joke and whether with Bolt or Volley, is statistically hard to make their points back.

Lastly, Bolt Throwers are supposed to fulfill a role in the MAINLY THE ELF ARMIES where they lack such a piece; obviously this being long range missile interdiction. However, since their inception, they have been outpaced by either the meta, or the game's rules themselves. Why pay 100 points for something when I can spend those points elsewhere like on magic/troops/chaff that can either fulfill the role of long range interdiction with success, or halt said certain problem monster/unit by sending them in circles for the entire game not even allowing it get into combat depleted or not.

Until Bolt Throwers get some sort of "threat" back to their profile, they will most certainly be missing from any competitive environment in the lists of elf players, or sitting in the case next to those Shadow Warriors/CoK chariots.

Snake1311
28-02-2012, 12:02
The incomprehension and unit discrepancy on this thread is astounding.

First off: BOLT THROWERS HAVE 2 WOUNDS.

Secondly, I'm betting that the majority if not all but three people (including myself) play an elf army, as I have seen numerous posts trying to "justify" bolt throwers. You can't justify taking them, they're horrible, (most worse in a H.E army where you can't have a decent saturation of good missile fire) and comparing them to other units like Handgunners and basic missile troops doesn't make any sense and is actually backward -Warmachines can't: fight, redirect, bunker etc . . . comparing the two is like comparing screw drivers to installation foam. Just because they're both at he hardware store doesn't make them the same tool.) Competitively they will never be taken (if you see some. . . then they're doing it wrong -or just trying to play on hard-mode) as 2 wounds as I have aforementioned is a joke and whether with Bolt or Volley, is statistically hard to make their points back.

Lastly, Bolt Throwers are supposed to fulfill a role in the MAINLY THE ELF ARMIES where they lack such a piece; obviously this being long range missile interdiction. However, since their inception, they have been outpaced by either the meta, or the game's rules themselves. Why pay 100 points for something when I can spend those points elsewhere like on magic/troops/chaff that can either fulfill the role of long range interdiction with success, or halt said certain problem monster/unit by sending them in circles for the entire game not even allowing it get into combat depleted or not.

Until Bolt Throwers get some sort of "threat" back to their profile, they will most certainly be missing from any competitive environment in the lists of elf players, or sitting in the case next to those Shadow Warriors/CoK chariots.

Challenge Accepted

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=90241

4 HE lists in the thread, one of them has BTs - 3 of them. 25% use of a rare unit is pretty damn good, more use than the hellblaster sees I believe. On top of that, the player with 3 BTs in his list was from Denmark who came 2nd - and since the 1st team didn't have a HE player, he is technically the best performing HE in the tournament.
.........

The BT isn't just there because it has range - you already get that from your core, which has a range of 30" and M5 and can move and fire. The BT's function is ranged capacity against elite armoured troops, so it should DEFINITELY be compared to handgunners. The former can bunker, redirect (kinda, they are move or fire), fight (except not really), and the BT is many times tougher than them because even with 2 wounds its T7 and has 360 LoS, so its actually better than them at the job its supposed to be doing.

The reason it does not get taken everywhere is because everyone spams white lions, who can already deal with elite infantry and cavalry very well, so in the context of 2 biggish units of lions and Book of Hoeth for unparalleled ranged magic pressure, taking RBTs is a little redundant. The other role - S6 shot - is once again better performed by the white lions if you can get them in the right place - which the eagle spam enables (of which everyone takes at least 3).

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2012, 12:17
The BT isn't just there because it has range - you already get that from your core, which has a range of 30" and M5 and can move and fire. The BT's function is ranged capacity against elite armoured troops, so it should DEFINITELY be compared to handgunners. The former can bunker, redirect (kinda, they are move or fire), fight (except not really), and the BT is many times tougher than them because even with 2 wounds its T7 and has 360 LoS, so its actually better than them at the job its supposed to be doing.

The main reason IS the range, you can hurt the enemy from upto 48" away.
The BT isn't tougher than handgunners.
It takes 12 st3(4) hits to kill a bolt thrower.
12 St3(4) hits will kill 6(8) handgunners.
100pt bolt thrower has died, you have only killed 48-64pts of handgunners which nets you no VP whatsoever.
Elven bolt throwers are not tougher than their equivalent in handgunners.


The reason it does not get taken everywhere is because everyone spams white lions, who can already deal with elite infantry and cavalry very well, so in the context of 2 biggish units of lions and Book of Hoeth for unparalleled ranged magic pressure, taking RBTs is a little redundant. The other role - S6 shot - is once again better performed by the white lions if you can get them in the right place - which the eagle spam enables (of which everyone takes at least 3).
Exactly, there is no point to the bolt thrower within the high elf army at the moment, the same is true of the dark elf army.

So in that regard, they aren't worth anything within the list.

Balerion
28-02-2012, 12:50
While extra crew/price decreases might work by themselves, they kind of strike me as a boring solution to the problem.

What if Bolt Throwers got a modest price decrease, and were purchased in batteries? You could therefore have 6 crew members manning a battery of 3 BTs, which would be allowed to keep firing as long as at least one crew member was left alive. They'd also be a bit stiffer to take down in close combat. It would separate BTs from the other war machines -- cannons are devastating against monsters, stonethrowers are devastating against ranked infantry, and bolt throwers aren't super powerful against either, but are much more durable than their counterparts. They might need a strength decrease depending on how expensive they are, but I think it'd be a cool improvement that would give them a distinct role in the war machine stable.

edit: And of course GW would love getting to sell you an extra 1-2 war machine boxes.

Lorcryst
28-02-2012, 13:09
The toughness of the warmachine crew is used in close combat. You do not use the warmachines toughness of 7 in close combat.

Yes, you're right, I missed that line, apologies.


The incomprehension and unit discrepancy on this thread is astounding.

First off: BOLT THROWERS HAVE 2 WOUNDS.

Nope. Just no. Even in the 7th ed army books, and more importantly in the 8th ed rulebook (BTW, it clearly states that we must use the profiles given in the Bestiary section over the profiles of the army book, exception to the "army books trumps BRB rule"), ALL WARMACHINES HAVE AT LEAST THREE WOUNDS !

I also have a High Elf army, and I use my RBT's as anti-chaff in multishot mode, and as warmachine killers in single shot mode ... with S6, they wound on 5+, and D3 wounds means a 33% chance of killing that pesky Stone Thrower that flattens my squishy Elves ... yeah, against Dwarves, Warriors of Chaos or other high-toughness armies they don't do much, but against standard T3 armies, they are deadly.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2012, 13:31
Nope. Just no. Even in the 7th ed army books, and more importantly in the 8th ed rulebook (BTW, it clearly states that we must use the profiles given in the Bestiary section over the profiles of the army book, exception to the "army books trumps BRB rule"), ALL WARMACHINES HAVE AT LEAST THREE WOUNDS !

Quote exactly where this is stated with page references, otherwise we're just going to continue to think that you haven't read/got a rulebook.

Page 108 of the rulebook
A war machines wounds are always considered equal to the number of remaining crew models (which is stated in the war machines entry) - the Wounds value on it's profile is only included out of completeness.

The Crew
When the war machine model suffers a wound, remove a crew model. Once all the crew have been removed the war machine itself is removed from play

Valnir
28-02-2012, 13:35
:eyebrows:It's starting to get scary how many people think Elven BTs have 3 wounds.....:wtf:

Balerion
28-02-2012, 13:50
Yeah, it's insane. I would love my Warp-lightning cannons to suddenly have 4 wounds, but they don't.

StygianBeach
28-02-2012, 15:01
What if Bolt Throwers got a modest price decrease, and were purchased in batteries? You could therefore have 6 crew members manning a battery of 3 BTs, which would be allowed to keep firing as long as at least one crew member was left alive. They'd also be a bit stiffer to take down in close combat. It would separate BTs from the other war machines -- cannons are devastating against monsters, stonethrowers are devastating against ranked infantry, and bolt throwers aren't super powerful against either, but are much more durable than their counterparts. They might need a strength decrease depending on how expensive they are, but I think it'd be a cool improvement that would give them a distinct role in the war machine stable.

Exactly what I was thinking. Not sure about non-elf bolt throwers but Elf ones should be purchased in pairs. 2 Boltys 4 crew FTW. 150 point for High Elves. 160 points for Dark Elves.

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2012, 15:08
Exactly what I was thinking. Not sure about non-elf bolt throwers but Elf ones should be purchased in pairs. 2 Boltys 4 crew FTW. 150 point for High Elves. 160 points for Dark Elves.

Why more for the dark elf ones?

StygianBeach
28-02-2012, 15:10
Why more for the dark elf ones?

No reason really.. apart from Dark Elves currently having a better shooting phase and Shades... but if the book was redone that would probably be irrelevant.

Anardakil
28-02-2012, 15:33
Mortar is 60 points for a large blast template. Most other stonethrowers cost more for a smaller template. You can take 3 of them for the price of one fully upgraded Grudgethrower.


Mortars aren't 60 pts at all.

The Low King
28-02-2012, 15:45
Mortars aren't 60 pts at all.

you are a bit late on that one, ive already been corrected.

Anardakil
28-02-2012, 16:10
you are a bit late on that one, ive already been corrected.

Oh, sorry about that. i missed that :) i have to agree with mortars being too cheap for what they can do though.

Gorbad Ironclaw
28-02-2012, 16:15
That RBTs are overpriced are not new, 8th might have changed things up a little, but the current version of the RBT (going back to 6th I think?) have never been worth 100 points. It was priced that way when it had significantly higher damage output, got it's damage reduced but kept it's price. Combine it with many elf armies not being suited to guard fragile stationary warmachines needing long clear lines of sight it have been in serious need of a rework for a long time.

Lorcryst
28-02-2012, 16:40
Quote exactly where this is stated with page references, otherwise we're just going to continue to think that you haven't read/got a rulebook.

Thank you for your aggresivity ...

Well, page 80 of the mini rulebook, under the Troop Types heading :


If your Warhammer armies book doesn't contain troop type information (as will be the case with some of the older volumes) then check the back of this book - you'll find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists every unit's troop type.


Also, in the High Elf army book, page 60, there is a small box under the fluff of the Repeater Bolt Thrower that lists it's stats, and the THREE wounds are clearly visible there ... also note that in the High Elf army book, the only mention of the number of crew members for the RBT is in the Army List section, a single line on page 98.

Harwammer
28-02-2012, 16:47
I thought the point was the entry says elf BTs have 3 wounds, BUT the wound characteristic is unused for warmachines (instead they have 'crew counters')?

I've had positive experience using Dwarf BTs. Oh and the Hunting Spear for beastmen is okay occasionally. Not used any other BTs for my other armies though.

Petey
28-02-2012, 16:53
If we assume that the cost of BT is based on effect; and we conclude that a BS3 BT w/ 3W and the ability to Misfire is worth 35 points, can we not extrapolate that a BS 3 BT w/ 3W but doesn't misfire to be worth about 50pt.
If we further assume that BS increasing to 4, what would that upgade cost? If we look at strict values of damage potential, the BS 4 BT is 16% better than a BS 3 BT that is otherwise the same, which brings the point value to 58pts. If we add to this the value of having elven crew rather than goblins (again 3 v 3) that s about another 7-8 points. This brings us to 65 or so. Add to this 10 pts for the flexibility of the 6 shot attack, and you have the cost being worth about 75 points, IF you add the other crew man.

This logic doesn't include the special v rare differences, and that rares should be better values than special, or army comp. needs on the aggregate whole of the army book. But assuming all those factors are a wash, the RBT even if you add a crew member is 25pts overcost

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2012, 17:01
the only mention of the number of crew members for the RBT is in the Army List section, a single line on page 98.

So, you are disregarding this for what reason exactly?

Lorcryst
28-02-2012, 17:11
So, you are disregarding this for what reason exactly?

I'm not disregarding anything.

8th ed changed the rules of how warmachine crew works (them being wounds counters and all), but even in 6th/7th ed army books the Elven RBTs had three wounds ... and they also do so in the 8th ed rulebook ... for me it's quite clear that we should add another "wound counter" to the crew of Elven RBT's, to match the current rules for them.

Duke Ramulots
28-02-2012, 17:15
After just looking over all the infos, it would appear some people are hung up on that the model is only supplied with two crew. The rules say it has three wounds and if thats the case should you not just add another crew model to represent the wound?

Zed!
28-02-2012, 17:31
No - it is never, ever disputed that Bolt Throwers have only two crew. Nothing in the rules even allows for a dispute on this. The only disputable part is about the number of wounds a bolt thrower has. Conveniently, the number of wounds a war machine has is entirely irrelevant, seeing as it has to adhere to the following rule:

"The Crew
When the war machine model suffers a wound, remove a crew model. Once all the crew have been removed the war machine itself is removed from play"

Even if a bolt thrower had three wounds, it doesn't matter. You inflict one wound and hence remove a crew model. You inflict another, and remove the second crew model. All the crew have been removed. The rules now instruct you to remove the war machine from play, however many wounds it has left.

IcedCrow
28-02-2012, 17:39
I think for our summer campaign we may let the elf players have 3 crewmembers on their bolt throwers.

Duke Ramulots
28-02-2012, 17:46
No - it is never, ever disputed that Bolt Throwers have only two crew. Nothing in the rules even allows for a dispute on this. The only disputable part is about the number of wounds a bolt thrower has. Conveniently, the number of wounds a war machine has is entirely irrelevant, seeing as it has to adhere to the following rule: It's being disputed here, right now.


"The Crew
When the war machine model suffers a wound, remove a crew model. Once all the crew have been removed the war machine itself is removed from play" So we agree, it has three wounds on its profile and should have three crew.


Even if a bolt thrower had three wounds, it doesn't matter. You inflict one wound and hence remove a crew model. You inflict another, and remove the second crew model. All the crew have been removed. The rules now instruct you to remove the war machine from play, however many wounds it has left. If it has three wounds and thus three crew models, then it would not be removed when the second crew is removed. as it is, if you had never seen that the model was only supplied with two crew and you had only the stats to go off, would you place three or two crew next to the model?

Zed!
28-02-2012, 17:56
The army book clearly says: "Crew: 2". So I'd put two.

The Low King
28-02-2012, 18:15
Looking at the warmachine rules i think some people have got it the wrong way round.

Saying a warmachine has 3 wounds means it must have 3 wound markers (crew)
Saying the warmachine has 2 crew doesnt not mean it only has 2 wounds.


I think all it really depends on is whether you regard the Bestiary and trumping the unit entry or not

Petey
28-02-2012, 18:32
It's being disputed here, right now.

So we agree, it has three wounds on its profile and should have three crew.

If it has three wounds and thus three crew models, then it would not be removed when the second crew is removed. as it is, if you had never seen that the model was only supplied with two crew and you had only the stats to go off, would you place three or two crew next to the model?

I would like this to be the case, but you re missing a cardinal rule, army book trumps big red book

Lorcryst
28-02-2012, 18:43
I would like this to be the case, but you re missing a cardinal rule, army book trumps big red book

Except when it doesn't ... example : cannons => in the relevant army books, they wrote that you had to guess ranges for your cannons, BUT guessing ranges is a thing of the past, no such rules in 8th ed ... then BRB trumps army book.

Also the case with Unit Types, that didn't exist in previous editions, and with Unit Strength, that doesn't exist anymore.

Petey
28-02-2012, 19:27
Except when it doesn't ... example : cannons => in the relevant army books, they wrote that you had to guess ranges for your cannons, BUT guessing ranges is a thing of the past, no such rules in 8th ed ... then BRB trumps army book.

Also the case with Unit Types, that didn't exist in previous editions, and with Unit Strength, that doesn't exist anymore.

Excellent points. It confuses me that they haven't FAQ'ed this when it's so ambiguous. Though, honestly, by my calculations, the RBT is 25pt overcosted even with 3 crew.

Balerion
28-02-2012, 19:27
So we agree, it has three wounds on its profile and should have three crew.

This is where you're making an unfounded leap. There's no rule that says "a war machine has a number of crew equal to the wounds on its profile".

There is a rule that says a war machine takes off a crew member for each wound suffered. And there is an explicit listing for the number of crew members for each individual war machine. So until that stat is changed, it doesn't matter how many wounds the profile lists. You're totally tied to the crew stat.

Von Wibble
28-02-2012, 19:37
Exactly what I was thinking. Not sure about non-elf bolt throwers but Elf ones should be purchased in pairs. 2 Boltys 4 crew FTW. 150 point for High Elves. 160 points for Dark Elves.

I think you could reduce this by 10-20 points and still be about right.

Give the dark elf one poison but up the cost a bit to differentiate them slightly.

EDMM
28-02-2012, 22:13
Make it a true repeater.

If it hits, it gets to shoot again.

Continue shooting until it misses.

DenWhalen
28-02-2012, 22:51
Though it refutes my position from yesterday, there is rulebook text that answers the debate over the number of wounds. BRB p. 108: "The war machine's Wounds are always considered to be equal to the remaining number of crew models (which is stated in the war machine's entry)--the Wounds value on its profile is included only out of completeness." Thus, bolt throwers only have two wounds, despite having three on their profile.

Tupinamba
29-02-2012, 00:31
I think the arguments stating that BTs are useless come from a purely efficiency driven line of thought that I consider wrong in a tabletop wargame and which seems to be a transposition of concepts from RTS games. A unit can not be evaluated solely on its ability to "earn back its points" in terms of killing the same ammount of points it costs.

BT brings flexibility to a HE/DE army, with its long range and the ability to choose between the multiple s4 or single s6. I threatens heavy cav, monstrous cav etc. it threatens "chaff", it threatens elite infantry such as swordmasters and chaos warriors, it synergyses well with withering, soulblight and the like and, most importantly, it can concentrate force on a section of the battlefield without having to move. Everyone of these functions can be performed better by another unit, but I think that flexibility in itself has its worth too.

Iīm not claiming to be a top tournament competitor, but Iīm a decent player with good results in local tournaments against the typical 8th ed. lists and I still bring 2 RBTs in my lists, that have served me well in clearing chaff, and thus giving my own manouvre units full control of the movement phase, and in concentrated weakening of enemy units in concert with magic and rbt shooting.

Each RBT kills maybe 7-8 enemy infantry a game, which is less then their 100 points, but itīs the 15 (from both) kills before combat on the flank that will see close combat and tipps the fight in my favour at that section of the battlefield. Because of its range and reliability (6 BS4 at short range is pretty reliable) I find it a good tool to achieve tactical supperiority where needed.

And no, more "efficient" units do not achieve it in the same way. Shades are commited to one battlefield section once deployed and can be charged and kept away with chariots etc. Movement redirectors achieve "long range interdiction" in the sense of keeping the enemy power units away, but they are not able to simply choose a part of the battle where to change the balance of forces in one turn. Plus, they can be countered by enemy manouvre units and bs shooting (RBTs too, but precisely because of its superior range, thats more difficult to do). Simply having 200 more points of troops instead also doesnīt have the same effect, as theyīd be distributed among the main combat units and also commited to a certain battlefield section.

The only things that give the same kind of flexible way to achieve concentrated tactical supperiority is hexing/buffing with magic, which is essentially random, unreliable and subject to enemy defense and stuff like the cauldron of blood or warshrine, which on the other hand donīt have the other uses as the BTs, like chaff clearence, threatening monsters etc.

Don Zeko
29-02-2012, 02:32
I think the arguments stating that BTs are useless come from a purely efficiency driven line of thought that I consider wrong in a tabletop wargame and which seems to be a transposition of concepts from RTS games. A unit can not be evaluated solely on its ability to "earn back its points" in terms of killing the same ammount of points it costs.

BT brings flexibility to a HE/DE army, with its long range and the ability to choose between the multiple s4 or single s6. I threatens heavy cav, monstrous cav etc. it threatens "chaff", it threatens elite infantry such as swordmasters and chaos warriors, it synergyses well with withering, soulblight and the like and, most importantly, it can concentrate force on a section of the battlefield without having to move. Everyone of these functions can be performed better by another unit, but I think that flexibility in itself has its worth too.

Iīm not claiming to be a top tournament competitor, but Iīm a decent player with good results in local tournaments against the typical 8th ed. lists and I still bring 2 RBTs in my lists, that have served me well in clearing chaff, and thus giving my own manouvre units full control of the movement phase, and in concentrated weakening of enemy units in concert with magic and rbt shooting.

Each RBT kills maybe 7-8 enemy infantry a game, which is less then their 100 points, but itīs the 15 (from both) kills before combat on the flank that will see close combat and tipps the fight in my favour at that section of the battlefield. Because of its range and reliability (6 BS4 at short range is pretty reliable) I find it a good tool to achieve tactical supperiority where needed.

And no, more "efficient" units do not achieve it in the same way. Shades are commited to one battlefield section once deployed and can be charged and kept away with chariots etc. Movement redirectors achieve "long range interdiction" in the sense of keeping the enemy power units away, but they are not able to simply choose a part of the battle where to change the balance of forces in one turn. Plus, they can be countered by enemy manouvre units and bs shooting (RBTs too, but precisely because of its superior range, thats more difficult to do). Simply having 200 more points of troops instead also doesnīt have the same effect, as theyīd be distributed among the main combat units and also commited to a certain battlefield section.

The only things that give the same kind of flexible way to achieve concentrated tactical supperiority is hexing/buffing with magic, which is essentially random, unreliable and subject to enemy defense and stuff like the cauldron of blood or warshrine, which on the other hand donīt have the other uses as the BTs, like chaff clearence, threatening monsters etc.

It's true that being able to concentrate force at different locations on the battlefield is a tremendously useful ability, but I don't think that saves the RBT from a permanent place on the competitive DE general's storage cabinet. For one, you overlook the fact that Shades and RxB elves, in addition to delivering more firepower point for point, are harder to kill than an RBT and have battlefield uses other than shooting. You can't bunker a character in an RBT, nor can you charge into a flank with one or win a close combat - things that shades and RXB-elves are fully capable of. Your RBT is also incapable of standing and shooting and is a rare choice. Given the mobility of shades and the ability to move and fire with RXB's, the practical difference in range and flexibility between an RBT and shades or crossbowmen isn't that great. This is exacerbated by the need to deploy the bolt thrower more cautiously around enemy fliers and light troops and its inability to move from its initial deployment in any meaningful way. I can't think of a single situation where I'd rather have a bolt thrower than 6 shades.

the Witch kings regent
29-02-2012, 06:41
they get three. you no longer just hit the crew in shooting. you hit the gun and it has 3 wounds. in combat its different but if a bolt thrower gets in combat then its over anyways.

Petey
29-02-2012, 06:43
I think the arguments stating that BTs are useless come from a purely efficiency driven line of thought that I consider wrong in a tabletop wargame and which seems to be a transposition of concepts from RTS games. A unit can not be evaluated solely on its ability to "earn back its points" in terms of killing the same ammount of points it costs.

BT brings flexibility to a HE/DE army, with its long range and the ability to choose between the multiple s4 or single s6. I threatens heavy cav, monstrous cav etc. it threatens "chaff", it threatens elite infantry such as swordmasters and chaos warriors, it synergyses well with withering, soulblight and the like and, most importantly, it can concentrate force on a section of the battlefield without having to move. Everyone of these functions can be performed better by another unit, but I think that flexibility in itself has its worth too.

Iīm not claiming to be a top tournament competitor, but Iīm a decent player with good results in local tournaments against the typical 8th ed. lists and I still bring 2 RBTs in my lists, that have served me well in clearing chaff, and thus giving my own manouvre units full control of the movement phase, and in concentrated weakening of enemy units in concert with magic and rbt shooting.

Each RBT kills maybe 7-8 enemy infantry a game, which is less then their 100 points, but itīs the 15 (from both) kills before combat on the flank that will see close combat and tipps the fight in my favour at that section of the battlefield. Because of its range and reliability (6 BS4 at short range is pretty reliable) I find it a good tool to achieve tactical supperiority where needed.

And no, more "efficient" units do not achieve it in the same way. Shades are commited to one battlefield section once deployed and can be charged and kept away with chariots etc. Movement redirectors achieve "long range interdiction" in the sense of keeping the enemy power units away, but they are not able to simply choose a part of the battle where to change the balance of forces in one turn. Plus, they can be countered by enemy manouvre units and bs shooting (RBTs too, but precisely because of its superior range, thats more difficult to do). Simply having 200 more points of troops instead also doesnīt have the same effect, as theyīd be distributed among the main combat units and also commited to a certain battlefield section.

The only things that give the same kind of flexible way to achieve concentrated tactical supperiority is hexing/buffing with magic, which is essentially random, unreliable and subject to enemy defense and stuff like the cauldron of blood or warshrine, which on the other hand donīt have the other uses as the BTs, like chaff clearence, threatening monsters etc.

LMAO. Ok it's not about efficiency, and we aren't talking a few points. We are talking about a unit that isn't useful because of its outdated design in this edition. While there are probably many good arguments for the RBT, the simple fact of the matter is that similar warmachines in other armies are both cheaper and have more crew. When compared to options in the list itself, it is also lackluster. If it were a special choice, instead of rare, or if it had some special abilities or upgrades that let it behave in some useful way that was unique and strong, it might justify its cost. As it stands, Hydras and Eagles will be the choices of the day, and those that do use the RBT are basically doing it for fluff reasons (some exceptions may apply, I haven't seen every list). I play both HE and DE, and I m not happy with the RBT as a rare pick, or for its cost, or for having two crew instead of three, or for having no upgrades. Seriously, look a page or two back, I did the math for the RBT for you, it's not worth its cost.


It's true that being able to concentrate force at different locations on the battlefield is a tremendously useful ability, but I don't think that saves the RBT from a permanent place on the competitive DE general's storage cabinet. For one, you overlook the fact that Shades and RxB elves, in addition to delivering more firepower point for point, are harder to kill than an RBT and have battlefield uses other than shooting. You can't bunker a character in an RBT, nor can you charge into a flank with one or win a close combat - things that shades and RXB-elves are fully capable of. Your RBT is also incapable of standing and shooting and is a rare choice. Given the mobility of shades and the ability to move and fire with RXB's, the practical difference in range and flexibility between an RBT and shades or crossbowmen isn't that great. This is exacerbated by the need to deploy the bolt thrower more cautiously around enemy fliers and light troops and its inability to move from its initial deployment in any meaningful way. I can't think of a single situation where I'd rather have a bolt thrower than 6 shades.

this is exactly the problem. The RBT should get some upgrades, like magic ammo for High Elves and barbed ammo (reroll to wound fails) for Dark Elves, or some such variant. Additionally, maybe you could buy an added crew man for some extra points.

But make the RBT 65 points. Would you take it then Don? How about +10pts for an additional crewman? I think this would make it a good buy.

kenotic
29-02-2012, 06:56
Those guys who insist RBT has 3W, don't you ever read this?

Rule book P108, right column
"A war machine's Wounds are always considered to be equal to the number of remaining crew models(which is stated in the war machine's entry)-the Wounds value on its profile is included only out of completeness."

pippin_nl
29-02-2012, 09:03
The RBT is effective enough versus cavalry & monsters as it is, 8th edition has not changed that. I think that it would be enough to give them S6 versus every rank of infantry and that the bolt flies it's full flight path unless blocked by something bigger than infantry or cavalry, anything monstrous or bigger.

Trains_Get_Robbed
29-02-2012, 09:23
Side Thought:

This thread, or rather this site of the past week or so. . . is just saddening. Between the ETC thread, people failing to organize/search posts and tacticas disappearing for months on end; only to be threadomancied when a brand new one is created within the same day. . . and now this. . . I need another hiatus. :p

Unwanted: Thank you for understanding my side of the argument (as I'm guess it was yours as well :) ), and responding to Snake in an appropriate rebuttal and in a timely fashion I appreciate and frankly couldn't have said it better myself.

On Topic:

So inane 'blind' ignorance is the key to playing Warhammer eh? I'll defintley bring this to Adepticon then. :rolleyes:

Explaining the 'rules' of Warhammer normally is quite easy if the both parties are understanding, but if one side is truly prehensile about a particular 'ruling or model with no evidence, no logical backing its like you're answering the 'WHY' question with a three or four year old. After awhile you just give up, shake your head and say CAUSE'.

If my opponent wants us to count B.T's as 3 wounds before the game (fine by me), if they want to try something new (feel free) just let me know before the game starts. If you don't want be enlightened and accept logical conclusions, backed-up with evidence, feel free to not its no skin off my teeth. . . if I know before the game.

However, if you end up playing me (or anyone for that matter) in real life, I'll make sure to be fair on 'vague' rulings -even pointing rules quarrelers out before they happen, settle actions etc. . .- but rules set in stone that are plan as day I will not budge on in real game situations as its 'ASSumed' that you know the rules or at least have a grasp on them going into the game.

To synthesize a leap that equates a Warmachinne's stat-line to the the model's wound profile is so straw-man, any T.O, backseat generals, or managers/employees will just chuckle.

Harwammer
29-02-2012, 11:22
they get three. you no longer just hit the crew in shooting. you hit the gun and it has 3 wounds. in combat its different but if a bolt thrower gets in combat then its over anyways.

It may have 3 wounds, but it is removed when it has 1 wound left as it runs out of crew.

The Low King
29-02-2012, 12:00
So inane 'blind' ignorance is the key to playing Warhammer eh? I'll defintley bring this to Adepticon then.

Explaining the 'rules' of Warhammer normally is quite easy if the both parties are understanding, but if one side is truly prehensile about a particular 'ruling or model with no evidence, no logical backing its like you're answering the 'WHY' question with a three or four year old. After awhile you just give up, shake your head and say CAUSE'.

If my opponent wants us to count B.T's as 3 wounds before the game (fine by me), if they want to try something new (feel free) just let me know before the game starts. If you don't want be enlightened and accept logical conclusions, backed-up with evidence, feel free to not its no skin off my teeth. . . if I know before the game.

However, if you end up playing me (or anyone for that matter) in real life, I'll make sure to be fair on 'vague' rulings -even pointing rules quarrelers out before they happen, settle actions etc. . .- but rules set in stone that are plan as day I will not budge on in real game situations as its 'ASSumed' that you know the rules or at least have a grasp on them going into the game.

To synthesize a leap that equates a Warmachinne's stat-line to the the model's wound profile is so straw-man, any T.O, backseat generals, or managers/employees will just chuckle.


You do realise that Logic is subjective right? two different people will have a different perception of what is logical and so draw different conclusions from the same information. That is why you have rule disputes.

This paticular argument (whether the bolt thrower has 2 or 3 wounds) arises from the wording of a certain sentence in the BRB. Both sides are reading the rule in a differnt way and so drawing different conclusions./

Now, who is correct....nobody. You cannot say with an absolute universal certainty that you KNOW what the rule means. The language creates the meaning and the meaning of that language varies person to person based on experience, perception, logic and upbringing. Obviously both sides BELIEVE they have logical backing for their argument.

So, you we can have 'rules as written' witch is really just a general consensus as to what the rules means (like a democracy, the veiws of the majority are not always the right ones). Or we can have 'rules as intended' in wich case we have to ask the guys who made the rule.

So please do not simply call the other side 'ignorant' or 'prehensile' or '4 year olds' and act all high and mighty, that is called arrogance (especially the bit about 'enlightening' people). Attempt to pursuade the other party that your veiw is the correct one, that is the point of an argument/debate.


Btw, i feel they probably have 2 wounds. That said, i have yet to see an overwelmingly convincing argument from either side.

boli
29-02-2012, 12:39
High Elf Bolt Throwers used to be 50 points in 4th Edition fyi :)

One thing that Bolt Throwers need which they do not have ... especially the HE ones is that they are only effective shooting em masse. 6 HE Repeating Bolt Throwers is 36 S4 shots with amrour piercing. and has the *potential* to decimate a unit in 2 rounds BUT you're looking at an outlay of 600 points for that!


Perhaps a change in tactic of how bolt throwers are used: You could buy the warmachine at say 80 points and they get the big bolt - not as powerful as a cannon but no chance of miss-fires. and you don't have an option for multiple shots... instead you use the punching through ranks rules. and THEN... you can buy a unit of bolt throwers (a battery) reduced range (its smaller) and only 3 shots and you have to have the entire unit shoot at one target but for only 35 points and it fits on a 40x40mm base.

So you have the option of choosing an archer unit or a bolt thrower battery - for the same points you'll get the same number of shots but the BTs will be S4 and the archers S3 BUT... the BTs will be useless in HTH combat so if charged they are destroyed; plus you cannot use them as character bunkers nor have a banner (e.g. flaming).

Either way the BTs are rediculously expensive as they stand

Snake1311
29-02-2012, 15:14
The main reason IS the range, you can hurt the enemy from upto 48" away.
The BT isn't tougher than handgunners.
It takes 12 st3(4) hits to kill a bolt thrower.
12 St3(4) hits will kill 6(8) handgunners.
100pt bolt thrower has died, you have only killed 48-64pts of handgunners which nets you no VP whatsoever.
Elven bolt throwers are not tougher than their equivalent in handgunners.


Exactly, there is no point to the bolt thrower within the high elf army at the moment, the same is true of the dark elf army.

So in that regard, they aren't worth anything within the list.

The range was a benefit I wasn't even including in my calculations. Your perception of its importance only adds to the idea thats its cost should be higher than the equivalent.
The problem with your toughness calculations is that the BT keeps firing at full capacity even after it has been wounded, unlike ranked units. Not to mention you have picked the toughest-per-point unit out of the 3. 12 S3(4) shots will cause 4(6) wounds on thunderers (56-84pts) and 4(7) wounds on outriders (84-127pts (wiped)).

If a unit entry is appropriate for its cost, but simply outshined by other units it doesn't mean that the unit should receive a cost cut for the lulz, it means internal balance should be addressed. In the case of Dark Elves, pretty much everything which gets used regularly is undercosted. With High Elves, who are far from top tier largely due to crappy core and comparisons to DE, the White Lions are an absolute steal.

I agree with the suggestion for an extra wound, but the radical cost cuts, and especially battery purchases are horrible suggestions. At the moment a HE can take 6 BTs, maxing out his rare allowance and missing out on OP eagles (bad decision). If the RBTs drop in cost and become very cost-effective, there is no opportunity cost in using up the rare slots (another big plus for the BT by the way) and no reason not to max them. If they become 60 points like some of the more extreme suggestions here, AND come in batteries, then I can see 10 BTs becoming a staple. How is that good for the army? HE already have amazing magical pressure; if they get amazing cost-effective heavy shooting the most viable build becomes sitting back and pewpewpewing everything to death.

The fact that elves of both varieties have NO access to heavy shooting isn't a reason for the BT to be cheap; its a reason for it to be available at a premium - the same way the dwarfs pay more for a gyrocopter (movement. swiftstrider), Brets pay more for Men at arms and reliquae (infantry), WoC were SUPPOSED to be paying more for shooting (but then the hellcannon got buffed in 4-5 different ways in the transition to 8th), etc etc.

The bearded one
29-02-2012, 15:24
Those guys who insist RBT has 3W, don't you ever read this?

Rule book P108, right column
"A war machine's Wounds are always considered to be equal to the number of remaining crew models(which is stated in the war machine's entry)-the Wounds value on its profile is included only out of completeness."

Just quoted this post to highlight it again (it ended up as the last post on the page, the least-read post of a page ;) ). It's fairly decisive on the issue; crew = wounds, regardless of howmany are noted on the profile.

Lorcryst
29-02-2012, 15:31
Just quoted this post to highlight it again (it ended up as the last post on the page, the least-read post of a page ;) ). It's fairly decisive on the issue; crew = wounds, regardless of howmany are noted on the profile.

Yeah, after re-reading my books, I have to admit that ... still seems very strange since the RBTs had 3 wounds since 4th ed (and costed less, to boot), but it seems as the only Rules As Written possible outcome.

BUT, that still doesn't mean that RBTs are useless ... maybe we'll see a change when the Dark Elves army book is redone, but I won't hold my breath for a new High Elves book this edition : Spell Cards are a "trademark" of 8th ed, and the HEs already have had theirs.

The Low King
29-02-2012, 15:32
Just quoted this post to highlight it again (it ended up as the last post on the page, the least-read post of a page ;) ). It's fairly decisive on the issue; crew = wounds, regardless of howmany are noted on the profile.

Define what 'completeness' means and why being included out of 'completeness' means the number in wrong.

The bearded one
29-02-2012, 16:40
I'm guessing it simply says that, because all the old books still list a number of wounds for their warmachines, and in the vast majority of cases the number of wounds (usually 3) coincides with the number of crew (usuallu 3), so it's correct in nearly every case anyway.

And regardless, that rule quoted from the BRB says "A war machine's Wounds are always considered to be equal to the number of remaining crew models(which is stated in the war machine's entry)-" , I don't see how one can argue around that, that you should in fact follow the wounds listed in the warmachine's statprofile, even if there's no reason to list those wounds anymore.

Texhnolyze
29-02-2012, 17:11
Lower the points, increase the str on the multi shot, but imo, warhammer do NOT need another monster killing laserguided warmachine, it does not need an increase in str on the single bolt, and it most certainly do NOT need D6 wounds.

Von Wibble
29-02-2012, 17:33
The range was a benefit I wasn't even including in my calculations. Your perception of its importance only adds to the idea thats its cost should be higher than the equivalent.
The problem with your toughness calculations is that the BT keeps firing at full capacity even after it has been wounded, unlike ranked units. Not to mention you have picked the toughest-per-point unit out of the 3. 12 S3(4) shots will cause 4(6) wounds on thunderers (56-84pts) and 4(7) wounds on outriders (84-127pts (wiped)).

If a unit entry is appropriate for its cost, but simply outshined by other units it doesn't mean that the unit should receive a cost cut for the lulz, it means internal balance should be addressed. In the case of Dark Elves, pretty much everything which gets used regularly is undercosted. With High Elves, who are far from top tier largely due to crappy core and comparisons to DE, the White Lions are an absolute steal.

I agree with the suggestion for an extra wound, but the radical cost cuts, and especially battery purchases are horrible suggestions. At the moment a HE can take 6 BTs, maxing out his rare allowance and missing out on OP eagles (bad decision). If the RBTs drop in cost and become very cost-effective, there is no opportunity cost in using up the rare slots (another big plus for the BT by the way) and no reason not to max them. If they become 60 points like some of the more extreme suggestions here, AND come in batteries, then I can see 10 BTs becoming a staple. How is that good for the army? HE already have amazing magical pressure; if they get amazing cost-effective heavy shooting the most viable build becomes sitting back and pewpewpewing everything to death.

The fact that elves of both varieties have NO access to heavy shooting isn't a reason for the BT to be cheap; its a reason for it to be available at a premium - the same way the dwarfs pay more for a gyrocopter (movement. swiftstrider), Brets pay more for Men at arms and reliquae (infantry), WoC were SUPPOSED to be paying more for shooting (but then the hellcannon got buffed in 4-5 different ways in the transition to 8th), etc etc.

I agree that they shouldn't be available en masse. More a problem with lack of choices in the high elf rare section however. If you moved Phoenix guard there or added dragons of some description then the army would only want a couple in general anyway. Taking more than 2 is leaning heavily towards lack of balance in anything but a themed list as it is (and that theme can't just be gunline...). 10 RBTs should not be possible anyway since its 0-4 per army below 3000 I thought (high elves double the rare limit of 0-2 iirc?)

I also agree make it available at a premium. But for me, the fact its a rare choice means you've already paid that premium as all other shooting armies get their war machines in special (exception being the really really good ones) It should be priced fairly compared to war machines once this is taken into account. Hence my suggestions in earlier posts. I thought the best iteration of the rbt rules by far was 5th edition, where you only got 4 shots but they pierced ranks and ignored armour. Why they messed with this in 6th I don't know. 50 points in 4th edition was too good I'll admit.

Imo Orcs and Goblins, Ogres, Bretonnians, WoC, are all armies that should not outclass elves on war machine firepower, yet currently they all do, and some by a large margin.

The Low King - Surely completeness means so they could put a number (and an arbitrary one at that) in the wounds column for the machine. But that can only be my opinion since if you consider this sentence to have any other meaning then the proper meaning needs definining in an FAQ - otherwise its just my interpretation vs someone elses. I think the given quote means it has 2 wounds.

Given the way the model is made, it would make sense to simply say you don't remove crew the first time a wound is lost. That way you keep the 2 crew (which has effects in combat) and won't need to raise the cost in points for the 3 crew and the whole extra attack this grants (woot).

Eyrenthaal
29-02-2012, 19:25
I just came home from ā game.. 2rbt against 20 empire xbows. Ended with 1 dead rbt and 5 xbowmen left. Gave me 100p, him none. With 7 guys left i missed My ld and ran. Luckily i routed and soaked 2 more wounds without fleeing. But it could Have ended the other way just as well...

But then again, he managed to wound My steamtank as well with the rbt..

Tupinamba
29-02-2012, 21:19
It's true that being able to concentrate force at different locations on the battlefield is a tremendously useful ability, but I don't think that saves the RBT from a permanent place on the competitive DE general's storage cabinet. For one, you overlook the fact that Shades and RxB elves, in addition to delivering more firepower point for point, are harder to kill than an RBT and have battlefield uses other than shooting. You can't bunker a character in an RBT, nor can you charge into a flank with one or win a close combat - things that shades and RXB-elves are fully capable of. Your RBT is also incapable of standing and shooting and is a rare choice. Given the mobility of shades and the ability to move and fire with RXB's, the practical difference in range and flexibility between an RBT and shades or crossbowmen isn't that great. This is exacerbated by the need to deploy the bolt thrower more cautiously around enemy fliers and light troops and its inability to move from its initial deployment in any meaningful way. I can't think of a single situation where I'd rather have a bolt thrower than 6 shades.

Well, that last sentence is where I disagree, although I certainly think shades are good too. Although I donīt think that "mathhammer" is everything, letīs just see some comparisons.

6 shades, moving forward and shooting double shots against light armoured T3 infantry: 2 wounds. RBT: 2 wounds on long range, 2,66 on short range.
Against T3, 4+ save infantry: shades 1,34 wounds; RBT 1,66 long, 2,33 short
T4 heavy inf 3+ save (Chaos Warriors): shades: 0,66, RBT 1 long, 1,32 short
Heav Cav (t3, 2+ save): shades 0,66; RBT: 1 long, 1,32 short,
Monster T6, 4+ save: shades: 0,32, RBT single: 0,25 x d3 long, 0,33 x d3 short

So, generally better killing power for the RBT. And I consider 48īī way better than 34īī effective range. On a hill or a building, the RBTs cover basically the whole battlefield and can freely choose where to apply their force. The shades are not really able to switch the battlefield section they influence after deployment, as theyīd have to cross the battlefield in front the enemy line (assuming the opponent protects himself against infiltration) and in front of your own lines and charge arcs.

Of course, not having to move or once at 12 inches short range, the shades improve a lot, but we were comparing long range fire power after all. And yes, I realize they are 6 unarmoured t3 skirmished wounds against 2 T7 wounds. Hence the argument that RBTs have a different role and different advantage. Comparing to shades, they are less durable, less mobile, less able to harass enemy warmachines etc. But they are better capable of flexible force concentration and they threaten monsters and single characters over a far larger area.

As to having it all calculated how much they should cost, my whole point is that such calculations never take this other subtle advantages into account, but always stay just at rough killing power and wounds.

As to the comparison with canon and other warmachines, itīs true, but than, HE and DE donīt have other warmachines and, as snake 1311 pointed out, races pay extra for stuff that adress their specific weakeness too. For the specific role of artillery, that is, long range and flexible application of force on chosen battlefield sections, HE and DE donīt have other real or better equivalents (similar yes, equal, no).

Finally, the question about the rare slot. This only becomes relevant in a 2500 points list if I want to field more than 2 Hydras. Well, I donīt agree at all that competitive lists "have" to have more than 2 Hydras! And Hydras, as powerful and fun as they are, fill a completely different role in the army. Again, Iīm not saying that RBT are excellent "must haves", I only argue that they have their roles, particularly in more defensive lists, that rely on sepparating and weakening the enemy during his advance and counter attacking on selected sections. If the argument is that this kind of armies are "inefficient" compared with other possible builts and tactics, I can only speak from my own experience that this style can work very well.

kramplarv
01-03-2012, 00:53
I find boltthrowers quite scary. My monsters really like to have full wounds when they enter combat, not 2 or 3. Also, my warhounds would like to be alive and position themselves in angles before the enemy's regiments. :) My 16 warriors really wants to be at least 15 when combat starts etc.

BT are fine. I see no problems with them. Maybe that they are somewhat fragile. But a BT and a canon are on the same page in my book.

Hawthorne
01-03-2012, 02:05
I hope and believe that when High Elfs and Dark Elfs get updated for 8th edition (whenever that is) they will most likely rework their bolt throwers as most people suggest, either just rework their rules to make them better in some way or simply give a point decrease and possibly more crew.

I'm an O&G player and as more time passes I love the spear chukkas more and more. At first glance I just thought "why would I want a misfiring bolt thrower?" but then point cost is taken into account and realizing it is quite nice to fill an awkward number of points remaining try it out a few times and it never impresses me. But for it's very low cost it usually makes itself back and then some (even accounting for fled or dead).
I generally take 2, one for each side or just shove them between units. Since they are so cheap they don't have to kill much to get their worth and if the opponent gets them in CC then most likely my entire frontage has died...or they spent way too many flanking units killing a model that isn't worth much more than a single fanatic.
Overall, either by taking out a few ogres, softenning up a tough unit, or plinking a few wounds on a monster (even if they only hit once or twice per game) I've never thought that was a waste of points. (and from the consensus the O&G bolt thrower seems to be a great deal judging from this post so I'm not alone in my love)

kramplarv
01-03-2012, 03:15
I am quite wondrous of the "must make its point back by killing at least as many points as it cost"-idea. :) By using 35p of model to kill 35p of model, it has doubled it's points. As long as a model aint dead, it made it's points back since that is victory points denied to the opponent. So a 200pt model only needs to survive to take it's 200points back. If it kills for 200pts, it made double up. :)

But, the most important for me is not using my warmachines to kill stuff to make "their points back". For me they are all in for support. Like a cannon for example. I have a 300pts war altar, 1 wound left, which is threatened by 2 knights of chaos, then it is a better choice to shoot one of them dead so they wont kill my war altar, than to shoot at the half damaged shaggoth, somewhere else on the table. Despite the shaggoth costs 265+ and my canon 100. It is much better to save my 300pts war altar, by killing 40pts knight, then i can use my war altar to heal me, and next round shoot down that Shaggoth.

same principle goes for all war machines. They are supporters. I would gladly sacrifice 2 RBT if that meant i shot down the black orcs to 24 isntead of 25, so they would not have steadfast against my 24 white lions.

Hawthorne
01-03-2012, 03:36
I am quite wondrous of the "must make its point back by killing at least as many points as it cost"-idea. :) By using 35p of model to kill 35p of model, it has doubled it's points. As long as a model aint dead, it made it's points back since that is victory points denied to the opponent. So a 200pt model only needs to survive to take it's 200points back. If it kills for 200pts, it made double up. :)

But, the most important for me is not using my warmachines to kill stuff to make "their points back". For me they are all in for support. Like a cannon for example. I have a 300pts war altar, 1 wound left, which is threatened by 2 knights of chaos, then it is a better choice to shoot one of them dead so they wont kill my war altar, than to shoot at the half damaged shaggoth, somewhere else on the table. Despite the shaggoth costs 265+ and my canon 100. It is much better to save my 300pts war altar, by killing 40pts knight, then i can use my war altar to heal me, and next round shoot down that Shaggoth.

same principle goes for all war machines. They are supporters. I would gladly sacrifice 2 RBT if that meant i shot down the black orcs to 24 isntead of 25, so they would not have steadfast against my 24 white lions.

I completely agree that it isn't as simple as making points back etc. I was just using that because it's a simple measure. Generally I measure the success of my bolt thrower based on if it dies, if it does any damage that makes a difference and/or if the opponent dedicates more effort to kill it than it deserves.

samw
01-03-2012, 06:11
.

Imo Orcs and Goblins, Ogres, Bretonnians, WoC, are all armies that should not outclass elves on war machine firepower, yet currently they all do, and some by a large margin.



I'm sorry but which phase should they outclass elves in? Because if it's combat, I'm perfectly willing to give you 80pt bolt-throwers in return for revoking Speed of Asuryan and Eternal Hatred.

Trains_Get_Robbed
01-03-2012, 07:16
The range was a benefit I wasn't even including in my calculations. Your perception of its importance only adds to the idea thats its cost should be higher than the equivalent.
The problem with your toughness calculations is that the BT keeps firing at full capacity even after it has been wounded, unlike ranked units. Not to mention you have picked the toughest-per-point unit out of the 3. 12 S3(4) shots will cause 4(6) wounds on thunderers (56-84pts) and 4(7) wounds on outriders (84-127pts (wiped)).

If a unit entry is appropriate for its cost, but simply outshined by other units it doesn't mean that the unit should receive a cost cut for the lulz, it means internal balance should be addressed. In the case of Dark Elves, pretty much everything which gets used regularly is undercosted. With High Elves, who are far from top tier largely due to crappy core and comparisons to DE, the White Lions are an absolute steal.

I agree with the suggestion for an extra wound, but the radical cost cuts, and especially battery purchases are horrible suggestions. At the moment a HE can take 6 BTs, maxing out his rare allowance and missing out on OP eagles (bad decision). If the RBTs drop in cost and become very cost-effective, there is no opportunity cost in using up the rare slots (another big plus for the BT by the way) and no reason not to max them. If they become 60 points like some of the more extreme suggestions here, AND come in batteries, then I can see 10 BTs becoming a staple. How is that good for the army? HE already have amazing magical pressure; if they get amazing cost-effective heavy shooting the most viable build becomes sitting back and pewpewpewing everything to death.

The fact that elves of both varieties have NO access to heavy shooting isn't a reason for the BT to be cheap; its a reason for it to be available at a premium - the same way the dwarfs pay more for a gyrocopter (movement. swiftstrider), Brets pay more for Men at arms and reliquae (infantry), WoC were SUPPOSED to be paying more for shooting (but then the hellcannon got buffed in 4-5 different ways in the transition to 8th), etc etc.


I only semi-agree with this.

First off, RBTs in their current incarnation are point heavily costed. As I have mentioned before, they lack any ulterior uses outside of simply failing to provide missile interdiction and also fail to even force deployment priority upon your opponent.

For a 100 points I can get 2 Great Eagles, 7 Elite troop, a Chariot, or just cast my many magic 'answers' like pit or dwellers etc. . . and save the points. Of the aforementioned options, all are better than a RBT in points/damage output as well as (and sometimes more importantly like with the Eagles) versatility in movement and tactical utility. Even if RBTs were 75 points in their current incarnation you fail to see them in truly competitive builds in both comp and unccomp. Why take something thats inferior at doing its only few only purposes and take a gamble when you take a sure fire thing in better, more competitive options ie; W.Ls, 2 G.E, bolstering your P.G unit and kitting magic items etc. . .

As you recognize, H.E and D.E already have some shooting aspects that provide 'buffer' particularly large buffer zones (34 and 35 in') that for the -H.E anyways- are terribly weak. This weakness in is offset by a hyper-meta game that focuses on heavy magic buffs to make elves superior WoC in close combat.

Where you see the RBT as a option that should be at a 'premium', I present a very similar counter argument. How can RBTs be at a 'premium' if no one takes them? Whether a item is scarce or not doesn't depend on -in this case- its army role. The (market drives the demand, or in this case) army weakness's and holes drive the need for RBTs, and until they provide a niche that elf players alike can't currently get anywhere else, or fullfills a role for a cheaper tactical margin, it will never be in a 'premium' role.

Edit:


I'm sorry but which phase should they outclass elves in? Because if it's combat, I'm perfectly willing to give you 80pt bolt-throwers in return for revoking Speed of Asuryan and Eternal Hatred.


Yes, because taking the only rule that makes elves even playable is silky smooth. :rolleyes: Its the combination of those rules with magic support which makes them 'broke' or seemingly so to the community. If you throw waves of bodies like those very N.G you're (inferring anyway) talking about with a H.W/S (or slaves) they would take around similar wounds, and perform the same duty as if the elves didn't have any 'rerolls' in the first place.

Snake1311
01-03-2012, 10:51
Trains, I get the argument that there is no point having a premium on a unit if no one is willing to take it. However, I'm not sure you are drawing the right conclusions.

What if the reason no one takes RBTs is that other, must-have units are stepping on its toes? Lets say white lions lose a point of S (along with a point decrease) - they are a stubborn unit with defensive cloaks, and the designers decide they should be able to do everything. Suddenly, they are S5 instead of S6, and can't evaporate cavalry with ASF as they do now - nevermind stand up to monsters. The BT at its current points might not be that bad of a deal anymore, as it will be more important to soften up such units before combat.

You other argument - that no one uses them - is also invalid, as I have pointed out in the previous post. Yes, they are not present in every army, I'd say they see a use of 20-30%; however that is still much more than units in other armies designed to cover a weakness (i.e. overpriced by design). Do you think the gyrocopter sees 20% use in competitive games? I've never even seen men at arms at a tournament, and haven't seen the grail relique full stop, even in friendlies.

HE have great movement, magic, and combat; they are meant to be bad at shooting, regardless of having bowmen in their core (which I suspect are overpriced for exactly those reasons). If you want a shooting-heavy unit which might be worth 80 pts in other armies (and its probabaly worth a little more even in the context of gunline experts, as I demonstrated earlier), then you pay a slight premium for gaining competence in a phase you shouldn't really be having any presence in.

Units like the RBT, which is present in two armies and sees some use in both should be what other point costs are balanced around, and not vice versa. They should definitely have an extra wound (so they don't die to arrow spam as easily), but thats about it. With an extra wound and asf they can actually bounce off some warmachine hunters as well.

Valnir
01-03-2012, 11:42
HE have great movement, magic, and combat; they are meant to be bad at shooting,

The italics part is so far from the truth. If they were suppose to be bad at shooting why is the race defined with BS4 as basic?
They only became bad at ranged with the transition from 7th to 8th where BS does not keep up with templates. In 7th BS shooting was much more effective since most units where small enough that a few shots from longbows could have an impact on a units fighting capabilities.

Your arguments are very biased from what it seems as you say that out of a comp'd Tournament that because 1 player took RBTs and spammed them that they are worth their points. That tatic was such a one trick pony in that anybody with a few skirmishers or fast Calvary would be swooping up those easy VPs. If they were truly worth their point value you'd see them more often in competive play, but because their such a huge investment for a probably low return ( I'm not saying they have to make their points back to be worth it) but they have such a shallow damage return to say a cannon, for the most part they are not worth the investment

Glemigobles
01-03-2012, 11:44
Almost everything in 8th has its purpose. BT are ment to kill CAV and MI. e.g. in O&G book there is really nothing as effective against minos (ogres and such) as a battery of chukkas (maybe except foot of gork). If you want to kill infatry take cannons or stone throwers. We - O&G players - can take RL to smash low AS hordes, DD to hurt high AS elites and SC to chase away MI. For me it's that simple. They definitely have a use in the game.

The Low King
01-03-2012, 11:51
The italics part is so far from the truth. If they were suppose to be bad at shooting why is the race defined with BS4 as basic?
They only became bad at ranged with the transition from 7th to 8th where BS does not keep up with templates. In 7th BS shooting was much more effective since most units where small enough that a few shots from longbows could have an impact on a units fighting capabilities.

What difference does BS4 make? all it means is that they are elves, all of whome have BS and WS 4+.

Dwarfs and empire are supposed to be much better at shooting that high elves and we dont have BS4 guys.

Valnir
01-03-2012, 12:49
What difference does BS4 make? all it means is that they are elves, all of whome have BS and WS 4+.

Dwarfs and empire are supposed to be much better at shooting that high elves and we dont have BS4 guys.

What do you think Ballistic Skill means? Are you saying that troops with high strength and Weapon skill are not good fighters? Troops with high movement skill are not mobile? Dwarfs and empire are not suppose to be better shooters they just have accesses to powerful warmachines this edition.

As I said in the last part of my previous post with the transition from 7th^8th and how templates changed, the flow of how ranged combat worked changed. Did you not notice that your warmachines lack the fundamental aspect of rolling a D6 that included modifers? I`m not saying BS ranged became obsolete but just got horribly overshadowed by templates. This is part of the reason why many people feel the bolt throwers are just not worth it. While they are not useless, they do lack the luster to make them justifiable choices.
As Glemigobles pointed out, bolt throwers do have a purpose in his army, they fill a role, but they also have access to everything under the sun and don`t pay a premium for them. The current price for a bolt thrower is drastically to high for most people to justify bringing them. If they were at the very least dropped down to a reasonable price they would see a lot more action, but until the new book comes out most players will just leave them at home

Omnichron
01-03-2012, 15:01
It's mostly the HE and DE ones that seems "useless". Although, they are surely not useless, they are clearly overpriced. If they cost 75-80 and had 3 crew (= wounds), they would be something worth using imo.

cptcosmic
01-03-2012, 15:05
I agree that bolt throwser are lacking compared to point and fire artillery which can decimade whole units or monsters with a single shot and are dead accurate. I play HE and still take them with me but only because they fit my army theme :) they dont blow up like cannons but they hit very unreliable and are killed easily. they are basically 100 points distractions that are easily taken of the board. I would like to see a small point drop and BS5 or 3 wounds for them, they are after all a specialized high trained rare selection with a very narrow niche role (which cannons can fill but better)

Snake1311
01-03-2012, 15:24
What do you think Ballistic Skill means? Are you saying that troops with high strength and Weapon skill are not good fighters? Troops with high movement skill are not mobile? Dwarfs and empire are not suppose to be better shooters they just have accesses to powerful warmachines this edition.


BS is your to hit roll, which is far less important than the Strength of the shot. HE are bad at shooting, because all they've got is longbows, and the soldiers who wield them pay a rather high cost for them too.

Thats why when you get something that can actually be a threat at range, you're gonna pay more. And whether you are actually paying more is up for debate, as my calculations vs gunpowder troops show.

My arguments are hardly biased. From a personal perspective, I don't really give a crap whether a HE opponent has 60 points more to spend on his army because his BTs get dropped by 20 pts each - in the ETC the entire army gets 100 extra points for their list anyway. Neither am I saying that HE power level is fine at the moment - there are fundamental flaws with the army design, revolving around compensating for overpriced troops (ASF counter-intuitively completely overriding GWs, Book of Hoeth allowing you to IF without drawbacks). What I'm saying is that the BT isn't the problem with the army, and is fine at its current cost if it gets an extra wound.

And yes, I'm quoting tournament data as support for my decision. It comes from the most competitive warhammer tournament in the world. Where is your data that BTs don't get used at high levels?

Petey
01-03-2012, 16:50
BS is your to hit roll, which is far less important than the Strength of the shot. HE are bad at shooting, because all they've got is longbows, and the soldiers who wield them pay a rather high cost for them too.

Thats why when you get something that can actually be a threat at range, you're gonna pay more. And whether you are actually paying more is up for debate, as my calculations vs gunpowder troops show.

My arguments are hardly biased. From a personal perspective, I don't really give a crap whether a HE opponent has 60 points more to spend on his army because his BTs get dropped by 20 pts each - in the ETC the entire army gets 100 extra points for their list anyway. Neither am I saying that HE power level is fine at the moment - there are fundamental flaws with the army design, revolving around compensating for overpriced troops (ASF counter-intuitively completely overriding GWs, Book of Hoeth allowing you to IF without drawbacks). What I'm saying is that the BT isn't the problem with the army, and is fine at its current cost if it gets an extra wound.

And yes, I'm quoting tournament data as support for my decision. It comes from the most competitive warhammer tournament in the world. Where is your data that BTs don't get used at high levels?

I agree with some of your points, but not all.

But to comment on one specific point, the ETC granting 100 points to High elves doesnt make it good design or a fair decision. Not saying it's a bad decision either, but again, this is a consensus of players, all with their own biases as well, therefor their decision to do that is probably a result of arguments and compromise. There will probably be people who don't agree with that ruling (on both sides of the argument). So I think they 're really irrelevant for the question at hand.
That question, from the OP, are bolt throwers useless. The answer seems to be "there's better things to spend your points on"

The Low King
01-03-2012, 19:04
What do you think Ballistic Skill means? Are you saying that troops with high strength and Weapon skill are not good fighters? Troops with high movement skill are not mobile? Dwarfs and empire are not suppose to be better shooters they just have accesses to powerful warmachines this edition.


WS means they are the most skilled fighters, not that they are the strongest in combat.

Similarly with BS.
The Post i was replying to was saying 'why are they BS4 if they arnt supposed to have strong shooting'

So i was replying.

All it means is they are skilled at shooting. It does not mean they should have a strong shooting phase.

Phazael
01-03-2012, 20:00
Bolt Throwers are worth taking in small numbers in certain armies. I think a Single Reapeater in any elf army is a good investment to address certain unique threats, like chaffe units, monsters, and solo wizards. A pair of them in a greenskin army is a very sound choice for monster hunting, as well. Beyond that, they are kind of a victim of the new edition metagame.

Snake1311
01-03-2012, 20:16
Bolt Throwers are worth taking in small numbers in certain armies. I think a Single Reapeater in any elf army is a good investment to address certain unique threats, like chaffe units, monsters, and solo wizards. A pair of them in a greenskin army is a very sound choice for monster hunting, as well. Beyond that, they are kind of a victim of the new edition metagame.

I'm pretty sure you just listed all but the dwarf BT in there. And I'd take the dwarf BT if WM weren't capped everywhere.

kramplarv
01-03-2012, 23:58
I do agree on above since my Chaos warriors one day hapened to find themselves with T2 against S4 multishot =/

Phazael
02-03-2012, 00:07
I'm pretty sure you just listed all but the dwarf BT in there. And I'd take the dwarf BT if WM weren't capped everywhere.

There are other armies with weapons that work like bolt throwers, but essentially yes. And even in an uncapped environment, why would a dwarf player ever take a bolt thrower when even an unruned cannon is so much better? Elves and Orc and Goblin armies are in the unique situation of not having a cannon.

Glemigobles
02-03-2012, 08:42
There are other armies with weapons that work like bolt throwers, but essentially yes. And even in an uncapped environment, why would a dwarf player ever take a bolt thrower when even an unruned cannon is so much better? Elves and Orc and Goblin armies are in the unique situation of not having a cannon.

Well TBH Empire and Dwarves (recently Ogres) are in the unique situation of having cannons :shifty:

Glen_Savet
02-03-2012, 09:18
Lizards have a bolt thrower, but I don't think I've ever seen someone use it. Not being able to march and fire it, and having it be such a huge target for enemy ranged attacks makes it a poor choice when compared to chameleons.

Snake1311
02-03-2012, 09:28
Is that the thing thats mounted on a stegadon? Its not really a 'proper' BT since its more of an upgrade to the Steg; same applies to the Ogre Kingdoms upgrade.

As to why I'd take a BT over an unruned cannon - because its half price, and I'd be putting it in a position where it can be picked off easily. The point of it is distraction and potential for damage for as cheap as possible, rather than reliable output. I do this with one of my cannons on occasion, but losing 125 points to whatever chooses to go beat it up can be painful.

N1AK
02-03-2012, 09:39
In general players want warmachines (Cannons and Stone throwers) toning down because the current rules make monsters pretty useless, with a couple of exceptions.

Nope. Read the thred about artillery a few pages back, it was very equal sided in terms of numbers, losts of players dont want changes and presented very good arguments.


Sorry, my wording must have been unclear. I meant that the reason why, the players who do want them toning down, want them toning down is generally to do with the meta-game effect on mounts/monsters. I don't know what the balance is of players on either side of the fence. My own position, as a Dwarf player, is that too many of the new monsters/mounts never see the table and artillery is a major reason for that. That and character sniping with WM being so effective/accurate always seemed like a rule flaw to me.

cptcosmic
02-03-2012, 11:34
Is that the thing thats mounted on a stegadon? Its not really a 'proper' BT since its more of an upgrade to the Steg; same applies to the Ogre Kingdoms upgrade.

As to why I'd take a BT over an unruned cannon - because its half price, and I'd be putting it in a position where it can be picked off easily. The point of it is distraction and potential for damage for as cheap as possible, rather than reliable output. I do this with one of my cannons on occasion, but losing 125 points to whatever chooses to go beat it up can be painful.
DE & HE BT are not really cheap and only have 2 wounds. they cost as much as a cannon with less wounds, less S and less dmg; so this argument does not work here. if HE & DE had BT with the same cost efficiency like Goblins I would take several of them instantly without hesitation.

Von Wibble
02-03-2012, 19:06
I'm sorry but which phase should they outclass elves in? Because if it's combat, I'm perfectly willing to give you 80pt bolt-throwers in return for revoking Speed of Asuryan and Eternal Hatred.

Wait a minute - you actually think a) Warriors of chaos should outshoot high elves and b) Chaos warriors can't beat spearmen? I thought April fools day was 1st April, not 1st March ;)

Besides which, 80 points is still too much. Imo they are worth 70 on current rules (but should be restricted so you can't spam them).

Snake1311
03-03-2012, 01:24
DE & HE BT are not really cheap and only have 2 wounds. they cost as much as a cannon with less wounds, less S and less dmg; so this argument does not work here. if HE & DE had BT with the same cost efficiency like Goblins I would take several of them instantly without hesitation.

Oh dear lord stop comparing the RBTs to a cannon they have a completely different function.

If HE had a BT, which was just a BT, at 50-55 pts (because thats how much it costs compared to dwarfs (elves have + BS) and gobbos (+1 BS, no misfires), would you take it? Rare slot, and gets taken instead of RBTs.

More importantly, if abovementioned 50pt BT could be upgraded to a RBT worth 70pts (as many of you are suggesting), woudn't that be an absolute no-brainer in every scenario ever?

The bearded one
03-03-2012, 01:52
I'd love building an army of high elves ( * spit * ) with 4 or so RBTs, pincushioning an enemy unit with 24 shots in a phase. Against your average T3 5+ unit that'd be... about 11 kills :)

but then I'd just love to do a high elf army ( * spit * ) themed around the citizen soldiery, so just archers, spearelves, seaguard, silverhelms and RBTs. The option to poor out a decent number of shots with good accuracy and range and decent strength, while being able to switch to a regular shot, makes me like the RBT quite a lot. I'm a fan. They're a bit expensive and fragile, sure, but I'm not really boggled by the price. There are things way more overcosted than RBTs.

Von Wibble
03-03-2012, 13:48
Oh dear lord stop comparing the RBTs to a cannon they have a completely different function.

If HE had a BT, which was just a BT, at 50-55 pts (because thats how much it costs compared to dwarfs (elves have + BS) and gobbos (+1 BS, no misfires), would you take it? Rare slot, and gets taken instead of RBTs.

More importantly, if abovementioned 50pt BT could be upgraded to a RBT worth 70pts (as many of you are suggesting), woudn't that be an absolute no-brainer in every scenario ever?

Firstly, no they don't have a different function. Cannons job is to kill monsters. Bolt throwers job is to kill monsters. Unless you actually think 6 s4 shots provides suitable infantry killing power to consider this to be its role (in which case compare it to an organ gun, mortar, trebuchet, hellcannon, grudge thrower, even a helblaster, in fact, any machine other than a cannon. Actually, I think cannon probably kill more infantry than bolt throwers currently, even when targetting monsters).

Secondly. at 50 points per machine and no multishot yes I'd take it. Paying 50 for something that can deter monsters is worth it. However, I would consider it slightly overpriced. A dwarf bolt thrower with engineer is 60 and has the same BS as the HE one. It also gets +1 wound (worth 10 on its own I'd say), +2 crew members (improtant in combat as 5 man harpy units and eagles then lose to it), +1 T in combat, and access to runes. And its a special choice not a rare. I think 40 would be the right price for a high elf bolt thrower with 2 crew in rare, don't mind paying 10 more points as I'll accept it provides something the army needs.

Therefore in my mind the upgrade would not be a no brainer since it should be 30 points - practically doubling the cost! This, just to give the option of a paltry 6 S4 shots instead (and high elves do not lack low S firepower).

The Bearded One - I'd love to do that kind of army as well. However, with current rules, I'd say at 2500 its like giving the opponent a 500 point bonus unless you go for magic to back it up.

yabbadabba
03-03-2012, 13:55
I would have thought the role for RBTs is to reduce ranks to allow HE units a better advantage vs numbers in combat? 6xS4 shots sounds like whittling a unit to me. You can scare a monster as you can wound anything on a 6+, but a 100 pts per model that is a bit steep.

I'd drop the points a little or increase the crew numbers (especially as wounds = numbers of crew now), then bring in the old 2 shot system
either 1 x normal bolt thrower of 4x S4, AP.

Snake1311
03-03-2012, 14:01
Firstly, no they don't have a different function. Cannons job is to kill monsters. Bolt throwers job is to kill monsters.

There was a very comprehensive analysis spread around the interwebz about when its better to use multishot, and when its better to use the bolt. The verdict was that you will almost always be multishotting.

Lets even look at monsters (and high T in general) as a target, like the HPA (i'll ignore to hit and regen because they are the same for both) - a hit from a BT will wound 2/3rds of the time, dealing d3 wounds so 4/3 wounds on average. 6 hits from a multishit will cause 2 wounds - round to the multishot. Against a T6 monster like the giant, a hit from the BT will wound 1/6 the time, d3 wounds - so 2 average; the multishot will only wound once - round to the BT. Against T7 warmachines, a BT will do 2/3rds of a wound; the multishot will do a full one - round to multishot. Against T8/T10 spihnxes or stanks, the BT does 1/6th of a wound, ignoring armour; the multishot will do 1 at -2, so 1 against the sphinx and 1/3 against the stank. Round to multishot, once again.

Against everything else, multishot is better, unless cavalry have presented you with a flank.

All your points after that were well argumented, but based on the wrong premise. If its any consolation, I agree that HE should have basic BTs available in their list at a lower cost.

Snake1311
03-03-2012, 14:05
I'd drop the points a little or increase the crew numbers (especially as wounds = numbers of crew now), then bring in the old 2 shot system
either 1 x normal bolt thrower of 4x S4, AP.

At the current points, that is 12.5 points per 48", BS4 S4 ap shot, outperforming every handgun unit in the game by miles, in an army thats not supposed to be able to do that. Doesn't that strike you as both out of place and flat out overpowered? I mean, they can take 6 of them, even at the current cost.

2 shot system, 1 bolt or 3 s4 shots, getting rid of the AP. Thats more how that could work - so the bolts are the primary function, and the multishot is nerfed overall so its a secondary situational function like grapeshotting. That would still be a little too good at the current points if it gets 3 wounds.

yabbadabba
03-03-2012, 14:09
At the current points, that is 12.5 points per 48", BS4 S4 ap shot, outperforming every handgun unit in the game by miles, in an army thats not supposed to be able to do that. Doesn't that strike you as both out of place and flat out overpowered? I mean, they can take 6 of them, even at the current cost.

2 shot system, 1 bolt or 3 s4 shots, getting rid of the AP. Thats more how that could work - so the bolts are the primary function, and the multishot is nerfed overall so its a secondary situational function like grapeshotting. That would still be a little too good at the current points if it gets 3 wounds.I thought RBTs were 100 points each?

Snake1311
03-03-2012, 14:26
Isn't 2 shot system either 1 bolt or X shots, twice per phase? so 8 shots max under your suggestion?

yabbadabba
03-03-2012, 14:32
Isn't 2 shot system either 1 bolt or X shots, twice per phase? so 8 shots max under your suggestion?No.
I thought that 100pts is too much for their effect, so a reduction, extra crew and either a 1 x normal bolt shot OR 4 x S4 AP (player choice) would be a fairer and more useful structure.

yabbadabba
03-03-2012, 14:33
Isn't 2 shot system either 1 bolt or X shots, twice per phase? so 8 shots max under your suggestion?No.
I thought that 100pts is too much for their effect, so a reduction, extra crew and either a 1 x normal bolt shot OR 4 x S4 AP (player choice) would be a fairer and more useful structure.

thrawn
03-03-2012, 15:15
i have not taken a bolt thrower for my HE army in 2 years.

they are useless, way not worth the points.

would like to see them re-worked in some wat.

The bearded one
03-03-2012, 15:22
And its a special choice not a rare.

I'm going to ignore this argument when it comes to high elves, as due to their "elite army" special rule, they can take 4 of each rare choice.


The Bearded One - I'd love to do that kind of army as well. However, with current rules, I'd say at 2500 its like giving the opponent a 500 point bonus unless you go for magic to back it up.

Certainly with magic :) . Imagine 50 lothern seaguard boosted with flaming sword of rhuin.. that's 20 shots of stand&shoot (35 volleyfire) with +1 to wound, followed by 50 attacks with rerolls to hit and +1 to wound!

gigidi..

The Low King
03-03-2012, 15:32
If you made dwarf bolt throwers (with engineer) 50 points i would take them in every list. Im already leaning to them over cannons in my armies because they give me more options.

I also dont feel that the combat power of the crew in a warmachine should be factored into the cost. Sure, i get those epic moments when my Grudgethrower crew finishes off that ghorger or something but tactically you have to assume that one a warmachine gets into combat it is gone. Whether that is dead or just tied up for a few vital turns its still haveing the same impact on the game. Its purpose is shooting.

40 points for a BS4 bolt thrower would be really good, 4 of them for less than the price of a hydra.....

With the multishot you need to compare it to other units with similar numbers of shots. 6 BS4, S4, AP, 48" range shots....thats got to be worth 10 points a shot at least.

The bearded one
03-03-2012, 15:34
well, for thunderers it costs 14 with 24" range.

yabbadabba
03-03-2012, 15:37
So have I got the points wrong then?

The Low King
03-03-2012, 16:42
Well, i guess it depends on what you want their primary use to be.

You can keep them as normal bolt throwers for 45-55 points...then the option of adding the 'multiple shot' ability for 30 points (for 6 shots)
Or you can basically make them an entirely new type of warmachine that fires 6 shots for 60-70 points...then the option of letting it fire one 'Bolt thrower shot' for 10-20 points.

The starting point is, as i said, to decide what you want the bolt throwers 'primary' purpose to be; high toughness/armour killing or adding valuable S4 shots to a low strength shooting phase.

Von Wibble
03-03-2012, 22:02
I'm going to ignore this argument when it comes to high elves, as due to their "elite army" special rule, they can take 4 of each rare choice.



Certainly with magic :) . Imagine 50 lothern seaguard boosted with flaming sword of rhuin.. that's 20 shots of stand&shoot (35 volleyfire) with +1 to wound, followed by 50 attacks with rerolls to hit and +1 to wound!

gigidi..

In fairness, when I consider a bolt thrower rewrite I am thinking in tandem with actually 1) removing the extra rare choices and 2) adding other rare units that actaully cost something and have a use beyond those of the great eagle (btw I do think eagles are brilliant, probably the best unit in the list!). Imo High elves shouldn't really have core special rare so much as core, auxilia, elite. The auxilia section would have silver helms, shadow warriors, chariots, RBTs, eagles, lotehrn sea guard, and be 0-2 units per core taken. Core would only have spearmen and archers but be at 20% not 25%, and elites would be 50% as currently. This by nature would cap RBTs and allow for a more flavourful list. But I digress.

And yes, if you pull of flaming sword (or withering, which is lets face it in the same lore as razor but much cheaper to cast) then it is very nasty!

The Low King - Not every army has a gorger, and not losing VPs for a war machine is important. A single great eagle for example beats most war machines, but not a dwarf one with an engineer. And 10 points per shot for multishot, fine, if it was on top of the snigle shot rather than instead of. Multishot may be more efficient (see below) but its not 10 points per shot more efficient.

Snake1311 - that's an interesting point about multishot usually beating single against monsters and you're right, that changes my mind somewhat (though the number of wounds is absolutely pitiful you have to add). Since imo the role should be monster killing, and the rbt should be pricy since high elves aren't about spam, I therefore suggest a considerable improvement of the single shot and keep price at 100pts (with 3 crew), with a slight nerf to multishot. How about

Single shot - S8, D3 wounds. Fairly reliable chance to wound but shouldn't kill anything too quickly. Dark elf one is S6 but anything wounded loses 1 toughness for the rest of the battle thanks to poisoned barbs.

Multishot - 1 shot per model in the front rank (ie rank facing the front arc of the RBT) to a maximum of 6. Keeps some utility (eg if the opponenet actually doesn't take monsters) but makes it all but useless against monsters.

Alternatively, if you want it to be a horde killer, for 100 points, I think it has to be multishot as above but 2 shots per model to a maximum of 12. Yes, thats very efficient compared to handgunners, but its about fair compared to non BS war machines designed to kill infantry.

sulla
04-03-2012, 00:05
Oh dear lord stop comparing the RBTs to a cannon they have a completely different function.


I would have thought the role for RBTs is to reduce ranks to allow HE units a better advantage vs numbers in combat? 6xS4 shots sounds like whittling a unit to me. You can scare a monster as you can wound anything on a 6+, but a 100 pts per model that is a bit steep.

.The main problem with the RBT is that is doesn't do either of it's jobs well.

As a multishot weapon for thinning out troops, it does about 2 wounds per turn which is totally lacking in the modern warhammer environment of 30-40 man units. Cannons can usually kill more rnf if they were to ever bother with such low return shooting.

As a monster shooter, it is also pretty woeful. Most of the new armybook monsters are t6 meaning even if you hit, you only wound half the time and then only do 2 wounds on average.

Even ignoring just how good cannons are for 100pts (they may well go up in price in the 8th edition books; noone knows), RBTs are both too expensive for what they do, and more importantly too poor at either of their chosen roles to ever be selected over other units.

I've played 4 BT in a goblin list before and they do not very much... but you pay peanuts for them so you don't really care. I would definately prefer an im;proved power level on RBTs over reducing their cost. Make them a serious investment, but worth it IMO.

Snake1311
04-03-2012, 01:35
The main problem with the RBT is that is doesn't do either of it's jobs well.

As a multishot weapon for thinning out troops, it does about 2 wounds per turn which is totally lacking in the modern warhammer environment of 30-40 man units. Cannons can usually kill more rnf if they were to ever bother with such low return shooting.

Even ignoring just how good cannons are for 100pts (they may well go up in price in the 8th edition books; noone knows), RBTs are both too expensive for what they do, and more importantly too poor at either of their chosen roles to ever be selected over other units.


It does its multishop job well enough. You're not meant to shoot it at the 40 man units, thats what you got bows for. You shoot it at cavalry or heavy infantry. Any model over 15ish points makes a worthy target.

I doubt cannons will increase in price by any significant degree. The only 8th ed cannon - the ironblaster - is pretty cheap considering its mounted an a chariot, has a nice bounce rule, and can move and fire. I do agree that BTs (not RBTs) don't do a lot of damage to monsters, but im not sure why everyone assumes thats their purpose. Only one of their rules - the d3 wounds - hints in that direction, and not by much. The other special rules - piercing ranks, ignore armour - define it as a cavalry, elite infantry and chariot hunter (the latter probably the main consideration behind the d3 wounds). It can soften mosnters, but thats about it.

Gorbad Ironclaw
04-03-2012, 10:48
It does its multishop job well enough. You're not meant to shoot it at the 40 man units, thats what you got bows for. You shoot it at cavalry or heavy infantry. Any model over 15ish points makes a worthy target.

It doesn't really do the multishot job very well, it got the firepower of 8 handgunner. And it's not really terribly dangerous to hard targets at all. Shooting at your standard T3 2+ save knight for instance is only likely to kill one a turn. Shooting it at a naked T4 model only kills about 2 model(assuming you are in short range), while shooting at a naked T3 model bumps it up to an impressive 3 models a turn. It just doesn't have enough raw firepower to really be that dangerous. The ideal target is high point cost, fragile small units, and you don't need a specialist piece of equipment to deal with those.

Snake1311
04-03-2012, 12:30
It doesn't really do the multishot job very well, it got the firepower of 8 handgunner.

No it doesn't, its essentially got +2 to hit over handgunners and a lot of other shooting-related benefits like 360 los and capacity for long-ranged shots. At 24" it has the same output (4 hits) as 12 handgunners, which cost 96 points.

Gorbad Ironclaw
04-03-2012, 17:50
I might have gotten the number of handgunners wrong. I was working from memory of when I last discussed this. It hardly matters, it's still not a very impressive warmachine. If you want to bring in additional benefits the handgunners are likely to be harder to kill and have twice the potential kills that the RBT does. They are also better able to perform other role than just shooting, being able to move around the battlefield much better, take up space, divert, etc. Obviously not why you brought them, but if the need arise they can do it. Ultimately though it boils down to the RBT simply not being all that killy. It does not have enough firepower to earn it's place when it's an expensive, static, fragile warmachine. Both the elf armies have access to other shooting that will do pretty much what the multishot option does (and for Dark Elves RXBs is much more valuable than the RBT could possibly hope to be). If it was still str 4, ignoring armour and penetrating ranks with each shot it would be great. But it's not. The only thing it really brings to the table than an Elf army don't already have is the str 6 bolt, but then we are already paying way over the market value for a single shot and it's still not that amazing. It can be dangerous to monsters, if you bring several. It can be deadly to hard targets like knights. But unless they give you a good target like a flank shot it is unlikely to cause serious damage. It doesn't mean that you can ignore it and be safe in the knowledge it will never do anything, just that odds are good it will be an annoyance rather than a serious threat. Unless of course the elf player have invested in multiple, and then his army is likely going to be looking rather thing for still not that much ranged killing power.

The RBT pays a lot of points for some supposed flexibility that at the end of the day isn't that great and pays for it in limited damage potential making it at best a mediocre warmachine, but in reality probably closer to one of the worst ones for the cost.

The bearded one
04-03-2012, 18:22
but in reality probably closer to one of the worst ones for the cost.

I've seen (significantly) worse.

theunwantedbeing
04-03-2012, 18:31
I've seen (significantly) worse.

And which war machine would that be?

The bearded one
04-03-2012, 18:42
If Snake and The Low King would please join me..

3..2..1..

* all together * the flame cannon.

The Low King
04-03-2012, 19:24
the flame cannon

knightime98
04-03-2012, 19:27
the flame cannon

yabbadabba
04-03-2012, 19:54
Flame Cannon
..
..
..
I could never resist a sing-a-long

knightime98
04-03-2012, 20:02
I'd add to the list, the Helblaster Volley Gun.

It has 3 times the chance to blow up everytime it is used. It has to roll to hit with the multi-shot penalty and long range. Add skirmish to that and you are now hitting on 7's. Best case scenario at short with no modifiers - a 5. Not effective or useful in my opinon. It is just as bad if not worse than the Flame Cannon.

On topic, the Bolt Throwers are primarily fielded for shooting monsters (imo) and this is where only a d3 wounds at the price of 100 points comes into play. A cannon is also 100 pts but does d6 wounds. However, that option is only available to 3 armies now (Ogres, Dwarves, and Empire). I don't think the Ogres needed it though. However, it is a bit expensive and breaks some cardinal rules (such as being a chariot, war machine, and being able to fire after moving, also being able to choose the best of 2 dice rolls). Not sure how GW came up with that scenario.

The bearded one
04-03-2012, 20:15
I find bolt throwers not really to be meant to kill monsters. They could put a wound or two on a tough monster (T6+) and might kill minor monsters (T5 stuff, like manticores, varghulfs, griffons etc. ), but are pretty good at skewering some elite infantry, cavalry, and larger things like chariots and monstrous infantry. So basically suited for targets a step down from what you generally use cannons for; big monsters.



I could never resist a sing-a-long

:D

Von Wibble
04-03-2012, 20:36
I'd add to the list, the Helblaster Volley Gun.

It has 3 times the chance to blow up everytime it is used. It has to roll to hit with the multi-shot penalty and long range. Add skirmish to that and you are now hitting on 7's. Best case scenario at short with no modifiers - a 5. Not effective or useful in my opinon. It is just as bad if not worse than the Flame Cannon.

On topic, the Bolt Throwers are primarily fielded for shooting monsters (imo) and this is where only a d3 wounds at the price of 100 points comes into play. A cannon is also 100 pts but does d6 wounds. However, that option is only available to 3 armies now (Ogres, Dwarves, and Empire). I don't think the Ogres needed it though. However, it is a bit expensive and breaks some cardinal rules (such as being a chariot, war machine, and being able to fire after moving, also being able to choose the best of 2 dice rolls). Not sure how GW came up with that scenario.

Stone throwers also do D6 wounds in the centre. Given the size of a monsters base its not that unilkely to hit.

Hopefully April 7th will see the helblaster become useable again.

Snake1311
04-03-2012, 22:49
I'd add to the list, the Helblaster Volley Gun.

It has 3 times the chance to blow up everytime it is used. It has to roll to hit with the multi-shot penalty and long range. Add skirmish to that and you are now hitting on 7's. Best case scenario at short with no modifiers - a 5. Not effective or useful in my opinon. It is just as bad if not worse than the Flame Cannon.

On topic, the Bolt Throwers are primarily fielded for shooting monsters (imo) and this is where only a d3 wounds at the price of 100 points comes into play. A cannon is also 100 pts but does d6 wounds. However, that option is only available to 3 armies now (Ogres, Dwarves, and Empire). I don't think the Ogres needed it though. However, it is a bit expensive and breaks some cardinal rules (such as being a chariot, war machine, and being able to fire after moving, also being able to choose the best of 2 dice rolls). Not sure how GW came up with that scenario.

I agree with the Helblaster, it seems like a piece of crap. It is however most definitely not worse than the

:no:Flame Cannon:no:

because unlike it it actually passes the ultimate retardation test: namely, if it was at half point cost, would you take it.


Have to disagree with your other points though. Not a single army which has BTs uses them to kill monsters - O&G have rock lobbas and use BTs as a distraction/harasser, Dwarfs have, well, everything , and again use them for pressure more than anything, HE and DE are better off using multiple shots as I demonstrated above. Lizards and Ogres can have them mounted on monsters, but that becomes a pretty different unit altogether.
The reason Ogres got a cannon is because regardless of looks, they are a glass cannon army (expensive as hell per wound) and have low initiate, meaning that fighting monsters in combat is not cost-effective in most scenarios as a plan A. The move-and-fire thing was likely done to allow the chariot to pivot on the spot and get 360 LoS more than anything else. The bounce roll is nice, but considering that the thing is meant to shoot a bunch of normal cannonballs simultaniously, its actually a very meek representation of its power.



I might have gotten the number of handgunners wrong. I was working from memory of when I last discussed this. It hardly matters, it's still not a very impressive warmachine. If you want to bring in additional benefits the handgunners are likely to be harder to kill and have twice the potential kills that the RBT does. They are also better able to perform other role than just shooting, being able to move around the battlefield much better, take up space, divert, etc

I suppose we differ in our definition of an impressive warmachine. The RBT has the same damage output as 96 points of handgunners, and for 4 extra points it gets the option to throw out a S6 bolt if you need it. Since I play an army where I have firepower in both infantry and warmachines, I can guarantee you that having this firepower in a warmachine is much better than having it on infantry blocks which could supposedly 'move around' (except they can't really because move or fire), 'take up space' (actually a drawback, and a big one at that), 'divert' (i'll give you this one, although its extremely rare that it comes into play from a move or fire unit).

But lets say that the benefits coming from the WM format - LoS and range - are part of the 'from core to rare' package. You get to match the firepower of gunpowder races in an army that only has bows/crossbows, without even paying a point premium. I guess its not 'impressive' in a sense that its not 'wow, must max out on those!', but its a pretty decent option. I think with 3 wounds the RBTs will be spot on in the middle between 'must take as many as I can' and 'never see play'.

^in a HE army. DE can take lifetaker for less than 1/3rd of the points.

Lord Dan
04-03-2012, 23:23
I take two bolt throwers at 3,000 points with my Dark Elves. It'd certainly be nice if they were cheaper, but I don't think they need a price reduction by half simply because my opponents now takes larger blocks of infantry.

They're fantastic at what they've always been fantastic at: gunning down knights (for those who still take them), fast cav, flying units, shooting enemy war machines, and more importantly for cutting off a rank or two so that my own units are more likely to be steadfast. In an edition where the magic phase is entirely unpredictable it's refreshing to have something I can rely on to not blow up at the exact moment I need it.

knightime98
05-03-2012, 19:04
Have to disagree with your other points though. Not a single army which has BTs uses them to kill monsters - O&G have rock lobbas and use BTs as a distraction/harasser, Dwarfs have, well, everything , and again use them for pressure more than anything, HE and DE are better off using multiple shots as I demonstrated above.

My point was that the BT shoots at the monsters perhaps in tandem in an attempt to off a monster over 2 shooting phases. If anything to place a few wounds on a beasty. A cannon is a much more suitable war machine for this task. However, the cannon is not available to most armies for which that can take a BT. Only the Dwarves can have the option between a BT and a Cannon. Ogres can weakly be argued with the harpoon monster/ Iron blaster but that's a bit of a stretch.

Petey
05-03-2012, 20:11
In opposition to all the Hellblaster hate.

I have always dreaded crossing the field if there was a Hellblaster on the other side, regardless of the current rules or not. It has been the greatest source of significant damage from any single source from any Empire list I've ever had to deal with.
Now, in all honesty, I don't play Empire; but as I've fought Empire players alot, I'll tell you that I fear the hellblaster more than anything else they field

knightime98
06-03-2012, 01:51
Petey, have you ever been hit by the Helstrom Rocket battery?

Large Template, S5 -2AS... That is the most devastating Empire war machine in the current book/rules.

The Helblaster VG has been super nerfed. I haven't fielded it at all in 7th or 8th edition. You're lucky to kill 4-5 guys with all 3 barrels. Giving you 3 times to blow up. Just utterly worthless now. I really don't understand Empire player fielding it or the Steam Tank.

As far as BT is concerned, the only upside to it is that it doesn't blow up (unless it is a OnG one...)... so...

Lord Dan
06-03-2012, 01:56
With an engineer helblasters aren't as bad, considering they're at +1 BS and have the opportunity to re-roll one of their barrels per the new rules for the Engineer in the FAQ.

The bearded one
06-03-2012, 03:29
Petey, have you ever been hit by the Helstrom Rocket battery?

Large Template, S5 -2AS... That is the most devastating Empire war machine in the current book/rules.

Inaccurate as hell though, and you really don't want it to misfire and send your own statetroops flying!

knightime98
06-03-2012, 04:00
In the 15-20 games or so of using it (using 2 a game in most cases), I've only went off center onto my own troops partially once.

I'm very apt to go out of my way to place the template on an over shot rather than an undershot where it can come back and hit me.
Each one usually hits it's target dead on, once a game. It wrecks horde troops into nothing flat. It's pure awesome. Now only if the Bolt Thrower could have the
same devastating effect....

Brotheroracle
06-03-2012, 04:36
\
Dark Elves are well priced - as they have access to so many nasty things that cheaper bolt throwers would just cause a headache!!



Bolt throwers that were worth taking would see a decrease in the number of hydras fielded. I own 3 Bolt throwers and only ever feel the need to have 1 in a list ever (only there for pot shots at dragons/larger monsters and the DE reaper is a very nice model) they just are not worth taking over an equal amount of RXBmen. If they were cheaper they would at least be good for anti fast cav duties.

the Witch kings regent
06-03-2012, 05:13
bolt throwers could use a 20 point reduction. at least the elven ones. As i play Dark elves i use two and they doe pretty well. no one goes after them unti they feal thier Bite. with a single Str6 shot that penetrates ranks and then 6 shots at Str4 Armor piercing at 100 points with a BS of 4. it all depends on the target. dont shoot a monster unless its the most pleasing target. heave armor soldiers are a better shot. you have to find thier nitch of action. hell a 10 point reduction is fine.

Trains_Get_Robbed
06-03-2012, 06:22
I still don't understand why we're talking in this thread. Its been identified by everyone (save for Snake -maybe Beardless?) that Bolt Throwers are outclassed by the ever-expensive more proficient special choices and magic tools in both elf books. B.T are not only outclassed, but don't even serve their purpose unless it's list catered toward them or its restricted due to the wackiest/severe of restrictions and, or meta calls.

Bolt Throwers are supposed to fulfill long range interdiction that can be used to whittle down expensive Cav. or Elite infantry blocks (neither of which are taken in droves any more) and or monster hunt. For both the former and the latter a Sac Dagger Lvl 4 and BoH/Teclis caster with Pit, Dwellers or template/snipe spell can just erase at range (range is key here) whatever problem card their opponent presents to them, but more reliably and cheaply.

However, if those scarey knights or monsters reach combat. . . oh no!. . . Not. Elven elite infantry with their high In. whether with or without buffs can make mincemeat of any other low In. monster in game, and in most cased handle enemy elite infantry or knights assuming there aren't more than 30 or 40 (in which case, you can use other means to eliminate numbers and or increase your own numbers, stats, etc. . .).

Informed competitive elf players take Bolt Throwers when they're playing; 3,000, 5,000, 7,000 point games and are just trying to fill the left over points with models. Even if Bolt Throwers were 75 points like I have aforementioned in prior posts; B.Ts would still would not see competitive play as their downsides and overall fail in utility outweigh two-fingers full of shots that may kill two models a turn.

Petey
06-03-2012, 07:23
Petey, have you ever been hit by the Helstrom Rocket battery?

Large Template, S5 -2AS... That is the most devastating Empire war machine in the current book/rules.

The Helblaster VG has been super nerfed. I haven't fielded it at all in 7th or 8th edition. You're lucky to kill 4-5 guys with all 3 barrels. Giving you 3 times to blow up. Just utterly worthless now. I really don't understand Empire player fielding it or the Steam Tank.

As far as BT is concerned, the only upside to it is that it doesn't blow up (unless it is a OnG one...)... so...

7th yes, 8th no. From what I remember it should not have changed much from 7 to 8 except for the 1 less turn of shooting (though warmachines are more insulated against that). The Helblaster on average gets 21 attacks, which usually results in 10.5 hits which turn my knights into 5 corpses. It's not a great choice against infantry, but against hard high armor targets it's mean.

As to the rokkit battery, I've yet to see it on the table played against me (though I can see how it improved during 8th).

I play Bretonnia, High Elves, Dark Elves, VC, Gobbo wolf rider hordes, and up until recently owned dwarfs and ogres. I had a lot of stuff that hates to see the hellblaster, your mileage may vary.

The Low King
06-03-2012, 08:15
I still don't understand why we're talking in this thread. Its been identified by everyone (save for Snake -maybe Beardless?) that Bolt Throwers are outclassed by the ever-expensive more proficient special choices and magic tools in both elf books. B.T are not only outclassed, but don't even serve their purpose unless it's list catered toward them or its restricted due to the wackiest/severe of restrictions and, or meta calls..

No it hasnt.

I would agree that they probably need a points drop but so far the by far the better aguments have been provided by Snake.

yabbadabba
06-03-2012, 08:17
I still find the Helblaster useful.
I don't find the cannon accurate.
I find the mortar essential but not consistent.

But there again my games look nothing like math-hammer.

Trains_Get_Robbed
06-03-2012, 09:20
No it hasnt.

I would agree that they probably need a points drop but so far the by far the better aguments have been provided by Snake.

Yes, because not understanding Bolt Throwers in the Elf book's predominately and posting more makes for a better argument. :rolleyes:

Everything so far I have read from Snake is either trying to justify the 'use' of B.Ts by comparing them to Handguns, or by providing instances of which the B.T can be a multi-use tool. As I have done so earlier, and as others have argued, Bolt Throwers are not only bad at killing monsters (Snake says they're not meant for that), but also terrible as a heavy-armor interdiction threat (Snake says they're meant for this, but if you only have roughly two-three turns to shot 12-18 shots and hit with half, and wound with half, whatever elite unit that was the target stood up to it, especially if its infantry).

It can kill up to two bodies per turn perhaps, and thats if you're lucky. You only receive six shots, which is a smaller set value that will return less benefits per buff/hex due to its lowered set casualty output. If I'm taking a Bolt Thrower, why wouldn't a H.E or D.E player for that matter take archers or crossbows? Both can move and shoot, and although they aren't S4 (woop-dee-doo) most of the same targets that both the B.Ts and archers/crossbows are going after won't care about a -2 their armor save due to Snake's prior point. B.Ts are meant for elite troops, not only should I shoot them, but if they those elite troops can be redirected even better lets use archers and crossbows then.

You can't compare Archers and Crossbows together? Your counter-arguement is? Really? Why not? As a H.E player the only targets my Archers shoot are small elite units -despite their A.S- and monsters anyway. They need 6's to wound, but through saturation you can eventually roll up a few wounds. Currently, B.Ts cannot be effectively taken in saturation, and do not have enough firepower with each Bolt Thrower volley to provide as such. With other special infantry units and magic being able to fill the role more consistently, and more cheaply, why are you still taking B.T's?

As I have said -which hasn't been discussed yet- I wouldn't take Bolt Throwers even if they received one more wound, and were lowered 25 points. Even then the saturation wouldn't outweigh the additional benefits of; cheapness and efficiency of magic, utility shooting units like ten archers and or special infantry of both the elven races. Once you get to 40-60 then we can start talking. Hell, if you re-did the shooting to make it 2D6+1 shots at S4, with three crew, and B.S 5. . . then you maybe able to justify 100 points.

The bearded one
06-03-2012, 12:22
I find them quite decent for the points, as it is comparable to a similar number of points worth of handgunners or thunderers. But here's the invoncenient truth: Ballistic skill bases shooting simply isn't that good anymore, in anyway way shape or form, unless the ballistic skill is extremely high or the shots have a special rule like poison.



I don't find the cannon accurate

When firing at a monster or something with a similar sized base, try aiming the initial point 10" in front of the back of the base of your target. That wat even if you roll 10 on the initial roll, you can't overshoot as you will land on the back of the base, and you will need to roll very low on both rolls to undershoot.

The Low King
06-03-2012, 12:57
Yes, because not understanding Bolt Throwers in the Elf book's predominately and posting more makes for a better argument. :rolleyes:.

He makes points and supports them with mathhammer....you make points and....well, lets see how much evidence you provide here.


Everything so far I have read from Snake is either trying to justify the 'use' of B.Ts by comparing them to Handguns, or by providing instances of which the B.T can be a multi-use tool. As I have done so earlier, and as others have argued, Bolt Throwers are not only bad at killing monsters (Snake says they're not meant for that), but also terrible as a heavy-armor interdiction threat (Snake says they're meant for this, but if you only have roughly two-three turns to shot 12-18 shots and hit with half, and wound with half, whatever elite unit that was the target stood up to it, especially if its infantry). .

Bad at killing monters, not useless. doing 2-3 wounds to a monster before CC means your swordmasters can kill that hydra before it strikes (they do 3 wounds average). Not doing those wounds means that hydra gets 7+d6 attacks plus its breath weapon.....

They are great as heavy armour interdiction. Vs knights you fire single shot, hopefully in a flank. Vs most elite infantry the -2 to armour makes a massive difference.


It can kill up to two bodies per turn perhaps, and thats if you're lucky. You only receive six shots, which is a smaller set value that will return less benefits per buff/hex due to its lowered set casualty output. If I'm taking a Bolt Thrower, why wouldn't a H.E or D.E player for that matter take archers or crossbows? Both can move and shoot, and although they aren't S4 (woop-dee-doo) most of the same targets that both the B.Ts and archers/crossbows are going after won't care about a -2 their armor save due to Snake's prior point. B.Ts are meant for elite troops, not only should I shoot them, but if they those elite troops can be redirected even better lets use archers and crossbows then..

Up to 2 bodies a turn......um...6 shots, average of 4 hits, usually wounding on 3s (4s at the worst), usually no armour save (or a 6+). Thats like 2 wounds average, 3+ if you get lucky.

Lets look at elite targets, archers vs bolt thrower

Hammerers: 5+ save, vs no save
Greatswords: 4+ save vs 6+ save
Chaos warriors: 4+ save vs 6+ save
Knights: 2+ save vs 4+ save

hell, the Organ gun is only S5 AP and apparantly it murders elite units.

You redirect elite units and they are still there, just a turn late. You kill a rank or two of them and your units can trash them easily.


You can't compare Archers and Crossbows together? Your counter-arguement is? Really? Why not? As a H.E player the only targets my Archers shoot are small elite units -despite their A.S- and monsters anyway. They need 6's to wound, but through saturation you can eventually roll up a few wounds. Currently, B.Ts cannot be effectively taken in saturation, and do not have enough firepower with each Bolt Thrower volley to provide as such. With other special infantry units and magic being able to fill the role more consistently, and more cheaply, why are you still taking B.T's?.

Archers are how many points?

lets say 12 archers vs a bolt thrower (6 shots) vs T5 monster. (assume close range)

archers hit on 3s, wound on 6s.
Bolt thrower hits on 3s, wound on 5s.

and of course they have D3 wounds special rule (only on normal shot right?)

That comes out to the same number of wounds.


As I have said -which hasn't been discussed yet- I wouldn't take Bolt Throwers even if they received one more wound, and were lowered 25 points. Even then the saturation wouldn't outweigh the additional benefits of; cheapness and efficiency of magic, utility shooting units like ten archers and or special infantry of both the elven races. Once you get to 40-60 then we can start talking. Hell, if you re-did the shooting to make it 2D6+1 shots at S4, with three crew, and B.S 5. . . then you maybe able to justify 100 points.

Then you are clearly bias. At that level they would start to become Organ gun level of power.


Also, yeah, no calculations on your part there, no evidence, just stating your veiws assuming they are correct.

Cambion Daystar
06-03-2012, 13:53
The Helblaster on average gets 21 attacks, which usually results in 10.5 hits which turn my knights into 5 corpses. It's not a great choice against infantry, but against hard high armor targets it's mean.
Euhm, no...

First, it's only 15 shots on average (that's counting misfires as 0 hits, not counting results of not firing, exploding, ...).
It is BS3 so 7.5 hits on short range (why the hell are you within 12inch of a hellblaster?), 5 on long range.
That is 3.33 wounds vs T4, 5.16 wounds vs T3 -> 2.22 wounds on T4, or 3.44 wounds on T3 (counting a 2+ save armoursave).
Congratz, you shot down a bit more than half the point cost of your hellblaster in the only turn that you get to fire with it. Next turn it is gone...

Hellblasters DO suck now.

theunwantedbeing
06-03-2012, 14:22
Hellblasters DO suck now.

They do have that 30 wound damage potential though which is something to fear, even if it isn't that unlikely.

Snake1311
06-03-2012, 14:22
stuff

Your arguments can be applied to the entire shooting phase - in general, it does not make its points back for the full 3 turns of shooting. Thats just how WHF works - shooting is the least important and effective of the 4 phases; thats why you have not one but a bunch of armies that barely have any or none at all and still function well enough.

RBTs are best employed against cavalry. Against the standard T3 2+ Sv bows will do 1/12th of a wound per hit; the RBT will do 1/3rd, i.e. 4 times more. It does not cost as much as 6x4 bowmen. The 'saturdation' provided by 24 bowmen worth half your core allowance can be covered by a single RBT.

1/3rd of a wound per hit, hit half the time (or more), 3 turns of shooting, 3 dead knights. Worth around 70-75 pts; and then the enemy better pay some attention and deal with the RBT or its gonna do it again in the remaining 3 turns.

You might not use RBTs, but others do. Its by no means an autopick, but makes an appreance in certain lists - which is what all rares and even specials should be like by design in the first place.

If you want to argue the introduction of a basic BT for around 50 points, thats fine, but elves don't get to pelt the enemy with high-S ap shots for cheap.

I did find the use of 'competitive players' and '5000, 7000 pt games' in the same sentence highly amusing :) thank you for brightening up my day (I'm usually on forums at work during lunch).

On the hellblaster discussion - even if there are scenarios where its effective (which there are), it has a massive opportunity cost - WM tend to be capped at around 5 even at the lightest levels of comp, and Empire have cannons, mortars and the stank competing for those slots. Lack of reliability is also very much avoided by all competitive players.

Having other posters stick up for me is a somewhat unusual experience for me, its kinda nice:evilgrin:

Cambion Daystar
06-03-2012, 14:38
They do have that 30 wound damage potential though which is something to fear, even if it isn't that unlikely.
So does a unit of 15 dark elf crossbowman or 30 archers. What is your point?

The Low King
06-03-2012, 15:21
Euhm, no...

First, it's only 15 shots on average (that's counting misfires as 0 hits, not counting results of not firing, exploding, ...).
It is BS3 so 7.5 hits on short range (why the hell are you within 12inch of a hellblaster?), 5 on long range.
That is 3.33 wounds vs T4, 5.16 wounds vs T3 -> 2.22 wounds on T4, or 3.44 wounds on T3 (counting a 2+ save armoursave).
Congratz, you shot down a bit more than half the point cost of your hellblaster in the only turn that you get to fire with it. Next turn it is gone...

Hellblasters DO suck now.


Well....thats better than an Organ gun wich gets far more hate for apparantly being OP against elite infantry and cavalry...

Also, how many points does it cost? because 3 wounds of cavalry can easily equal 100+ points depending on the type....hell, imagine it shooting blood knights.

Engineer lets you use BS4 doesnt it?

Anyway, if my opponant isnt going within 12" of my organ gun or hellblaster then i kind of control the battlefield.

Finally.....30 potential shots.....that usually costs like 300 points

Spiney Norman
06-03-2012, 15:37
I still don't understand why we're talking in this thread. Its been identified by everyone (save for Snake -maybe Beardless?) that Bolt Throwers are outclassed by the ever-expensive more proficient special choices and magic tools in both elf books. B.T are not only outclassed, but don't even serve their purpose unless it's list catered toward them or its restricted due to the wackiest/severe of restrictions and, or meta calls.

Bolt Throwers are supposed to fulfill long range interdiction that can be used to whittle down expensive Cav. or Elite infantry blocks (neither of which are taken in droves any more) and or monster hunt. For both the former and the latter a Sac Dagger Lvl 4 and BoH/Teclis caster with Pit, Dwellers or template/snipe spell can just erase at range (range is key here) whatever problem card their opponent presents to them, but more reliably and cheaply.

However, if those scarey knights or monsters reach combat. . . oh no!. . . Not. Elven elite infantry with their high In. whether with or without buffs can make mincemeat of any other low In. monster in game, and in most cased handle enemy elite infantry or knights assuming there aren't more than 30 or 40 (in which case, you can use other means to eliminate numbers and or increase your own numbers, stats, etc. . .).

Informed competitive elf players take Bolt Throwers when they're playing; 3,000, 5,000, 7,000 point games and are just trying to fill the left over points with models. Even if Bolt Throwers were 75 points like I have aforementioned in prior posts; B.Ts would still would not see competitive play as their downsides and overall fail in utility outweigh two-fingers full of shots that may kill two models a turn.

Comparing bolt throwers to Teclis/book mage is like comparing an MK-47 to a nuclear missile, the missile is clearly better, but that doesn't make the rifle bad. Bolt throwers are not a bad deal, they don't need to be cheaper (not even in elf armies), they are worth their points. The problem is that they suffer from the fact they do the same job as the most broken, overpowered elements in the elf lists, namely the lord level wizards. Does that make them overpriced? No, it makes them a poor comparison to archmages.

Reducing pts for bolt throwers isn't the solution, poking elf magic with the nerf bat is, once they get rid of these dumb-ass auto-IF abilities and elf magic is as unreliable as everyone elses I guarantee bolt throwers will look more appealing.

Petey
06-03-2012, 15:49
Yes, because not understanding Bolt Throwers in the Elf book's predominately and posting more makes for a better argument. :rolleyes:

Everything so far I have read from Snake is either trying to justify the 'use' of B.Ts by comparing them to Handguns, or by providing instances of which the B.T can be a multi-use tool. As I have done so earlier, and as others have argued, Bolt Throwers are not only bad at killing monsters (Snake says they're not meant for that), but also terrible as a heavy-armor interdiction threat (Snake says they're meant for this, but if you only have roughly two-three turns to shot 12-18 shots and hit with half, and wound with half, whatever elite unit that was the target stood up to it, especially if its infantry).

It can kill up to two bodies per turn perhaps, and thats if you're lucky. You only receive six shots, which is a smaller set value that will return less benefits per buff/hex due to its lowered set casualty output. If I'm taking a Bolt Thrower, why wouldn't a H.E or D.E player for that matter take archers or crossbows? Both can move and shoot, and although they aren't S4 (woop-dee-doo) most of the same targets that both the B.Ts and archers/crossbows are going after won't care about a -2 their armor save due to Snake's prior point. B.Ts are meant for elite troops, not only should I shoot them, but if they those elite troops can be redirected even better lets use archers and crossbows then.

You can't compare Archers and Crossbows together? Your counter-arguement is? Really? Why not? As a H.E player the only targets my Archers shoot are small elite units -despite their A.S- and monsters anyway. They need 6's to wound, but through saturation you can eventually roll up a few wounds. Currently, B.Ts cannot be effectively taken in saturation, and do not have enough firepower with each Bolt Thrower volley to provide as such. With other special infantry units and magic being able to fill the role more consistently, and more cheaply, why are you still taking B.T's?

As I have said -which hasn't been discussed yet- I wouldn't take Bolt Throwers even if they received one more wound, and were lowered 25 points. Even then the saturation wouldn't outweigh the additional benefits of; cheapness and efficiency of magic, utility shooting units like ten archers and or special infantry of both the elven races. Once you get to 40-60 then we can start talking. Hell, if you re-did the shooting to make it 2D6+1 shots at S4, with three crew, and B.S 5. . . then you maybe able to justify 100 points.

I agree with the majority of your points here. But the better argument is simply to compare it to like in kind. Goblin, or Dwarven BT, unless I'm mistaken, and the Dwarven BT is many years out of date. The goblin BT is current and costs 35 points. Like I've done before, if we assume that this price is correct (which I do) the point cost for an RBT is somewhere between 60 and 75 point (with an additional crewman). I don't care if magic can do their job equal or better, I don't care if archers or special infantry is better; The fact is, this edition has changed shooting and this thing needs an adjustment to status quo.
Again, I agree with your points, that there are better options for elves and it doesn't do the job we want it for. But I don't agree that it wont be worth taking at 75pt. what it really needs, when the respective books come out, is a buff that makes it more like the original Eagle Claw and RBT from man o war. Greater strength single bolt that can be upgraded in range and be made magical for the Eagle claw, and an upgrade to make it shoot more shots, or reroll failed to wound for the DE RBT


Euhm, no...

First, it's only 15 shots on average (that's counting misfires as 0 hits, not counting results of not firing, exploding, ...).
It is BS3 so 7.5 hits on short range (why the hell are you within 12inch of a hellblaster?), 5 on long range.
That is 3.33 wounds vs T4, 5.16 wounds vs T3 -> 2.22 wounds on T4, or 3.44 wounds on T3 (counting a 2+ save armoursave).
Congratz, you shot down a bit more than half the point cost of your hellblaster in the only turn that you get to fire with it. Next turn it is gone...

Hellblasters DO suck now.

Incorrect. The misfire die is essencially a d6 with all its results doubled, six being explosion. If 1 assumes this, then the average is 3.5, which doubles to 7, which when multiplied by 3 becomes 21. 6 being a misfire, may or may not effect the average of shots due to it's ability to randomly give you all tens (unless that's been changed, like I said I haven't seen it on the table in 8th).
You are correct that it is far less effective at long range rather than short, being 7 hit rather than ten, but I've been shot at close range and I have a healthy respect for its damage dealing ability there. But to fully accept your point, 7 hits v t3 is 5 wounds, and against my elves that means 2 to 3 dead knights (God help your fast cav)
Additionally, a misfire is not necessarily a remove from play automatic result, I'm sorry if in your games it always explodes and that's left a bad taste in your mouth, but really mileage on all blackpowder guns varies.

Your points argument is valid however, just not for the reasons you think. All shooting is getting a points change this edition, due to the amount of shooting available losing a turn of shots. Warmachines now, in this environment of larger units and great point games seem to be relegated to their actual history role of softening up targets or causing panic in the enemy. The hellblaster still does this effectively.
Give the Helblaster a 25% points drop and it will be in line with this edition.

Finally, keep in mind that this is my Opinion on the Hellblaster, which someone asked for specifically. I dont' care why you think the thing sucks. We aren't having a thread devoted to the merits and flaws of the Hellblaster. This is to the merits and flaws of the RBT.

The Low King
06-03-2012, 15:52
Comparing bolt throwers to Teclis/book mage is like comparing an MK-47 to a nuclear missile, the missile is clearly better, but that doesn't make the rifle bad. Bolt throwers are not a bad deal, they don't need to be cheaper (not even in elf armies), they are worth their points. The problem is that they suffer from the fact they do the same job as the most broken, overpowered elements in the elf lists, namely the lord level wizards. Does that make them overpriced? No, it makes them a poor comparison to archmages.

Reducing pts for bolt throwers isn't the solution, poking elf magic with the nerf bat is, once they get rid of these dumb-ass auto-IF abilities and elf magic is as unreliable as everyone elses I guarantee bolt throwers will look more appealing.

I agree. Sort of.

I do feel that increaing the strength of their main bolt (S7) or the possible changes to cannons (cost/ability to hit both mount and rider) would make them very muhc worth taking.

Snake1311
06-03-2012, 16:02
But the better argument is simply to compare it to like in kind. Goblin, or Dwarven BT, unless I'm mistaken, and the Dwarven BT is many years out of date. The goblin BT is current and costs 35 points. Like I've done before, if we assume that this price is correct (which I do) the point cost for an RBT is somewhere between 60 and 75 point (with an additional crewman)

Not a good comparison, because the RBTs don't shoot frikking bolts in 95% of the cases. It is basically not a bolt thrower in the BRB sense.

The goblin vs dwarf BTs area good comparison however. Dwarfs pay 10 pts more for no misfires, and a bunch of other benefits (more Ld, bette rin combat). I'd say they are pretty much perfectly in line with each other, even though one book is much older and from a different edition. From this we can conclude that other BTs will be in line with the existing two, and can fairly accurately predict their point costs.


Incorrect. The misfire die is essencially a d6 with all its results doubled, six being explosion. If 1 assumes this, then the average is 3.5, which doubles to 7, which when multiplied by 3 becomes 21. 6 being a misfire, may or may not effect the average of shots due to it's ability to randomly give you all tens (unless that's been changed, like I said I haven't seen it on the table in 8th).


What? Yes the misfire dice is a d6 doubled with the 6 as a 0. The average or rolling a d6 with a 0 instead of a 6 is 2.5. If you double it, its 5. 3 lots of 5 makes 15. This can't possibly be any clearer, not to mention that equating misfires to 0 is pretty generous, especially considering that the first one can prevent the remaining two dice being rolled at all.

The hellblaster will dish out less than 5 hits a turn (as 5 doesnt take into account bad misfires on the first two rolls) and has a 42% chance of a misfire. At the moment its pretty much thrill-seekers only, and point drops won't help it out much since you'll only have one anyway. It needs to only count the first misfire as a misfire and the rest as 0s to actually see any use, and then have its point cost realigned accordingly.

yabbadabba
06-03-2012, 17:05
When firing at a monster or something with a similar sized base, try aiming the initial point 10" in front of the back of the base of your target. That wat even if you roll 10 on the initial roll, you can't overshoot as you will land on the back of the base, and you will need to roll very low on both rolls to undershoot. Uh huh, its not the theory, its the dice rolls. This is why I laugh at math hammer.

The bearded one
06-03-2012, 17:12
Uh huh, its not the theory, its the dice rolls. This is why I laugh at math hammer.

it's a case of stacking the odds in your favour, but that can't compensate for shoddy dicerolling of course ;) If you were to target the way I described and your target has a fairly long base, you will only undershoot by rolling something like double 2, certainly with things like mortis engines, zombie dragons, arachnerocks, stonehorns etc. Their bases are immense.

yabbadabba
06-03-2012, 17:18
it's a case of stacking the odds in your favour, but that can't compensate for shoddy dicerolling of course ;) If you were to target the way I described and your target has a fairly long base, you will only undershoot by rolling something like double 2, certainly with things like mortis engines, zombie dragons, arachnerocks, stonehorns etc. Their bases are immense. In the latter case, I can almost guarantee a misfire lol! The other day I passed one out of 6 charges, none of which were more than 5 inches needed on the charge dice.

Hey ho.

I get some good dice rolls and some pretty awful ones. Being a long term vet the new edition has actually penalised me as a player as with pre-measuring and no guess ranges, years of experience has just been rendered obsolete, but its nothing to be bitter about tbh.

Petey
06-03-2012, 17:28
Not a good comparison, because the RBTs don't shoot frikking bolts in 95% of the cases. It is basically not a bolt thrower in the BRB sense.

The goblin vs dwarf BTs area good comparison however. Dwarfs pay 10 pts more for no misfires, and a bunch of other benefits (more Ld, bette rin combat). I'd say they are pretty much perfectly in line with each other, even though one book is much older and from a different edition. From this we can conclude that other BTs will be in line with the existing two, and can fairly accurately predict their point costs.

No, good sir, I think you are mistaken. With knowing how the Goblin one works, one can determine the Minimum cost a RBT should cost. BS 3 shooting BTs that missfire cost 35pt, ergo without the misfire they should cost about 45-50. Assuming BS4 would be 17%more effective at that roll, then again ergo the cost increases by 17% bringing us to a minimum cost of 55-65. Since the machine cannot fire both options in a given turn we know that this should be the bottom end of what one should pay for the RBT. Assuming that the six shots option is worth the same (or at best is 10-20% more effective) we can gauge the the cost further, with perhaps a small fee for versatility. My costing for the RBT without benefits added to existing model stays 60 to 75 pts. I have seen no argument to date that is more correct/compelling to me.


What? Yes the misfire dice is a d6 doubled with the 6 as a 0. The average or rolling a d6 with a 0 instead of a 6 is 2.5. If you double it, its 5. 3 lots of 5 makes 15. This can't possibly be any clearer, not to mention that equating misfires to 0 is pretty generous, especially considering that the first one can prevent the remaining two dice being rolled at all.

The hellblaster will dish out less than 5 hits a turn (as 5 doesnt take into account bad misfires on the first two rolls) and has a 42% chance of a misfire. At the moment its pretty much thrill-seekers only, and point drops won't help it out much since you'll only have one anyway. It needs to only count the first misfire as a misfire and the rest as 0s to actually see any use, and then have its point cost realigned accordingly.

Your analysis is incorrect. I do not factor in the 6 result because it could create 30 shots immediately, or none, or 10 or 20 or machine explode. Unless that chart has changed, it throws off the equation quite a bit. As to a 42% misfire chance, that s also incorrect. More accurately it 3, 17% chances. It is not accurate to say that it will missfire 42% of the time, and it s not accurate to say when that misfire will happen. While statistically speaking it will misfire every other turn, there are plenty of times you can roll 6 dice and not roll a single six. In addition, not all those misfire results are bad.

Even if we discard the 6 from the realm of discussion, as its results are insanely random, and talk about the range that remains, 2 4 6 8 and 10, your average hits from this is 6 per die rolled, bringing you up to 18 shots a turn. The range I report 18-21 is more in line with my experience with the warmachine than the low 15s everyone else goes on about. Sorry, but that warmachine is a prime target whenever I play against empire and I will devote resources to its fall. I dont' agree with your assertion that it sucks. I will agree that it costs a bit much, but that s all you have.

Snake1311
06-03-2012, 17:40
Assuming that the six shots option is worth the same (or at best is 10-20% more effective) we can gauge the the cost further, with perhaps a small fee for versatility.


The six shot option is worth 96 points, as I have demonstrated numerous times now. On top of that cost you pay a measly 4 points for versatility.



Your analysis is incorrect. I do not factor in the 6 result because it could create 30 shots immediately, or none, or 10 or 20 or machine explode. Unless that chart has changed, it throws off the equation quite a bit. As to a 42% misfire chance, that s also incorrect. More accurately it 3, 17% chances. It is not accurate to say that it will missfire 42% of the time, and it s not accurate to say when that misfire will happen. While statistically speaking it will misfire every other turn, there are plenty of times you can roll 6 dice and not roll a single six. In addition, not all those misfire results are bad.

Even if we discard the 6 from the realm of discussion, as its results are insanely random, and talk about the range that remains, 2 4 6 8 and 10, your average hits from this is 6 per die rolled, bringing you up to 18 shots a turn. The range I report 18-21 is more in line with my experience with the warmachine than the low 15s everyone else goes on about. Sorry, but that warmachine is a prime target whenever I play against empire and I will devote resources to its fall. I dont' agree with your assertion that it sucks. I will agree that it costs a bit much, but that s all you have.

I don't even know where to begin here. Your grasp of statistics is beyond abysmal. Lets ignore one side of the die (the worst one), lets ignore how probability trees work when calculating misfires (because three consecutive 17% chances DO come to 42% total), lets say not all misfire results are bad, even though 15 shots represents the best possible misfire every time already. Lets ignore all that and lets talk about what people roll when you play against them, and what your target priority is.

This discussion is getting tiresome. Everyone who finds they are using their RBTs as bolt throwers a lot of the time are probably using them wrong. If you are using a unit wrong, then it is pretty logical that it would be underperforming for you. Do your maths (hopefully better than Petey does), try out the RBT, and lets talk again.

The Low King
06-03-2012, 18:01
No, good sir, I think you are mistaken. With knowing how the Goblin one works, one can determine the Minimum cost a RBT should cost. BS 3 shooting BTs that missfire cost 35pt, ergo without the misfire they should cost about 45-50. Assuming BS4 would be 17%more effective at that roll, then again ergo the cost increases by 17% bringing us to a minimum cost of 55-65.

Right, the cost of the Dwarf Bolt thrower with an engineer.


Since the machine cannot fire both options in a given turn we know that this should be the bottom end of what one should pay for the RBT.

If i have a warmachine that can fire a Cannon shot, a grudgethrower shot OR a bolt thrower shot each turn is the bottom end of its cost 45 points? that being the value of its weakest ability?

More realistically you should start with the MAXIMUM cost you can make it as 215 points (90+80+45) as that is the value of all the warmachines combined.
The Lowest value would also be the value of the strongest option, the cannon at 90 points.


Assuming that the six shots option is worth the same (or at best is 10-20% more effective) we can gauge the the cost further, with perhaps a small fee for versatility. My costing for the RBT without benefits added to existing model stays 60 to 75 pts. I have seen no argument to date that is more correct/compelling to me.

Well, assuming it is 'the same' then you have a cost between 60 and 120 points.
However, it isnt the same, mathwise it has been demonstrated that it is infact better vs most targets, about the equivelent in shooting power to 10 handgunners (or 12 archers).
Therefore i would say its cost is about 90 points.


Your analysis is incorrect. I do not factor in the 6 result because it could create 30 shots immediately, or none, or 10 or 20 or machine explode. Unless that chart has changed, it throws off the equation quite a bit.

You di factor in the 6. Your original average of 7 factored in the misfire as the equivelent of 12 shots for the purpose of the average number per artillery dice roll.


As to a 42% misfire chance, that s also incorrect. More accurately it 3, 17% chances. It is not accurate to say that it will missfire 42% of the time, and it s not accurate to say when that misfire will happen. While statistically speaking it will misfire every other turn, there are plenty of times you can roll 6 dice and not roll a single six. In addition, not all those misfire results are bad.

He actually calculated the Binomial Probabilities of rolling those dice. The calculated chance of rolling ONE or more SIXES on THREE dice is 0.421296296296.
(incidently the probability of rolling one 6 on six dice is about 67% i believe)


Even if we discard the 6 from the realm of discussion, as its results are insanely random, and talk about the range that remains, 2 4 6 8 and 10, your average hits from this is 6 per die rolled, bringing you up to 18 shots a turn.

Ok, so whats that? a bit more of a wound?


The range I report 18-21 is more in line with my experience with the warmachine than the low 15s everyone else goes on about. Sorry, but that warmachine is a prime target whenever I play against empire and I will devote resources to its fall. I dont' agree with your assertion that it sucks. I will agree that it costs a bit much, but that s all you have.

And i rolled 5 double 1s for break tests (with cold blooded) in my last game, that does not mean that is the average. Experience is entrely valid when talking about the tactical use of something....but when talking about average damage...


BTW, i support the idea that the hellblaster volley gun is very dangerous/worth taking. However, your arguments suck.

Snake1311
06-03-2012, 18:36
Fine, lets go in depth.

The average shots fired due to a misfire (because of result 6) differ depending on which shot misfires, but the overall average is 3.33.

Against this misfire 'benefit' we have a 33% chance of the machine not firing next turn,and 33% of destroying itself. Lets take them both as just missing next turn. Thats an opportunity cost of 15, or 18, or whatever u wanna say the average shots are. Either way, its around -10 or -12 shots loss. Nevermind that 33% of those results stop the other 2 barrels functioning, I can't be arsed to factor this in.

OVERALL, a misfire is a LOSS in shots.

This can be demonstrated to perfect accuracy in an excel sheet.....except that because there are 6 consecutive rolls (3 shots and 3 misfires) which requires 46656 lines, dibs on not doing that.

I agree that the blaster might be worth taking if it wasnt for opportunity cost.

I'm also not sure how saying ure bad at maths (which you most definitely are) equates to you calling me a twit, idiot and whatever. Lucky that im the easygoing not reporting type :)

Lorcryst
06-03-2012, 19:08
Huh, how in the Nine Hells of Zandru did we go from a question about Bolt Throwers to a mud-slinging heated discussion about Hellblasters ?.?

Petey
06-03-2012, 19:59
If i have a warmachine that can fire a Cannon shot, a grudgethrower shot OR a bolt thrower shot each turn is the bottom end of its cost 45 points? that being the value of its weakest ability?

More realistically you should start with the MAXIMUM cost you can make it as 215 points (90+80+45) as that is the value of all the warmachines combined.
The Lowest value would also be the value of the strongest option, the cannon at 90 points.

I'm sorry, the point I was trying to get across is that it should cost no less than x, not trying to say it should cost x.


Well, assuming it is 'the same' then you have a cost between 60 and 120 points.
However, it isnt the same, mathwise it has been demonstrated that it is infact better vs most targets, about the equivelent in shooting power to 10 handgunners (or 12 archers).
Therefore i would say its cost is about 90 points.

Depends on the target. Certain things are a better choice for single bolt than the 6 shots (again, less so in this edition). I still don't think it's worth 90, even naming the 6 shots 20 percent more effective than the single shot, we're talking 70-80 max.


You di factor in the 6. Your original average of 7 factored in the misfire as the equivelent of 12 shots for the purpose of the average number per artillery dice roll.


He actually calculated the Binomial Probabilities of rolling those dice. The calculated chance of rolling ONE or more SIXES on THREE dice is 0.421296296296.
(incidently the probability of rolling one 6 on six dice is about 67% i believe)

Ok, so whats that? a bit more of a wound

And i rolled 5 double 1s for break tests (with cold blooded) in my last game, that does not mean that is the average. Experience is entrely valid when talking about the tactical use of something....but when talking about average damage...

Another wound can be really telling, and the higher potential is quite meaningful as well. Also, I don't understand why I'm getting so much flack for say "my person experience supports the numbers I've come up with." Yeah games are random, they involve dice. But honestly, when the hellblaster doesn't misfire, the damage I've named is what I get hit with, and my math is fine in that regard.


BTW, i support the idea that the hellblaster volley gun is very dangerous/worth taking. However, your arguments suck.

At least it's not a personal attack


Fine, lets go in depth.

The average shots fired due to a misfire (because of result 6) differ depending on which shot misfires, but the overall average is 3.33.

Against this misfire 'benefit' we have a 33% chance of the machine not firing next turn,and 33% of destroying itself. Lets take them both as just missing next turn. Thats an opportunity cost of 15, or 18, or whatever u wanna say the average shots are. Either way, its around -10 or -12 shots loss. Nevermind that 33% of those results stop the other 2 barrels functioning, I can't be arsed to factor this in.

OVERALL, a misfire is a LOSS in shots.

This can be demonstrated to perfect accuracy in an excel sheet.....except that because there are 6 consecutive rolls (3 shots and 3 misfires) which requires 46656 lines, dibs on not doing that.

I agree that the blaster might be worth taking if it wasnt for opportunity cost.

I'm also not sure how saying ure bad at maths (which you most definitely are) equates to you calling me a twit, idiot and whatever. Lucky that im the easygoing not reporting type :)

To ignore the math for a second, I'll say that the tenor of the message felt like an attack and felt unjustified.

However, I may be overly sensitive due to the fact that my cat died yesterday. I acknowledge that perhaps insulting you was a mistake and apologize for it if you weren't in fact attacking me rather than my position

Tupinamba
07-03-2012, 00:56
Besides the sorry flame war that developed here lately, I think that the discussion is revolving far too much about statistics and average kills and ignores the 2 IMO single most important characteristics of the RBT (since they are the ones people find the most overpriced), that is range and flexibility.


If you simply compare the number of wounds and number of kills of a RBT and the equivalent in points in rxb/bowmen/handgunners, the RBT may seem weak (even that is debatable though). But their roles are different. Not only in target selection, but because RBT is artillery, that is, long range application of force to specific battlefield sections to gain localized tactical supperiority or kill that last half a dozen men of a depleted unit that are avoiding combat to preserve points, etc. etc.

This capability comes at a price that youīll never get in math-hammer if you only calculate probability of kills, as they are not going to "earn back their points" in brute kills. I canīt count how often that one round of well chosen RBT fire tipped the balance of power in one my flanks by killing just enough enemy knights for my COK to gain supperiority and consequently break the whole enemy unit. Math-hammer doesnīt take this into account at all.

Of course, for the points of the RBTs I could have simply more COKs in the first place, but than, theyīd be committed to that flank for the whole battle and the enemy would either deploy equivalent force to meet them there, or, worse, use cheaper manouvre units to render the whole big COK unit useless. RBT, on the other hand, because of their range, can interfere whenever and wherever needed and canīt really be countered like that (threatened, yes, but thatīs why artillery has to be protected by other units etc. which is a completely other point). As another poster said, the multishot will only kill 2-4 models a round. But its 2-4 models almost anywhere on the field. Thatīs huge. And yes, Iīm assuming intelligent use of terrain here, as this is also part of the game and certainly something necessary to develop the full potential of artillery.

Finally, range has also the advantage of mitigating RBT fragility, as the opponent has to come into range to harm it in the first place, which is not that easy as people put it. In my personal experience, I tend to loose RBTs only either if my whole battle line is collapsing anyway, or if I deliberately sacrifice them. Long range, elven dominance in manouvre units and some solid BS shooting go a long way in keeping the RBTs alive or force an unproportional commitment of resources to deal with them. The example Iīve read in this thread of a duel between RBTs and Empire crossbowmen should not be something very common, as RBT has plenty of range to avoid this kind of unfavourable set up.

So, I wonder if all these calculations that supposedly show how RBTs are overpriced actually consider this considerable advantages in their math, as Iīve not seen anything like this exposed here. Prices that are thrown around (and Iīd pretty much like to know where these exact numbers come from, as WHFB doesnīt have a general value system for building units) only compare how much they kill and how fragile RBTs are and in most cases donīt even mention range, much less any consideration of their part in the bigger whole of the organism that an army is.

Another argument is comparing them to other warmachines, which by definition fulfill the same role. However, in this case, one has to take into account that each warhammer faction has its own characteristics and strengths and pay different prices for them. Elves are not meant to have the same artillery power as Empire and Dwarves, in the same way these lesser races are not meant to have the supperior magic power and speed of the elves. So, within their own context, RBT are the only artillery available and the only thing in their armies capable of this sort of long range application of force, which is something many good elven players value, even at 100 points, and that fits in some style of armies. It really depends on the rest of the army and the playstyle.

The most interesting point made against the RBT in that sense was the comparison with Lord mages. But even here, as Iīve said before, magic is not exactly comparable either, as it is random and subject to dispelling, which RBT are not.

Independently from these arguments, it seems to me that part of this discussion really comes from different perspectives on Warhammer. Most people who post against the BTs argue with "competitive" lists, always with the underlying assumption that there are so-called "optimized" lists based on the efficiency (or better, exploitation of loopholes and rules imbalances) of unit choices and that normally are also the same players who say that cavalry and basically everything that is not horde infantry buffed by magic does not work in this edition. Well, besides my disagreement with this definition of "competitive" (as I think this kind of armies are lacking in several points that will be exploited by good players with more well-rounded lists, including cavalary and artillery), the OP was about BTs being "useless" or not, and not about BTs not being the most optimized choices for tournaments.

And in that sense, RBT remain solid choices for every player that likes and knows how to use this long range application of force from artillery. Itīs no "must have", but no "useless" either.

Don Zeko
07-03-2012, 03:46
Your points about the ability to apply force anywhere on the field would be better taken if DE didn't have access to 30" range move-and-fire S4 magic crossbows, shades that can run 10" and fire, or the Cauldron of Blood. I do find that the ability to concentrate force freely in several points on the battlefield over the course of a game is an invaluable strength of my DE army, but I achieve this without ever using bolt throwers. Your argument also ignores the real possibility that line of sight will prevent your RBT from picking targets as freely as you might like. Considering that a cover penalty makes the RBT effectively useless and that it is incapable of moving significantly, that's hardly a trivial concern. Considering, as has been mentioned before, that the RBT is also far easier to kill, incapable of bunkering characters, and incapable of fighting in close combat, it remains clearly the weakest non-special character choice in the DE book after the Manticore.

Trains_Get_Robbed
07-03-2012, 07:24
Your arguments can be applied to the entire shooting phase - in general, it does not make its points back for the full 3 turns of shooting. Thats just how WHF works - shooting is the least important and effective of the 4 phases; thats why you have not one but a bunch of armies that barely have any or none at all and still function well enough.

RBTs are best employed against cavalry. Against the standard T3 2+ Sv bows will do 1/12th of a wound per hit; the RBT will do 1/3rd, i.e. 4 times more. It does not cost as much as 6x4 bowmen. The 'saturdation' provided by 24 bowmen worth half your core allowance can be covered by a single RBT.

1/3rd of a wound per hit, hit half the time (or more), 3 turns of shooting, 3 dead knights. Worth around 70-75 pts; and then the enemy better pay some attention and deal with the RBT or its gonna do it again in the remaining 3 turns.

You might not use RBTs, but others do. Its by no means an autopick, but makes an appreance in certain lists - which is what all rares and even specials should be like by design in the first place.

If you want to argue the introduction of a basic BT for around 50 points, thats fine, but elves don't get to pelt the enemy with high-S ap shots for cheap.

I did find the use of 'competitive players' and '5000, 7000 pt games' in the same sentence highly amusing :) thank you for brightening up my day (I'm usually on forums at work during lunch).

On the hellblaster discussion - even if there are scenarios where its effective (which there are), it has a massive opportunity cost - WM tend to be capped at around 5 even at the lightest levels of comp, and Empire have cannons, mortars and the stank competing for those slots. Lack of reliability is also very much avoided by all competitive players.

Having other posters stick up for me is a somewhat unusual experience for me, its kinda nice:evilgrin:

You understand the game mechanics very well, but before this post you were addressing topics that didn't retain to my particular arguments.

You did however change from 'monster' and 'elite' infantry to 'cavalry' interdiction, made-up your mind yet? :)

As for all your posts and others applying basic statistics and or numbers to RBTs; I view it as a futile effort. I guess it's more of a war gaming philosophical view: I believe vacuum statistics can be helpful, but shouldn't be taken into account without in addition adding other ulterior factors when deciding overall unit performance and costs.

In a vacuum they may do exactly what the 'numbers say' but, without properly applying a meta-game, lists, and tactics to a particular game type one would be playing when taking RBTs, I don't believe you can accurately apply such a forgone conclusion as: RBTs wound X a turn against Y toughness, and thus are worth 100 points.

What if there is a unit in the way? What if the target is in a forest? Has the enemy deployed scouts? Should I shoot those first? Oh no, its a tournament, and my opponent hasn't taken any Cav! Oh no, theres not monsters or MSUs! Etc ... The reason why other warmachines are seemingly under-priced compared to RBTs is seemingly due a larger risk/reward ratio, more consistent results and the machines themselves provide a niche that can't already be filled elsewhere (an Organ Gun can reroll misses, Hellstorm is has multiple barrels and more shots) within the list. Just think if Dwarfs had magic, they would most likely not need as many warmachines upon the field, and thus dictates that whatever choice is more cost effective would in most cases see the field of battle more.

I understand that elves don't have RBTs that destroy entire units of 40 man Marauders, or 'Runed up' meatgrinders that chew threw Greatswords and Swordmasters like butter, however, I would like to see them worth being taken at a competitive level due to a niche that Elves of all kinds lack in, and really can't accomplish by other means.

This being said, I do appreciate that you understood my point finally that RBTs don't serve a purpose within a both Elves lists as it lacks a niche that can't be solved (insinuating:) and reluctantly admit that 50 point RBTs may be an option (a very hard to reach option though). Although we disagree about RBTs point costs (you still don't think elves shouldn't get RBTs for under 100 with significant changes, I do) we've made headway at least. With this, I can finally leave this contrived thread. :p

*Yes, contrary to belief some competitive players like playing large games (I for one, have an on/off switch that is based on the opponent(s)/severity of the game I'm playing). I should have instead made it more broad in scope and just generalized it with elf players as in actuality it is. In large point games -which are non-competetive- people fill the board with everything they have; including RBTS. However, it was merely just an example. ( :p ).

Low King: I didn't present basic statistics for two reasons: 1. I assumed that basic statistics could be ascertained from 6 shots that hit on 4's for two turns, and then 6 shots on 3's for a single turn, and then figure out the wounding rolls based on what one would like to wound, and 2. I'm lazy and didn't want to type it out. :p

However, to be honest, a few of your points on RBTs like for example: RBTs shooting at Hydras is quite moot. If you play(ed) Elfs you would understand that monsters aren't a problem for their armies, as they will always strike before them, with a high amount of attacks, and or strength. Frankly, any unit thats hitting a Hydra (with certainty) would have the BoEF, and would most likely be White Lions/Witch Elves/Executioners with ASF banner.

The bearded one
07-03-2012, 07:44
Just think if Dwarfs had magic, they would most likely not need as many warmachines upon the field, and thus dictates that whatever choice is more cost effective would in most cases see the field of battle more.

Possibly a few less, but then we are talking about an army completely without magic, which compensates the lack of magic with a strong shooting phase. The warmachines are used to counter things the army's units cannot, but with magic certain things no longer need to be countered. If the lore in question has acces to good magic missiles, some might dump the organ gun as they can use magic missiles to deal with skirmishers and other hard-to-hit targets. Others might dump grudge throwers because the infantry hordes can be buffed to be killier themselves, though I expect most to keep their cannons to kill monsters.

Trains_Get_Robbed
07-03-2012, 07:52
Comparing bolt throwers to Teclis/book mage is like comparing an MK-47 to a nuclear missile, the missile is clearly better, but that doesn't make the rifle bad. Bolt throwers are not a bad deal, they don't need to be cheaper (not even in elf armies), they are worth their points. The problem is that they suffer from the fact they do the same job as the most broken, overpowered elements in the elf lists, namely the lord level wizards. Does that make them overpriced? No, it makes them a poor comparison to archmages.

Reducing pts for bolt throwers isn't the solution, poking elf magic with the nerf bat is, once they get rid of these dumb-ass auto-IF abilities and elf magic is as unreliable as everyone elses I guarantee bolt throwers will look more appealing.

Show me where the bad elf put his staff. :rolleyes:

I was providing an extreme side of the spectrum on what takes care of problems for elves. However, a simple Lvl 4 with various kit, can do the same thing.

To be honest, you seem to fit right in with the Warseerites whining about the BoH, when it isn't that good of an item BY ITSELF. It takes finesse to play with it, and although it can allow for some tactical shortcuts, relies heavily upon the consistency within the magic phase which is generally very voalitle.

Have you ever played against the BoH without the Banner of Sorcery? Let me guess. . . no? Thought so. The reason people moan and whine about an item like the Book that makes H.E MID-FiNG TIER in the competitive meta-game spectrum is only due to the ability to generate consistent magic phases with the Banner of Sorcery. If the H.E player didn't have the BoS, they wouldn't be able to cast 2-3 spells per turn with I.F, instead one in most phases, and sometimes even none at all. How many times has a H.E player rolled double 1's only to be saved by the BoS which just so happens to generate 3 and channels one miraculously? I'm guess quite often, as it happens to me when I'm playing with them in tournaments, henceforth it must happen to others. Now instead of facing 2 dice that can be dispelled, your facing 6.

It's when you have 5 out of 6 magic phases with 8+ dice and the Book is when it becomes very good, and even dirty in some cases. This being said however, at the end of the day the character with the BoH is still a T3 elf with 3 wounds with no saves of any kind, and is chucking at the very least 4 dice at every spell, which increases the possibility of miscasts as opposed to a normal magic phase. Thus, as a result it still takes finesse to use the Book whether with or without the BoS.

Side Note: Instead of whining about it -being brutally blunt here- I advise adjusting your strategic mindset, and tactics in-game because in reality it isn't that hard to beat -if both you and your opponent are on the same level of skill and competitiveness mind you, lists and all- a BoH it really isn't that good compared to what others can bring. However, I'm preaching to the choir it will most likely seem, as Spiney your probably one of those :cool: cool guys that most likely think ASF with rerolls is cheap too,:rolleyes: failing to understand H.E army mechanics makes is broken. . . no just makes your understanding of the game and acumen weak -when it comes to just H.E of course.

I digress however, and out of courtesy of keeping this thread on topic will not respond anymore.

Spiney Norman
07-03-2012, 08:26
Show me where the bad elf put his staff. :rolleyes:

I was providing an extreme side of the spectrum on what takes care of problems for elves. However, a simple Lvl 4 with various kit, can do the same thing.

To be honest, you seem to fit right in with the Warseerites whining about the BoH, when it isn't that good of an item BY ITSELF. It takes finesse to play with it, and although it can allow for some tactical shortcuts, relies heavily upon the consistency within the magic phase which is generally very voalitle.

Have you ever played against the BoH without the Banner of Sorcery? Let me guess. . . no? Thought so. The reason people moan and whine about an item like the Book that makes H.E MID-FiNG TIER in the competitive meta-game spectrum is only due to the ability to generate consistent magic phases with the Banner of Sorcery. If the H.E player didn't have the BoS, they wouldn't be able to cast 2-3 spells per turn with I.F, instead one in most phases, and sometimes even none at all. How many times has a H.E player rolled double 1's only to be saved by the BoS which just so happens to generate 3 and channels one miraculously? I'm guess quite often, as it happens to me when I'm playing with them in tournaments, henceforth it must happen to others. Now instead of facing 2 dice that can be dispelled, your facing 6.

It's when you have 5 out of 6 magic phases with 8+ dice and the Book is when it becomes very good, and even dirty in some cases. This being said however, at the end of the day the character with the BoH is still a T3 elf with 3 wounds with no saves of any kind, and is chucking at the very least 4 dice at every spell, which increases the possibility of miscasts as opposed to a normal magic phase. Thus, as a result it still takes finesse to use the Book whether with or without the BoS.

Side Note: Instead of whining about it -being brutally blunt here- I advise adjusting your strategic mindset, and tactics in-game because in reality it isn't that hard to beat -if both you and your opponent are on the same level of skill and competitiveness mind you, lists and all- a BoH it really isn't that good compared to what others can bring. However, I'm preaching to the choir it will most likely seem, as Spiney your probably one of those :cool: cool guys that most likely think ASF with rerolls is cheap too,:rolleyes: failing to understand H.E army mechanics makes is broken. . . no just makes your understanding of the game and acumen weak -when it comes to just H.E of course.

I digress however, and out of courtesy of keeping this thread on topic will not respond anymore.

Of course I never see the BoH without the banner of sorc, there is usually a channel staff in there as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the book will get either purple sun or mind razor or dwellers below off with irresistible force every turn, it'll be great for the he player if they get other IF spells off as well, but those are the three that will obliterate armies.

The bearded one
07-03-2012, 08:26
Have you ever played against the BoH without the Banner of Sorcery? Let me guess. . . no? Thought so. The reason people moan and whine about an item like the Book that makes H.E MID-FiNG TIER in the competitive meta-game spectrum is only due to the ability to generate consistent magic phases with the Banner of Sorcery. If the H.E player didn't have the BoS, they wouldn't be able to cast 2-3 spells per turn with I.F, instead one in most phases, and sometimes even none at all. How many times has a H.E player rolled double 1's only to be saved by the BoS which just so happens to generate 3 and channels one miraculously? I'm guess quite often, as it happens to me when I'm playing with them in tournaments, henceforth it must happen to others. Now instead of facing 2 dice that can be dispelled, your facing 6.

I'm only getting stuff like * winds generate 4-4, 8 dice * * wizard channels one * * BoS generates 3 *

cool, 4 dice vs 12, mostly IF'ed. I've been out-finnessed.



Why are we even approaching this like it's "RBTS are no good because those points can be invested in magic!" ? At some point magic is saturated with points enough, you can't endlessly add points to it. Get your archmage, his 'magic for dummies' book, the banner of sorcery, maybe a lvl2 with scroll or something, that's enough. No need to keep throwing points at it. I think RBTs are a good at quite a lot of jobs. You'll be surprised how versatile it can actually be. In my opinion it can threathen elite infantry quite effectively, as they generally have a 4+ or 5+ save. 3+ at the extreme, really. It can earn back it's points in raw kills by shooting elite infantry quite reliably. Furthermore it's a counter to skirmishing nasties, like shades or skinks, due to it's accuracy over long range. Your wizard can't always cast a magic missile at them, or prevent it from being dispelled. And of course it also still has it's str6 D3 wounds shot, so that it is an everpresent danger to the flank of any knight, and to medium-sized creatures (monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts, chariots).

To be honest I'd be delighted to have the RBTs multishot capability in my dwarf army, so that I won't have to rely on the very unpredictable performance of the organ gun (could be 10 shots, could be 2, could be an explosion. Who knows?!) but have an accurate counter to specific things like skirmishers threathening my warmachines.

jtrowell
07-03-2012, 09:02
With an engineer helblasters aren't as bad, considering they're at +1 BS and have the opportunity to re-roll one of their barrels per the new rules for the Engineer in the FAQ.

Warning: from what I remenber, the FAQ now allows the reroll, but you don't get the BS anymore, as you can no longer join the warmachine crew directly.

Still a good idea to reduce the risks of misfire.

Snake1311
07-03-2012, 10:10
Good good, this thread is back to some productive discussion.

Trains:

First of all, RBT target priority, where I may have been unclear. The ideal target for RBTs is most likely heavy cavalry; however, they are also good enough against expensive elite infantry and lighter cavalry. The main criteria really is point value per model - if its high, point the RBT at it

Second, I completely agree with you that a unit should be discussed in the context of its army, so lets do just that:

DE: I have to be honest, there isn't really much point in looking at the RBT unles you're doing some sort of 'fight-in-the-shade' 180 shots a turn gunline. I feel this has more to do with the top choices in the DE book being severely underpriced rather than the RBT itself.

HE: Here we have a slightly more healthy picture. HE have no shooting capacity to take down heavy cav or even infantry at range effectively, and so the thrower becomes a more attractive proposition (hence we see it used every now and again). Its redundancy is largely fed by the combination of ASF and str 6 hits with rerolls, which mince through small elite units before they even strike. So consider this: if white lions weren't that great of a buy next book (they are pretty much mandatory atm - they are so far above in efficiency than almost anything else in the book even at their current cost) and cav was once again a threat, would the RBT still be dismissed? Its potential to damage T5 monsters is also higher than that of bowmen per point; if said monsters didn't evaporate the second they got into combat and actually had potential to hit the elves back, HE players might (and likely will) decide that they need some ranged firepower. Additionally, the RBT scales pretty well with the use of lore of shadow, which can reduce toughness and slow units - allowing the RBT to be more effective, or have an extra turn of shooting. The pit can also remove most monsters, allowing the RBT to focus on more optimal targets.

I don't think you need to show the thread any courtesy, its already cumbersome beyond repair :p

Off Topic:

On the Book of Hoeth....here isn't really the place to discuss it and whether its OP or balanced, but one thing is for sure: there is nothing finesse about it. You pick the 2 spells you want each turn, you throw 4 dice at each, they get IF'd. Sometimes, on very rare occasions, you only get to pick one spell. The miscast table being statistically dangerous is a myth - anything other than the two extreme miscasts is water under the bridge. Keeping a naked mage safe in an army with ASF is a joke, and said mage can either port out of danger (shadow), or buff and heal himself (life).

Adjusting your mindset is generally a very healthy piece of advice, but the Book ignores the enemy dispelling capacity. How are dwarves meant to beat a BoH shadow mage? I can't shoot him down; I can't beat him in combat (ASF troops shred me, plus the mage can irresistably port around the field as a bonus to his casts); I can't really reach him to combat him in the first place unless he makes a mistake. In return, he can take off one warmachine per turn with pit from over 24" away, and maybe throw a withering and pelt me with arrows if he has enough dice. So I adapt - I spread out my deployment, I plink off some points quickly by aiming at eagles, I pressure with my combat blocks - but in the end I am playing for a draw at best.

TBO:

RBTs aren't really a counter for skirmishers, in a way that they a) have a -1 penalty to get hit, and b) can move fast and hide behind terrain and other units with ease, incurring furtehr penalties. Every race has access to magic missles if skrimishers are a problem for their specific list; we have acccess to OGs. They aren't really a 'shooting' unit in the standard sense, more of a magic missle turret in game mechanics terms :)

Hellblaster & Engineers

You do get some benefits, but then doesn't the engineer die as well if the machine blows up? Thats almost double the points to risk.

Petey
We're cool dude, no worries. Sorry 'bout your cat.

The bearded one
07-03-2012, 10:46
TBO:

RBTs aren't really a counter for skirmishers, in a way that they a) have a -1 penalty to get hit, and b) can move fast and hide behind terrain and other units with ease, incurring furtehr penalties. Every race has access to magic missles if skrimishers are a problem for their specific list; we have acccess to OGs. They aren't really a 'shooting' unit in the standard sense, more of a magic missle turret in game mechanics terms :)

I'd say they can be used quite well for anti-skirmish duty. Skirmishers, due to their mobility, can generally stay out of line of sight arcs of regular archers and wizards, but with 360 degrees the RBT has no such qualms. I use plenty of skinks (50 in fact) and they work well when they get to slip through the gaps in the enemy battleline and move around unhampered in the flank and rearzones of enemy units. Moreover one of the more popular lores for both high and dark elves (lore of shadow), doesn't have any throw-away magic missiles like the lores of fire and light have and even if they do I can always try to dispel it to preserve my skirmishers. The -1 penalty for skirmishers makes it slightly less effective of course, though it is still more than accurate enough to shoot down several skirmishers better than a unit of archers would (particularly if we factor in move&shoot penalties in order to get skirmishers back in the front arc or long range modifiers).



Nothing can top magnificent dwarven engineering though.



Hellblaster & Engineers

You do get some benefits, but then doesn't the engineer die as well if the machine blows up? Thats almost double the points to risk.

I believe the master engineer doesn't join the crew (hence doesn't lend his BS) but stands aside like dwarf master engineers.

theunwantedbeing
07-03-2012, 11:21
I'd say they can be used quite well for anti-skirmish duty.

I think you are getting confused with organ guns.

The bearded one
07-03-2012, 11:39
No, because those can be used perfectly for anti-skirmish duties (although the unreliable number of shots can screw you over at times). The RBT can do it adequately due to it's relative accuracy despite being a ballistic skill weapon.

The Low King
07-03-2012, 11:58
Have you ever played against the BoH without the Banner of Sorcery? Let me guess. . . no? Thought so. The reason people moan and whine about an item like the Book that makes H.E MID-FiNG TIER in the competitive meta-game spectrum is only due to the ability to generate consistent magic phases with the Banner of Sorcery. If the H.E player didn't have the BoS, they wouldn't be able to cast 2-3 spells per turn with I.F, instead one in most phases, and sometimes even none at all. How many times has a H.E player rolled double 1's only to be saved by the BoS which just so happens to generate 3 and channels one miraculously? I'm guess quite often, as it happens to me when I'm playing with them in tournaments, henceforth it must happen to others. Now instead of facing 2 dice that can be dispelled, your facing 6.

Really? you think High elves are lower tier unless they have BoH? i think you need to follow your own advice


Low King: I didn't present basic statistics for two reasons: 1. I assumed that basic statistics could be ascertained from 6 shots that hit on 4's for two turns, and then 6 shots on 3's for a single turn, and then figure out the wounding rolls based on what one would like to wound, and 2. I'm lazy and didn't want to type it out. :p.

Fair enough. However, it would get 2-3 turns of close range (24")..


However, to be honest, a few of your points on RBTs like for example: RBTs shooting at Hydras is quite moot. If you play(ed) Elfs you would understand that monsters aren't a problem for their armies, as they will always strike before them, with a high amount of attacks, and or strength. Frankly, any unit thats hitting a Hydra (with certainty) would have the BoEF, and would most likely be White Lions/Witch Elves/Executioners with ASF banner.

I play woodelves :D

Dark ef army has two hydras....both with M6 (i think). How do you get your specific unit of slower and less manoeuverable troops into combat with both? paticularly if you are playing open lists. Its not a vacume :P

Interestingly, with flaming attacks a unit of White Lions (getting 8 hits against the hydra) have a 74% chance of killing it before it can strike. Put a single wound on it and that goes up to a 91% chance.

Tupinamba
07-03-2012, 20:39
Your points about the ability to apply force anywhere on the field would be better taken if DE didn't have access to 30" range move-and-fire S4 magic crossbows, shades that can run 10" and fire, or the Cauldron of Blood. I do find that the ability to concentrate force freely in several points on the battlefield over the course of a game is an invaluable strength of my DE army, but I achieve this without ever using bolt throwers. Your argument also ignores the real possibility that line of sight will prevent your RBT from picking targets as freely as you might like. Considering that a cover penalty makes the RBT effectively useless and that it is incapable of moving significantly, that's hardly a trivial concern. Considering, as has been mentioned before, that the RBT is also far easier to kill, incapable of bunkering characters, and incapable of fighting in close combat, it remains clearly the weakest non-special character choice in the DE book after the Manticore.

I accept that there are all these other options (as Iīve written myself in my first post on the matter) and aknowledge the problem of line of sight, thatīs why I commented about the use of terrain, though I admittedly under stated it. :angel: However,I think that each of this alternatives for force concentration are different enough from what RBTs do, so that the use of these warmachines can still be a rational choice in certain armybuilts and playstyles.

Concerning the shades, Iīve adressed your point previously, even doing some math-hammer. Plus, 34īī effective range is still pretty different from 48. About the Cauldron, I considered it in the first post too. Itīs the same flexible concentration of force, but it is different, in that it a) needs an already existing other unit (which has to be in the right spot in the first place) to buff and b) it doesnīt fulfill the other purposes like clearing chaff, threatening lone characters etc. The point about magic, TBO made a good commentary about saturation. There comes a point where you canīt invest even further in magic, but you may still want to have more long range artillery. Plus, you may prefer to use magic for things that RBTs canīt do and keep the simple chaff clearence and tipping of balance for the RBT, not to speak of randomness and risk. Reliability has a price too.

Anyway, my point is actually more on principle and to call attention to what are RBTs strenght, range, flexibility and reliability, instead of only keeping calculating statistic kills/survivability.

I guess itīs really because I donīt like the mentality of restricting armybuilts and unit selection by what is considered more optimized, but try to look at what each unit can do, in which cases and how they can be put to good use and in that sense, I think that RBTs are far from being rubbish or unusable. Also, even if weīd admit that they should cost letīs say 80 points (fewer than that would be truly absurd), itīs 40 points too much for a battery of two, which is just 1,6% of a 2500 points army. I mean, is that really so significant to counter all the other advantages it brings, to the point of becoming useless?