ph34r wrote: A bit of a letdown, but it's decently cool. The front machine guns on the bottom are dumb.
Fixed forward firing machine guns were all the rage at the start of seen early WWII M2 and M3 (Stuart) and M4 Sherman tanks and even the post WWII T-54
but yes they were stupid, ineffective and removed as useless (but that's not going to happen in the Imperium)
The turret is at least wide enough that the turret hatches could conceivably be out of the way of the breech recoil zone, especially on the big single gun. The bow guns make me think of the worst tank ever, though.
I don't hate it, but like the redone Sentinel, I question how necessary it is. I certainly prefer the Macharius to this.
And, on that subject, if that size comparison with the Russ is accurate, can we please get an IA update to change the Macharius and Malcador-based tanks to HS choices rather than Lords of War. If the Hierodule got that treatment, so should the Macharius/Malcador.
Pyroalchi wrote: What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
Eh. Personally it reminds me of the chaos marine release. The model and rules design is crapshoot of conflicting philosophies, and the new models themselves are a grab-bag of random stuff, several of which don't feel useful, necessary or even interesting at all. And neither mesh up well with KT releases that should've functioned as heralds or tie-ins.
Can some folks find specific things they like? Sure. But the odds of no one liking anything is pretty low, so isn't much of a measure of success.
But personally, I'm underwhelmed, partly because (like the chaos codex) the ideas that I wanted to build out just aren't allowed or aren't covered by the book.
Don't hate anything, but don't really feel like spending money on it either. At the moment, 40k feels like the 'oh, that might as well exist' system, while 30K, AoS and Warcry are taunting me with things I can't buy yet.
It's growing on me the more I look at it, although I'd leave off the nipple guns, and that pintle mount is either chopping bits off the top of the tank or really spoiling the driver's day...
It's what the Leman Russ would have looked like if it was designed today instead of the mid-90s.
Pyroalchi wrote: What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
I like all the new Guard stuff. If I'm honest, as someone who's bought minis from GW for decades and has been variously appreciative and critical of their design choices, I've been mostly happy with their stuff for the past few years, but this Guard release, I think I'm most satisfied with this overall. Everything looks good to me apart from the Commissar and the Castellan.
I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
As someone who isn't keen, I keep asking myself why didn't they just do a plastic macharius/malcador instead of designing a completely new tank that (for me) is quite meh.
And as mentioned earlier, look for 3D print alternatives to LR's and they basically look like this tank.
I definitely see the appeal of the kit. Although some things are questionable, they mostly look like options.
And as someone who typically isn't a fan of buying kits that are fairly old, I love that I can get a new tank to go along with the refreshed guard. (I'm also someone who is going through the hassle of converting an exoricst to be used by my marines, instead of the standard rhino kit. Shame I started before the HH plastic one came out)
I quite like it! I'll wait to see how it works ruleswise before I decide on how many to get though. Depending on points and if it can be a tank commander it'll either be a centerpiece or make up the heavy armor core of an army.
I could totally see taking a TC one, three lemans, and a baneblade.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
If you want to use it, it might be worthwhile trying to figure out a way to make it look nicer if that's what matters to you.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
If you want to use it, it might be worthwhile trying to figure out a way to make it look nicer if that's what matters to you.
Yeah, what cole said. I'm not against it as a concept, I'm just don't like how it is done. And it should not be too hard to do something about it. Make the "gunner" kneel, modify the pintle so that the stubber points in the air, maybe exchange the stubber for a twin stubber or a multilaser (I just love multilasers), and it might look decent for my personal taste.
@ a plastic Maccharius would have been better: It would definitly have been nice as those are also beautiful tanks. I just hope they keep them as Forgeworld option.
Put the autocannon in the hull ball mount, move the mini demo cannon / minigun to main gun coax, and run the hull stubbers/meltas as cupola mounts for the TC and loader. Seems simple enough and should make it look much better.
Definitely like the new tank design, but double main guns just don't make sense to me so I'll be running the oppressor cannon.
Togusa wrote: The more I look at it the more I think that if you remove the two front mounted stubbers, and the weirdly placed top stubber, along with the sponsons, the better the tank looks. The twin battle cannon or the single cannon with Autocannon look good. No major issues with that. And the Body of the tank looks good. It's just all the copy pasted on extra guns that look silly. And sponsons on a WW2 style tank...yuck!
All that stuff is optional at least. It looks like the only mandatory weapons are the main turret gun and the front hull gun.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
There does appear to be a pintle mount point on the driver's cupola.
I like parts of it but I'm getting off-brand GIJoe toy vibes.
I think I need to see it painted up in simpler Tallarn or DKoK color scheme, it's that camo green with thick edge highlights that's doing it, because it draws more attention to the over-sized feeling. Compare the highlights on the Dorn vs the sentinels.
Have I missed a detail somewhere? Is The second turret position the driver? I thought the driver would be behind the front hull vision block. Turret driving positions have apparently been Tried but they don’t work well as they either totally mess with the drivers spatial awareness as they rotate around with the turret, or they are in a hugely complicated counter rotating position.
PondaNagura wrote: I like parts of it but I'm getting off-brand GIJoe toy vibes.
I think I need to see it painted up in simpler Tallarn or DKoK color scheme, it's that camo green with thick edge highlights that's doing it, because it draws more attention to the over-sized feeling. Compare the highlights on the Dorn vs the sentinels.
You have maybe just maybe made me like it.
I can see it in this sort of scheme, and it would look good I think...
Flinty wrote: Have I missed a detail somewhere? Is The second turret position the driver? I thought the driver would be behind the front hull vision block. Turret driving positions have apparently been Tried but they don’t work well as they either totally mess with the drivers spatial awareness as they rotate around with the turret, or they are in a hugely complicated counter rotating position.
Yeah, I had been saying driver, but the dude with just his head poking out is probably actually the turret gunner or spotter, with the driver down below.
I don't outright dislike it, but there are several features about it that just come across as odd. I think the main issue with it is that the main chassis and the track sections aren't integrated together in the same way they are in pretty much all the other Imperial Guard tanks, instead it's like they're just stuck onto the side so you have a quite noticeable part of the hull above the tracks more so than with other tanks. Even the Baneblades tracks are integrated well. Combined with the more squashed front, rounded tracks, the small turret and the seemingly short-looking length of the vehicle overall, it comes across as more of a random assortment of sections that were made separately and stuck together afterwards rather than having been designed in a cohesive way.
I have to say that I really love the Macharius and I really think that is a better "Rogal Dorn" than the Rogal Dorn itself.
Still, I think that if you cut the lateral sides of the vehicle and your rise them up a little bit and you readjust few bits there and there, you can make a very cool looking tank.
On the other hand, I think that going for a Char-B / Matilda / KV-1 / M6, it is sort of a lazy thing to do from the designers point of view, specially sticking machine guns on the front of the hull.
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
That seems to be it, yeah.
Problem is, it's not really any better than any of the 3rd party redesigns. And there's oodles of those.
I have to say tha GW made a nice job here. I hate the LR with a passion yet I find myself liking the less busy version of this new tank. As many of you pointed out the front stubbers need to go, and at least to my eyes, followed by the sponsons. I don't mind the pintle stubber, and will use the skirt version of the kit.
Togusa wrote: The more I look at it the more I think that if you remove the two front mounted stubbers, and the weirdly placed top stubber, along with the sponsons, the better the tank looks. The twin battle cannon or the single cannon with Autocannon look good. No major issues with that. And the Body of the tank looks good. It's just all the copy pasted on extra guns that look silly. And sponsons on a WW2 style tank...yuck!
All that stuff is optional at least. It looks like the only mandatory weapons are the main turret gun and the front hull gun.
Of course they might be "voluntary" like free weapons in kragnos. Sure you don't have to...but you miss on free weapons.
So, what is the better setup? Dakka platform with Stubbers, heavy bolters, and gatling cannon or the anti-tank version with multi-meltas, and meltaguns?
cuda1179 wrote: So, what is the better setup? Dakka platform with Stubbers, heavy bolters, and gatling cannon or the anti-tank version with multi-meltas, and meltaguns?
cuda1179 wrote: So, what is the better setup? Dakka platform with Stubbers, heavy bolters, and gatling cannon or the anti-tank version with multi-meltas, and meltaguns?
cuda1179 wrote: So, what is the better setup? Dakka platform with Stubbers, heavy bolters, and gatling cannon or the anti-tank version with multi-meltas, and meltaguns?
I'm leaning towards dakka platform.
Well depends on stats and points.
And what you expect to be shooting at.
For a monster like that, it has to be take on all comers. A wide range of preferred targets works for a tank which is almost a super-heavy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think it looks better as a tank destroyer:
Perfect, that illustrates an vague notion I had looking at the shape of the hull. It's too bad we don't have access to 00s-era Forge World anymore, they would surely have produced fantastic conversion kits for the basic Dorn chassis.
As it is, I think we can do it ourselves Upscaled versions of the Destroyer tank hunter and Thunderer siege tank would be the most obvious ones, but I'm also keen to see how it'd look with a big dozer blade and other engineering/recovery gear mounted on it.
Agamemnon2 wrote: It's too bad we don't have access to 00s-era Forge World anymore, they would surely have produced fantastic conversion kits for the basic Dorn chassis.
Personally I am going to have to simplify it before I like it, Too many guns is the ONLY thing I dont like, otherwise I love it. I hated the Leman Russ though.
The tank looks great from above, but weird in the other views.
Now that I see that you can drop the extremely ugly hull stubbers and add skirts, it is growing on me. I think it might be a tank that will look a lot better without the cartoony studio scheme. Now it looks like a toy, but with less guns and a proper weathered and grimdark scheme, I think it will look really good.
I like the Dorn in a vacuum, but I'm afraid it doesn't mesh well visually with the other Guard chasses. Too many rounded bits, different track links, etc.
I do appreciate that you can take it with as little as 2 different weapon profiles on one tank, it's getting obnoxious how much time all the dumb little extra guns they stick everywhere take to resolve.
It's true I probably would like, for example, the Repulsor better if more of the many extra grenade pods and heavy stubbers and random gribblies on it were fully optional.
I really like Dorn (the tank) and it is very distinct looking despite as it is not just box on tracks. Also, there seems to be plenty of customization options you could do.
I almost like it a lot, just a short list of bits that would have to be converted to make it look more tanky and less cartoony:
1. The gun nips/lights get removed entirely. The guns can't traverse sideways through the tracks and the lights look like a weak spot in the front armour. Chop off and smooth over with putty I guess.
2. Looks better without sponsons. 2 multi meltas is a lot of dakka to give up though so potentially pintle mount these on the 2 turret hatches.
3. Comically large gunshield and cannons, swapping for something more plain like the macharius style twin battlecannon would clean the model up a lot.
*sigh* So much for, well, everything. Looks like GW has massively enlarged the scale of the guardsmen in this new revamp.
Spoiler:
Damnit, I just spent 24 hours feeling really pleased at this new release, and then it turns out theyve pulled this clownshoes move which probably means the entire army is now on 29.45mm bases or other idiotic malarkey.
Agamemnon2 wrote: *sigh* So much for, well, everything. Looks like GW has massively enlarged the scale of the guardsmen in this new revamp.
Damnit, I just spent 24 hours feeling really pleased at this new release, and then it turns out theyve pulled this clownshoes move which probably means the entire army is now on 29.45mm bases or other idiotic malarkey.
There's a reason I've been saying Primaris Cadians since the minute they were first shown.
But now I kinda wonder if they're bigger than HH "Truescale" Firstborn.
ListenToMeWarriors wrote: Have we any idea how the new basic Cadian infantry compare size wise to the Kasrkrin? 25mm bases on the basic infantry or 28mm?
No-one has admitted to having them yet (the Kasrkin were 'officially' released on Saturday). WarCom said they're still on 25s.
Agamemnon2 wrote: *sigh* So much for, well, everything. Looks like GW has massively enlarged the scale of the guardsmen in this new revamp.
Damnit, I just spent 24 hours feeling really pleased at this new release, and then it turns out theyve pulled this clownshoes move which probably means the entire army is now on 29.45mm bases or other idiotic malarkey.
Primaris grunts confirmed!
Gonna love me the new fluff in which Cawl devised new iron rations supplied with a healthy amount of spinach to promote greater grunt height.
It's just such a classic "You had one job. One job..." situation. Oh well, at least the scale creep won't be as noticeable on the Rogal Dorn or field gun crews. If they've screwed the basic infantry up for no readily apparent reason other than their own boneheaded stupidity, though I'm going to be less pleased.
Pyroalchi wrote: Might still be within the range normal for humans. Maybe the average Krieger is 1,70 m and the average Cadian more like 1,95 m
I'm actually ok with that. Average height in WW1 was extremely low compared to today's standards. On top, most Korpsmen are malnourished 15 years olds. Hardly any of them live towards their 20s. I am looking forward to new Catachans though (even if I doubt, they will ever be produced).
Well, at least they stick with tradition and make the next round of Marine-invalidating embiggened humans Cadians again. Primaris midgets, your days are numbered!
It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
The guy standing in the open in the back of the turret would have made more sense (in my opinion), if his weapon would point to the sky indicating a kind of "backup-AA stubber" for real emergencies. At least that's were I could see adding a weapon without armor protection make sense. When adding an AA gun under armor is too much hassel you might as well stick it to the back of the turret to give the Infantry riding with you an opportunity to stick it to the evil flyers. But what do I know, I'm not a tank engineer
Its actually a design feature pulled straight from the Sherman. Every Sherman had one, but in many cases they were pulled for use by dismounted infantry to augment the squads firepower rather than remaining with the tank.
Perfect Organism wrote: I absolutely love it. It fixes most of the issues I have with existing guard vehicles: tracks which actually look like they would work, a turret with (almost) enough space for both the gun breeches and crew, and it has enough details in common with the baneblade and its derivatives (previously the only good looking tracked vehicles the IG had) that they should look great together.
Other stuff I like: distinct tank-crew uniform (hopefully with a good selection of heads for different regiments, but that isn't essential. Sherman-style stubber.
Things I don't like: no obvious way for the hull crew to get into the tank, a few too many guns, that rear-left stowage pile with the sandbags and the colossal wrench just lying on top of them.
Yep, overall love the design. My single biggest complaint is that the Sponson placement doesn't appear to make sense. The track profile appears to slightly change angles right next to/above/behind the sponson, that implies the presence of an idler wheel right there. That means that the sponson couldn't realistically be a "through-track" extension of the hull (as is the case with the Leman Russ). That means the sponson is either remote controlled, or someone crawls in/out form the outside and has no means of accessing the rest of the tank - and yet, insofar as I can tell, there is no hatch into the sponson itself (which would also be useful for reloading ammo), nor are there any obvious optics implying remote control... for that matter, theres no obvious viewport/vision slit to assist with aiming/firing at all.
How do they compare to Scions (who were fairly chunky themselves)? I won't be able to assemble mine until tomorrow to check.
Edit: In Cadian Blood, the Kasrkin Master Sergeant is described as being about two meters talls, though there's no telling if he's the norm or an extreme.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm planning on getting rid of the hull stunners, and making a twin stunner mount on on coupula and a single stubber mount on the other coupula.
I think nipple guns gone, then a traditional glacis MG mount, but make it twin, because 40k. Same guns, different frontal position.
Plus the BT Crusaders are the biggest Primaris by a fair margin, so stick a standard Primaris in there on an equally tall base and he won't be too much larger than the Kasrkin.
Agamemnon2 wrote: *sigh* So much for, well, everything. Looks like GW has massively enlarged the scale of the guardsmen in this new revamp.
Spoiler:
Damnit, I just spent 24 hours feeling really pleased at this new release, and then it turns out theyve pulled this clownshoes move which probably means the entire army is now on 29.45mm bases or other idiotic malarkey.
Ah. Damn.
Well I guess I'm not getting any of these new Kasrkin afterall.
judgedoug wrote: It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
I don't know. Personally, I learned a long time ago not to put fiddly bits onto GW tanks. Travel and Storage are never kind to sponsions, antenna, or pintle mounted weapons.
Is there a way to mount other heavy weapons on that back pintle, like a heavy Bolter, or a Multi-Melta? Front mounted weapon on tanks is always good to have a flamer, BTW. Stubbers are just the kind of weapon to make you waste rolls on.
judgedoug wrote: It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
I'd disagree, considering their location doesn't make them actual hull mounted MGs like you would typically see in a radio operator / assistant driver position. They're more like the fixed forward guns in the M2 Medium (and located in the transmission case no less).
A hull howitzer, however, was prevalent in many deployed infantry support tanks of WW2 (Char B1, M3 Medium, Stug B, Churchill MkI, etc etc).
As far as actual MBTs are concerned (Post '46), neither are used.
Pyroalchi wrote: Might still be within the range normal for humans. Maybe the average Krieger is 1,70 m and the average Cadian more like 1,95 m
I smell the scent of copium.
Maybe... Personally its more that I have tons of 3rd party "guardsmen" of varying height and that was always my explanation. Also it is kind of strange to think an army of trillions (or just billions? Not sure at the moment) would NOT have vast variation in body height. I mean when I was conscript my platoon ranged from 1,60 to 2,00 m, and we were drawn from a country of puny 80 million.
Hmmm. If the Kasrkin are larger than the shock troopers, I am ok with that- it is pretty common for grenadiers to be drawn from the biggest soldiers historically and I think this is also in Kasrkin lore.
If all the new Cadians are uniformly big then that is annoying and a missed opportunity to give some height variation to the range (I like a bit of variation in my models, looks natural).
It might be me misremembering but IIRC in Cadian Blood, the Kasrkin are noted as being both tall and bulky compared to normal Cadians.
As always though, best to wait and see what reality brings. Feels like only a few months ago people were declaring the sky had fallen because the Mk6 models were far too big and that turned out just fine.
Gert wrote: It might be me misremembering but IIRC in Cadian Blood, the Kasrkin are noted as being both tall and bulky compared to normal Cadians.
As always though, best to wait and see what reality brings. Feels like only a few months ago people were declaring the sky had fallen because the Mk6 models were far too big and that turned out just fine.
Their Master Sergeant was, that much I remember, though I think it was also described as the Carapace Armor increasing their apparent bulk.
Kasrkin have some minor biological augmentations. Some shots of growth hormone would fit that bill. That also makes it clear that they’re a different unit. Being viewed from a distance they could be mistaken for normal Cadians.
I'm not worried about the scale creep of the new Cadians.
Even if the models were the same size, the infantry models won't be intermixed into any if my existing Guard forces. And any vehicles or the new field Artillery I do mix in will be re-crewed with Tallarns, Mordians, etc anyways.
And used on thier own? These nu-Cadian models will just represent a force raised on some planet where humans grow bigger.
In my armies, particularly historical ones, I have a bit of size difference between the figures because they're from a ton of different manufacturers and it looks good to have some differences. These however are very big and remain uniformly big, which makes them look a bit odd next to other units that are uniformly shorter. But then again, I don't really want to go for the Cadian look anyways so that shouldn't be an issue.
I have also found a couple shots out there with them next to the old Kasrkin and they look in scale to those, which allays my fears somewhat. Still mostly interested in how the regular guys size up against Admech and the new traitor guard.
Dawnbringer wrote: I have also found a couple shots out there with them next to the old Kasrkin and they look in scale to those, which allays my fears somewhat. Still mostly interested in how the regular guys size up against Admech and the new traitor guard.
Hmmm. If only the plastics would have more shooting poses......I'd gladly sell my metal Kasrkin for the money to buy the plastics. I think I have around 80 to a 100 of them.
As it is, I will hopefully be able to mix in the plastic special weapons Kasrkin in.....
judgedoug wrote: It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
The M3 Lee/Grant tank in WWII had 75mm hull cannons and 37mm in turrets.
We also have to remember that the Rogal Dorn isn't a "normal" main battle tank, the thing is huge. It's more like a Maus than a Tiger, and the Maus did have a design variant with a hull cannon.
Do we know the new base-sizes for the Sentinels an new artillery models?
Time for me to order some new bases, might as well orde those as I'll be using third party Artillery pieces (from Mortiantank with Victoria Miniatures crew).
Singleton Mosby wrote: Do we know the new base-sizes for the Sentinels an new artillery models?
Time for me to order some new bases, might as well orde those as I'll be using third party Artillery pieces (from Mortiantank with Victoria Miniatures crew).
I'm pretty sure it was said the new artillery comes on 100mm bases.
judgedoug wrote: It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
The M3 Lee/Grant tank in WWII had 75mm hull cannons and 37mm in turrets.
Spoiler:
It did, but I think the point being made is that the Grant isn’t an MBT, as they only came in post war.
Haighus wrote: Hmmm. If the Kasrkin are larger than the shock troopers, I am ok with that- it is pretty common for grenadiers to be drawn from the biggest soldiers historically and I think this is also in Kasrkin lore.
Plus the Imperium actually has the technology to boost height and muscle. I can't imagine they'd be squimish about filling their elite troops with some steroids or sci-fi equivalents.
On a more practical level, in 3rd edition it was good that Marines and Catachans (our only plastic IG option) were more or less compatible, allowing for head, weapon and arm swaps at a time when there weren't a lot of bits out there. I wonder if that could be the reason IG sizes keep pace with Marines, even though there is a lot more out there now.
The Lee/Grant, same as the StuG were the result of armies needing bigger guns very fast but the industry had not figured out yet how to put them in a small turret yet
(So thy put the available guns in the hull of available vehicles to have something, as soon as development was done they were replaced)
So unless the Imperium was under pressure to design the Dorn, and than retro fitted the turret on leftovers, it makes not much sense
kodos wrote: The Lee/Grant, same as the StuG were the result of armies needing bigger guns very fast but the industry had not figured out yet how to put them in a small turret yet
(So thy put the available guns in the hull of available vehicles to have something, as soon as development was done they were replaced)
So unless the Imperium was under pressure to design the Dorn, and than retro fitted the turret on leftovers, it makes not much sense
As I pointed out before, the Dorn isn't exactly a MBT, it's a small superheavy. It's scaled more with superheavy tanks from the WWII era.
kodos wrote: The Lee/Grant, same as the StuG were the result of armies needing bigger guns very fast but the industry had not figured out yet how to put them in a small turret yet
(So thy put the available guns in the hull of available vehicles to have something, as soon as development was done they were replaced)
So unless the Imperium was under pressure to design the Dorn, and than retro fitted the turret on leftovers, it makes not much sense
The Imperium is all about "this is how we've been doing it for 10,000 years and I see no reason to change things today".
That is and always has been the canon explanation for WWI style tanks in the grim darkness of the far future and I don't see why it would not apply to WWII style tanks.
If anything I dislike the primaris tanks because they step so far from the retrotech of 40k.
As I pointed out before, the Dorn isn't exactly a MBT, it's a small superheavy. It's scaled more with superheavy tanks from the WWII era.
I mean, 40k vehicle scaling is all over the place. Compared to the crew it is comparable to an MBT, but compared to other 40k vehicles it is definitely on the large size. (Based on photos seen)
kodos wrote: The Lee/Grant, same as the StuG were the result of armies needing bigger guns very fast but the industry had not figured out yet how to put them in a small turret yet
(So thy put the available guns in the hull of available vehicles to have something, as soon as development was done they were replaced)
So unless the Imperium was under pressure to design the Dorn, and than retro fitted the turret on leftovers, it makes not much sense
As I pointed out before, the Dorn isn't exactly a MBT, it's a small superheavy. It's scaled more with superheavy tanks from the WWII era.
And for a ww2 superheavy it makes even less sense to have a big frontal weakspot for a weapon that is of no use
That is not a superheavy it is just an upscaled pre-ww2 experimental failed design that was of no use during real battles
It is not even a good "not fighting but showing of power" vehicle as this is not the job of guard as Titans exist
Yes, lets try to analyse 40k vehicles using real world design logic
40k vehicles have always been so dumb that the more "realistic" amounts of weapons and gubbins on the new SM vehicles make them look "out of place" in the setting!
I'm just chuffed the M6 got turned into a space tank. The chassis assault gun mockup image is super cool.
Hmmm. If only the plastics would have more shooting poses......I'd gladly sell my metal Kasrkin for the money to buy the plastics. I think I have around 80 to a 100 of them.
As it is, I will hopefully be able to mix in the plastic special weapons Kasrkin in.....
There are more shooting poses possible, it seems GW built their studio Kasrkin in mainly non-shooting poses. Looking at the build instructions in the set, there is between 2 to 5 build option for each of the Kasrkin bodies, quite a few Hot-Shot Lasguns shooting poses are possible, plus a couple of good ones each with Plasma/Melta/Grenade launcher.
RustyNumber wrote: Yes, lets try to analyse 40k vehicles using real world design logic
It is hard to not do that when nothing in the setting says that you shouldn't do that. Despite its wonky appearance, the Leman Russ and even the Rogal Dorn are just basic b*tch IRL tanks with no part that says "yeah, we are having some crazy gak here, real world design logic doesn't apply". It is just a tank with normal weapons, normal armor, normal drive taking normal fuel, and even being operated by guys pushing buttons. It just looks wonky because designing something non-wonky (or making up something that clearly invalidates real world design logic, for that matter) is hard.
The models look great. Proportionally, they look far, far better than the ancient Cadian kit we've had for years. Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing. But scale has always been an issue. When the original smaller Cadians came out, Space Marines were smaller. So, in a sense... nothing has really changed?
So the scale is whack. As it always is. But the models are great. But the scale is whack. But the models are great. They really are very good.
That is not a superheavy it is just an upscaled pre-ww2 experimental failed design that was of no use during real battles
I mean, if it is really based on the Matilda II then it being a glorified paperweight only good to bully Grot tanks is legit.
Not to go OT but I mean that simply isn't true. The Matilda was excellent in North Africa and only really got phased out as the Valentine was cheaper to produce.
Incidentally, does anyone know anything about the company command squads? Are they supposed to be more of an upgrad to platoon command squads (which means you can have a total of three such squads combined) or are they a separate entry?
Hmm... if only the photographer put the camera level with the table.
The second picture makes the plastic one look almost a head taller than the metal one.
Agreed, would have been nicer with the camera level and a grid behind them but it's better than nothing. I agree the plastic one appears a bit taller, but they also have their tilted head back, rather than tilted down, and are wearing a helmet. (Accepting GW seems in general to think helmets are skin tight and as thick as a balaclava, but actual helmets to add quite a bit of volume to a head).
ekwatts wrote: Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.
I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.
ekwatts wrote: Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.
I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.
Indeed, this speaks of a deliberate redesign. I noticed right after the model reveal that the Kasrkin tunics are much longer and that the leg armour is barely visable, whereas the reverse was true on the metal models. The chest armour is also less pronouced. Overall I don't mind these changes, though I am kind of sad that the Melta and Plasma gunners don't look like this anymore:
The models look great. Proportionally, they look far, far better than the ancient Cadian kit we've had for years. Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing. But scale has always been an issue. When the original smaller Cadians came out, Space Marines were smaller. So, in a sense... nothing has really changed?
So the scale is whack. As it always is. But the models are great. But the scale is whack. But the models are great. They really are very good.
And we can't always have everything.
So basically you are wondering if GW miniature designers are totally inept which is bit rich but only way they would need to artificially increase size here. Models were more than big enough to details and proportions.
ekwatts wrote: Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.
I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.
It may not be a question of detail so much as keeping the weapons about the same size as before for bits compatibility. If they make more human proportions at the same height, the guns will look more oversized on the resulting scrawny models. Lean is not a look GW tends to go for anyway. Their people tend to be more on the bulky side to lessen the impact of oversized heads, hands and feet. So if you can't adjust weapon size or width/bulk, height is the only way left to get closer to human proportions.
Singleton Mosby wrote: Based on the pictures we have seen. Will sentinels go from 60mm to 80mm bases?
Based on the below picture (spoilered for size) I'd say 80mm is the new size. The Command Squad models right next to it are supposed to be on 28mm bases and their bases seem to be about a third of the Sentinel base's width.
judgedoug wrote: It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.
I'd disagree, considering their location doesn't make them actual hull mounted MGs like you would typically see in a radio operator / assistant driver position. They're more like the fixed forward guns in the M2 Medium (and located in the transmission case no less).
A hull howitzer, however, was prevalent in many deployed infantry support tanks of WW2 (Char B1, M3 Medium, Stug B, Churchill MkI, etc etc).
As far as actual MBTs are concerned (Post '46), neither are used.
I'd say your examples (B1, M3 Lee/Grant) are great examples of that particular failure of that interwar era of tank design. The Stug ausf B, and other variants of self-propelled gun, whose role was support, less so, due to not being a combat tank (theoretically, though obviously the F and G were increasingly pressed into frontline antitank roles but the Stuh42 continued to be primarily infantry support).
Meanwhile, hull MG's stuck around until the 1950's (up to and including the T-54, and M47 Patton with bow machine guns) when newer designs began to use superior armor compositions than steel and any seam such as those created by any bow gun proved to be fatal weak points. Combined with stabilizers becoming standard on main guns meant that the relatively accurate bow mg was finally retired.
If the intent of this new tank is to evoke the late-war or early-postwar era, the machine guns at least fit into that design, whereas the hull howitzer does not. (imho the only part that's bad on the Dorn is the hull howitzer and sponsons; removing these failed early and interwar design choices would certainly make the Dorn look "higher tech" compared to the Russ)
But of course these are all fantasy tanks, and this new tank has a slightly more 'realistic' flavor that the ol Leman Russ...
ekwatts wrote: Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.
I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.
It may not be a question of detail so much as keeping the weapons about the same size as before for bits compatibility. If they make more human proportions at the same height, the guns will look more oversized on the resulting scrawny models. Lean is not a look GW tends to go for anyway. Their people tend to be more on the bulky side to lessen the impact of oversized heads, hands and feet. So if you can't adjust weapon size or width/bulk, height is the only way left to get closer to human proportions.
Singleton Mosby wrote: Based on the pictures we have seen. Will sentinels go from 60mm to 80mm bases?
Based on the below picture (spoilered for size) I'd say 80mm is the new size. The Command Squad models right next to it are supposed to be on 28mm bases and their bases seem to be about a third of the Sentinel base's width.
Spoiler:
Gw doen't care about bits compatibility with old kits. What you have in box is what you build.
Definite "meh" on the new tank. It's not terrible but it has some odd design choices and I'd much rather have functioning rules for the Macharius and Malcador lines. IMO the biggest problem is that it has the primaris marine problem of GW being terrified of having empty surfaces and copy/pasting random tertiary guns onto every possible surface in their CAD program. Delete the hull and/or sponson guns, take off the ridiculous back of turret gun, and trim some of the excessive random bits and you have a decent looking tank. Still not as good as the Macharius, but I don't expect that level of quality from GW's designers these days. Vehicles are definitely not their strong point.
And yeah, historical tanks had hull cannons. They also had large hull cannons, like the demolisher cannon the Malcador, not tiny secondary cannons that are smaller than the turret gun. And definitely not fixed-mount anti-infantry cannons that you have to pivot the entire tank to aim. It looks less like a functional design and more like GW's primaris obsession with always adding more guns to the datasheet.
Have the special weapon restrictions on the Kasrkin squad been leaked yet? Got my Shadow-something box today and want to build the squad for regular 40k games.
BrookM wrote: Have the special weapon restrictions on the Kasrkin squad been leaked yet? Got my Shadow-something box today and want to build the squad for regular 40k games.
2 of any plus a marksman and demo. No definite answer though.
I think that if I ever want a Dorn with all weapons galore, I'd probably proxy it with this, as I much prefer this one's version of sponsons (and well, I like the general form better too ^^):
Spoiler:
As it has multiple options for the sides, I could build it with a single side and fron sponson to proxy it:
So I got my Shadowvaults box yesterday, and building the Kasrkin I was wondering what the instructions are for the second Gunner with a Hot-Shot Volley gun, it appears to use the same pose as the recon-trooper, but I have no idea what left arm goes with it.
Bureau Gnome wrote: So I got my Shadowvaults box yesterday, and building the Kasrkin I was wondering what the instructions are for the second Gunner with a Hot-Shot Volley gun, it appears to use the same pose as the recon-trooper, but I have no idea what left arm goes with it.
+1, I'm also a bit annoyed that the instructions miss out on how to use the second volleygun in the kit.
Bureau Gnome wrote: So I got my Shadowvaults box yesterday, and building the Kasrkin I was wondering what the instructions are for the second Gunner with a Hot-Shot Volley gun, it appears to use the same pose as the recon-trooper, but I have no idea what left arm goes with it.
+1, I'm also a bit annoyed that the instructions miss out on how to use the second volleygun in the kit.
I think it's still supposed to use that grenade arm or auspex.
With the Relic Gatekeeper (Relic Battle Cannon) back it would have been funny if it could be taken on the Rogal Dorn to replace one of its two battle cannons.
I just came across these. Someone over on Reddit transcribed them from an excessively long video.
Relics
THE EMPEROR'S BENEDICTION – range 18 Pistol 3 S4 AP1 D2 Abilities: ignore the Look Out, Sir rule. unmodified wound roll of 6 does 1 mortal wound in addition
TACTICAL AUTO-RELIQUARY OF TYBERIUS- issue +1 order
DEATH MASK OF OLLANIUS – bearer + their unit gets a 4++
THE BARBICANT'S KEY Grand – Dark matter crystal/viel of shadows equivalent (e.g. pick up and put down same turn)
KUROV'S AQUILA – Vect equivalent (e.g., 1 enemy strat costs 1 more CP for the game)
RELIC OF LOST Cadia- Cadian only. Once per battle. (Aura): CADIAN INPANTRY in range get +1 WS and BS and attacks and Ld
ORDER OF THE BASTIUM STELLARIS – Transhuman for bearer and unit
PSY-SIGIL OF SANCTION Psyker model only know +1 power, cast +1 power
ARMOUR OF GRAF TOSCHENKO bearer gets 2+ save and +1 wound
LAURELS OF COMMAND Can issue one order (from a specific subset, not all orders) in the enemy turn. Once per game
Claw of the Desert Tigers: Model with power sword or Power Saber only. Str +2 Ap-3 D2. Each time the bearer fights with this weapon you get +2 attacks.
Clarion Proclomatus: Upgrade for a Master Vox guy in a command squad. Gives a command squad officer unlimited range for orders, but only when ordering another unit that has a vox caster.
Relic Banner (name unknown): Upgrade for a regimental standard bearer only. 6” Aura that effects friendly core units. Friendly core units ignore any modifiers to hit and to wound when making ranged attacks. Enemy models cannot use any rules to ignore the wounds it looses (no feel no pain!) (not sure how this works with Transhuman and units that can only loose so many wounds per phase)
Null Coat: Tempestor Prime and Commissar model only. Bearer can attempt to deny 1 enemy psychic power and gets +1 to deny.
Emperors Fury: Model with a plasma pistol only. Range 12” Pistol 3 Str 8 Ap-3 D2. (doesn’t seem to overheat)
Refractor Field Generator: Tempestor Prime Only. 6” Aura that effects friendly scions Infantry units. Friendly scions within range get 5++
Stratagems
Relentless: Use in the command phase on a friendly vehicle. Model counts as being on its top profile until start of next command phase. 2CP for titanic vehicles, 1CP for other vehicles.
Field Promotion: Costs 1 CP. Use this when your Warlord dies. Select 1 officer model in your army and give it a warlords trait it is able to take. Full all rules and objective purposes this model now becomes your warlord. If the enemy had a objective to kill your warlord then it does not succeed. Can only be used once per game.
Vengeful Salute: Use when a friendly vehicle is destroyed in the enemy shooting or fight phase, as long as the vehicle did not explode. Before you remove the model the vehicle can shoot with its turret weapons. The vehicle counts as having BS 5+. Costs 1CP to use on Battle Tanks or Armored Superiority units, otherwise it costs 2CP.
Crush them! Costs 1 CP. Use in the fight phase. Use on Battle Tank or Superheavy units. Cannot be used when fighting enemy vehicles or monsters. Model gets WS 4+. If the model has the armored Keyword the model gets WS 3+. Unmodified wound roles of a 6 do 1 mortal wound in addition to other damage. (Note sure how this works with a dozer blade)
Fire on my Position: Costs 2 CP. Use when a Friendly model with a vox caster dies from a melee attack. Don’t remove the vox caster model. After all attacks have been resolved roll a D6 for each unit within 3” of the voxcaster. On a 4+ that unit take D3 Mortal wounds. Once resolved remove the vox caster model. This strat only costs 1 CP for Units with the Cult of Sacrifice keyword.
Officer Cadre: Costs 1 CP. Standard extra warlord trait stratagem.
Battlefield Request: Costs 1 CP. Select a Sgt or Watchmaster model in your army and give them 1 of the following relics: Claw of the Desert Tigers, Barbicants Key, The Emperors Fury, Relic of Lost Cadia.
Imperial Guards Armory: Costs 1 CP Standard extra relic stratagem.
Maverick Maneuvers: Costs 1 CP. Use in your shooting phase. Select a sentinels unit. After they have resolved their shooting, the unit can make a normal move up to 6”. It can’t shoot again this phase.
Thunderous charge: Costs 1 CP. Use on Ogryns or Rough Riders when they have finished a charge. Select 1 enemy unit within engagement range. Roll 1 D6 for each Ogryn or Rough Rider in Engagement range, for each roll that equals or beats the enemy Toughness, they suffer 1 Mortal Wound.
Artillery Strike Request: Costs 2 CP. Use this stratagem in your command phase when the Master of Ordnance or an Expert Bombardier Officer is on the board. Place a marker on the board. At the start of your next command phase, roll 1 D6 for each enemy unit within 6” of the center of the marker. Add +1 for each unit within 3” and -1 for an enemy character. On a 2-5 the enemy units suffers d3 mortal wounds. On a 6 they suffer d6 mortal wounds. You can only use this stratagem once.
Vicious Traps: Costs 1 CP. Use in your opponents charge phase when an enemy unit charges one of your units is fully inside area terrain. Roll D6, 2-5 the enemy suffers d3 mortal wounds, on a 6 suffers 2d3. Add +1 to the roll if your unit has the Catachan or Veteran Guerrillas Keyword. Add +1 if they have the Melta Mine keyword. Add +1 if Sly Marbo is on the battlefield.
Feign & Strike: Costs 1 CP. Use on Rough Riders in the movement phase when they fall back. The unit can Shoot and Charge even though they fell back.
Flakk Barrage: Costs 1 CP. Use in the enemy movement phase after the enemy has set up reinforcements. 1 Hydra may shoot as though it were in your shooting phase, but can only target aircraft that have set up as reinforcements this turn.
Shield of Flesh: Costs 1 CP. Basically the same as it is in Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good.
Mount up: Costs 2CP. Use in your shooting phase. Can only be used on units with Mechanized or Militarum Tempestus Keywords. After they have resolved their shooting, if the whole unit is within 3” of a friendly transport they can embark.
Overcharge Lascells: Costs 2 CP. Use in the shooting phase on a Kasrkin or Scions unit. Each time that unit makes an unmodified wound roll of a 6 with a Hotshot weapon, it inflicts 1 mortal wound in addition to normal damage. Can do 6 mortal wounds max.
Smoke launchers: Costs 1 CP. Standard smokescreen like stratagem.
Ablative Plating: Costs 2 CP. Use the stratagem in any phase. Select one battle tank or Armoured unit. Until the end of the phase reduce the damage of enemy attacks by 1 (to a minimum of 1). This stratagem costs 3 CP for a Rogal Dorn or Superheavy unit.
Melta Mine: Costs 1 CP. Unit with Melta Mine Keyword only. Use in the fight phase against an enemy monster or vehicle. Roll a D6, on a 2-5 the enemy unit suffers d3+1 mortal wound. On a 6 it suffers 2d3 mortal wounds.
Battlefield Surgery: Costs 1 CP. Details unknown. Orbital Interference: Costs 1 CP. Effects Officer of the Fleet models. Other Details unknown. Acceptable Losses: Costs 1 CP. Details unknown.
Field Promotion: Costs 1 CP. Use this when your Warlord dies. Select 1 officer model in your army and give it a warlords trait it is able to take. Full all rules and objective purposes this model now becomes your warlord. If the enemy had a objective to kill your warlord then it does not succeed. Can only be used once per game.
That's a pity, but it kind of makes sense I guess? Aren't commissars supposed to only take command if there's no senior officer left? There's Yarrick, but he's supposed to be a special case, no?
GiToRaZor wrote: Honestly, I would drop it just out of spite. It is a terrible rule.
Absolutely, it's the most counterintuitive piece of nonsense in the game. I doesn't simulate anything in-universe, its a purely abstract mechanical fix to Guard not being killy enough to compete in tournaments. I would never use it.
GiToRaZor wrote: Honestly, I would drop it just out of spite. It is a terrible rule.
Absolutely, it's the most counterintuitive piece of nonsense in the game. I doesn't simulate anything in-universe, its a purely abstract mechanical fix to Guard not being killy enough to compete in tournaments. I would never use it.
I completely agree, it's a greasy rule that is only there because the book is so horribly out of date. I will never use it. My commitment to that feeling is backed up by not using my guard army at all since the rule came out. Between that rule, AoC and easy non interactive secondaries I'd feel like needing a shower after a game like that.
GiToRaZor wrote: Honestly, I would drop it just out of spite. It is a terrible rule.
Absolutely, it's the most counterintuitive piece of nonsense in the game. I doesn't simulate anything in-universe, its a purely abstract mechanical fix to Guard not being killy enough to compete in tournaments. I would never use it.
You basically describes most of stratagems and abilities in 40k
Yeah, it's a major irritation for those three units(two of which are literally Command Squads which really should have had set loadouts to begin with) still remaining that could do so...except you still can for Scions too.
You just can't quad up, and doubling requires a 10 model unit from what's been implied. Which is the same as it is for Kasrkin, who reputedly are coming only in 10 model units.
And just to head off the inevitable nonsense from certain individuals: Yes, I'm aware of this stance being at odds with my requests for Skitarii...but no, it's not the same thing as Skitarii. Skitarii were an elite-ish unit type comprising two different variants with distinctive roles(short range gunfighters with a melee debuff in the form of Vanguard and long-range pseudosnipers in the form of the Rangers), who have had their maximum unit size doubled and still can't take three of a single weapon despite being able to do so previously at their unit cap and having their distinctive roles watered down to a point of unrecognizability.
And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
Yes it is. And Death Guard. And Primaris Captains. And Wyches. And Chosen. And Kommandos. And Hearthkyn Warriors. And so on, and so on, and so on...
Gadzilla666 wrote: And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
It's only unfair when they do it to Kan's pet armies (and it's always the fault of the players, especially tournament players, and never GW). Everything else is perfectly justified, and he'll tell you why!
GiToRaZor wrote: Honestly, I would drop it just out of spite. It is a terrible rule.
pgmason wrote: Absolutely, it's the most counterintuitive piece of nonsense in the game. I doesn't simulate anything in-universe, its a purely abstract mechanical fix to Guard not being killy enough to compete in tournaments. I would never use it.
Both 'Hammer of the Emperor' and 'Armour of Contempt' are the very definition of lazy rules writing. They are virtually an abdication of responsibility for proper game design.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
Except as I literally just explained, it isn't the same thing. But you keep thinking otherwise I guess?
Command Squads getting to spam Specials was always stupid. They were meant to be a COMMAND SQUAD. There literally was Special Weapon Squads that should have been fulfilling that role of spammed Specials...but nope, they let you keep doing it in Command Squads.
No wonder they felt fine cutting special weapon squads.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
This.
Whilst not an active player so my opinion, quite frankly, worthless?
It would be one thing if everyone was affected by Only What Comes In Your Kit. And I am not saying whether that thing is good or bad.
I think it’s less preferable to not putting such a limit, especially on a unit like Skitarii or Wyches where you rarely end up fielding just a single unit, let alone buying just one box.
But the current limitation being applied so unevenly is genuinely The Worst Possible Solution.
Gadzilla666 wrote: And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
Except as I literally just explained, it isn't the same thing. But you keep thinking otherwise I guess?
Command Squads getting to spam Specials was always stupid. They were meant to be a COMMAND SQUAD. There literally was Special Weapon Squads that should have been fulfilling that role of spammed Specials...but nope, they let you keep doing it in Command Squads.
No wonder they felt fine cutting special weapon squads.
Wellll.....1: You "literally just explaining it" in an edit that you did while I was "literally" typing the post you quoted. And 2: Allowing the guys helping lead your army/protecting your army's leader to get the "good stuff" isn't "stupid". Those guys should have their pick of equipment. The "stupid" thing was making Command Squads a unit that was separate from said leader, instead of making them an integrated squad with them.
Command Squads getting to spam Specials was always stupid. They were meant to be a COMMAND SQUAD. There literally was Special Weapon Squads that should have been fulfilling that role of spammed Specials...but nope, they let you keep doing it in Command Squads.
No wonder they felt fine cutting special weapon squads.
GW design philosophy has always been authority=ass kicking. Chapter Masters don't sit in orbit plotting strategy.
With human stats an IG officers can't got toe-toe with even mediocre enemy units, but a command squad with 4 special weapons (or 1 heavy and 2 specials) is an effective unit.
With human stats an IG officers can't got toe-toe with even mediocre enemy units
I wouldn't be necessarily against it if they could. In fact, if the Castellan's description is any measure, then this might be a thing already in the new codex.
Command Squads getting to spam Specials was always stupid. They were meant to be a COMMAND SQUAD. There literally was Special Weapon Squads that should have been fulfilling that role of spammed Specials...but nope, they let you keep doing it in Command Squads.
No wonder they felt fine cutting special weapon squads.
GW design philosophy has always been authority=ass kicking. Chapter Masters don't sit in orbit plotting strategy.
Sure, but they also aren't at every single battle ever accompanied by the entirety of the First Company outfitted in Terminator Armor.
With human stats an IG officers can't got toe-toe with even mediocre enemy units, but a command squad with 4 special weapons (or 1 heavy and 2 specials) is an effective unit.
You know what's even more effective? A radio uplink to your Basilisks, binoculars, and a map. Or your officer/sergeant wielding a special weapon themselves(which is, I might add, something I've long argued for on Guard).
But hey, it's not like there was ever a time where, say, that whole "Command Platoon" thing featured Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads right? Right?!
Realistic? LOL, it's 40k.
Where did I say anything about realism?
From a simple balance perspective, it was stupid. Command Squads should not have been competing with Special Weapon Squads(WHICH WERE IN COMMAND PLATOONS!). It's the same reason we saw Conscript+Commissar+Cheap Officer in the early Index days rather than Infantry Squads: number-crunchers will always go for whatever averages out the "best".
Gadzilla666 wrote: And for the 1,745th time, it was stupid and unfair when they did it to Skitarii, and it's the same now, and will continue to be so every single time that they do it.
Except as I literally just explained, it isn't the same thing. But you keep thinking otherwise I guess?
Command Squads getting to spam Specials was always stupid. They were meant to be a COMMAND SQUAD. There literally was Special Weapon Squads that should have been fulfilling that role of spammed Specials...but nope, they let you keep doing it in Command Squads.
No wonder they felt fine cutting special weapon squads.
GW took special weapon squads out of the game because I took special weapons in my command squads? Huh, ok.
Wellll.....1: You "literally just explaining it" in an edit that you did while I was "literally" typing the post you quoted. And 2: Allowing the guys helping lead your army/protecting your army's leader to get the "good stuff" isn't "stupid". Those guys should have their pick of equipment. The "stupid" thing was making Command Squads a unit that was separate from said leader, instead of making them an integrated squad with them.
This has been a problem for ages. It didn't magically start being an issue with 8th and Command Squads being split off. It became exacerbated by that certainly, but even when there were Special Weapon Squads in full effect as part of a Command Platoon (so not using up any slots), people didn't seem thrilled by them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ph34r wrote: GW took special weapon squads out of the game because I took special weapons in my command squads? Huh, ok.
Yup, it's all your fault.
I'm sure there are zero tournament lists(the thing they're more likely to look at) that take Command Squads(Scion and Regiment flavored) decked out with 4x Plasma Guns.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm sure there are zero tournament lists(the thing they're more likely to look at) that take Command Squads(Scion and Regiment flavored) decked out with 4x Plasma Guns.
What is it with you and your obsession with plasma guns?
Kanluwen wrote: This has been a problem for ages. It didn't magically start being an issue with 8th and Command Squads being split off. It became exacerbated by that certainly, but even when there were Special Weapon Squads in full effect as part of a Command Platoon (so not using up any slots), people didn't seem thrilled by them..
I always ran platoons with command squads when I played and my command squads always had banner, vox, & medic plus one veteran. I was floored when my opponent's command squad had 4 heavy flamers in it! I didn't occur to me to do that, but it still doesn't appeal to me.
But I wish my anti-personnel infanrty squads could still take 2 flamers and my anti-armor infantry squads could still take 2 meltas. I don't think that's the same thing as 4 plasmas in a squad that's supposed to be commander & support.
Kanluwen wrote: Sure, but they also aren't at every single battle ever accompanied by the entirety of the First Company outfitted in Terminator Armor.
That matters exactly zilch.
What matters is what people play with. And people play with captains and chapter masters all the time, and people play with full terminator armies all the time.
So why can't command squads play with the big boys, again?
Or, if we go the "command squads should not be special weapons squads"... ok. Give me the special weapons squad, then.
The two psykers (Primaris and Wyrdvane) are completely gone from the US webstore. I had the Wyrdvane in my cart and when I went to it today it was unavailible and is cannot be searched or found on it's page.
Any rumors for an update to them, or their addition to the Rotation?
Somehow strange how we went from Command Squads and special weapons Squads competing for "who brings special weapons the best way?" to having neither option for bringing for example a sniper squad. Looks a bit like overcompensation.
I personally always imagined the 4x Plasma Command Squad as "the elite kill squad that Captain Whatshisname requisitioned specifically for this purpose". So Command Squad in name and you could get only one per officer because they are rare, but lore wise just a bunch of the best plasma/melta/whatever gunners the regiment could find, stuck together to kill some high value target. At least for me it made sense (even though I build my own kind of like KidCthulhu with regimental standard, medic, sometimes a vox and the other just with a lasgun).
ProfSrlojohn wrote: The two psykers (Primaris and Wyrdvane) are completely gone from the US webstore. I had the Wyrdvane in my cart and when I went to it today it was unavailible and is cannot be searched or found on it's page.
Any rumors for an update to them, or their addition to the Rotation?
I haven't heard anything, but it gives me a sad if that's the case
Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads, it wasn’t for fluff reasons at all. It was entirely for power reasons. Don’t try and pretend it wasn’t!
Not taking sides, I’m not in favour of losing options like the new GW way, but at least argue in good faith. You loaded up on plasma Guns because the command vets had BS 3+ and then tried to justify it or stuffed 4 heavy flamers in because it was powerful not because you captain liked starting fires.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads, it wasn’t for fluff reasons at all. It was entirely for power reasons. Don’t try and pretend it wasn’t!
Hey now, I used to take 4 snipers (or 3 snipers and a medic) pretty regularly.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads, it wasn’t for fluff reasons at all. It was entirely for power reasons. Don’t try and pretend it wasn’t!
Not taking sides, I’m not in favour of losing options like the new GW way, but at least argue in good faith. You loaded up on plasma Guns because the command vets had BS 3+ and then tried to justify it or stuffed 4 heavy flamers in because it was powerful not because you captain liked starting fires.
Just because it's a powerful option doesn't mean it's inherently unfluffy.
@ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.
Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy
Its been the standard since... 2nd? 3rd?
The time to complain about fluffyness was nearly 30 years ago- seems completely irrelevant to the codex at hand.
Haven't been following the rumours too closely. Is the suggestion of no double special weapons only for Command Squad and Scions? Or normal Cadian squads as well? I know the later are losing Heavy Weapons for a second Special.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads, it wasn’t for fluff reasons at all. It was entirely for power reasons. Don’t try and pretend it wasn’t!
Not taking sides, I’m not in favour of losing options like the new GW way, but at least argue in good faith. You loaded up on plasma Guns because the command vets had BS 3+ and then tried to justify it or stuffed 4 heavy flamers in because it was powerful not because you captain liked starting fires.
And I love seeing people trying to justify the continuation of no model no rules/what's in the box as lovely fluff and balance improvements.
No SWS kit - no SWS datasheet.
No duplicate special weapons in units like command squads unless it is supplied in the unit's specific box.
It's GW's current policy for pushing out 3rd parties after losing the chapterhouse suit, it has nothing to do with making the game better for new players or long time fans.
Ppfffffftttt....... Guess I missed all of the leaks for the Guard Super Heavys. Just watched Auspex Tactic's video on them, and HOLY CRAP has gw pulled a "paradigm shift" on their opinion of just how durable a Super Heavy Tank should be since the start of 9th. Hey, anyone want to take bets on the chances of any of these buffs being retroactively applied to the Macharius variants and the Stormbade? How about odds?
BrookM wrote: Have the special weapon restrictions on the Kasrkin squad been leaked yet? Got my Shadow-something box today and want to build the squad for regular 40k games.
I'd wait for the Codex. The Kill Team have some more punch then you'd have in the regular squad, so it's probably going to be on par with a 10 man squad and 2 or 3 special weapons. I haven't seen heavy weapons options for them, just yet.
That's kinda what I'm waiting for myself.
List is located here in the discussion. He's discussed them at length, but in comparison for 40K, There's something missing in a Squad Based weapons load out, such as everyone having a Hot Shot Lasgun, or Volcano Rifles, or some other wicky split they come up with a Straight Leg Kasrikan squad. From what I've seen, You'll have a decision point on the Special Weapons, but other then that, Old guys had the ubiquitous Hotshot gun since the beginning, and then the evolution of them gave the Kaskrin's the added bonus of three special weapons, and the Sergeant being a strapping young lad with an additional Plasma Pistol/ Power Sword combo if you picked it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ppfffffftttt....... Guess I missed all of the leaks for the Guard Super Heavys. Just watched Auspex Tactic's video on them, and HOLY CRAP has gw pulled a "paradigm shift" on their opinion of just how durable a Super Heavy Tank should be since the start of 9th. Hey, anyone want to take bets on the chances of any of these buffs being retroactively applied to the Macharius variants and the Stormbade? How about odds?
I'll just use my Macharius as a count-as Dorn.
Finally some good rules for my favorite tank and less money for GW. I see that as a win-win.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads
Being able to take or not being able to take 4 special weapons in a command squad isn't in question though. You can still take 4 special weapons in a command squad. You just can't take more than one of any one special weapon. That's the point of contention. Did you miss that?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ppfffffftttt....... Guess I missed all of the leaks for the Guard Super Heavys. Just watched Auspex Tactic's video on them, and HOLY CRAP has gw pulled a "paradigm shift" on their opinion of just how durable a Super Heavy Tank should be since the start of 9th. Hey, anyone want to take bets on the chances of any of these buffs being retroactively applied to the Macharius variants and the Stormbade? How about odds?
I'll just use my Macharius as a count-as Dorn.
Finally some good rules for my favorite tank and less money for GW. I see that as a win-win.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads, it wasn’t for fluff reasons at all. It was entirely for power reasons. Don’t try and pretend it wasn’t!
Hey now, I used to take 4 snipers (or 3 snipers and a medic) pretty regularly.
I had a Catachan Lt. (metal) I converted with a feathered pimp-hat that lead a group of 4 grenade launcher girls. Effective, sorta. funny? Heck yeah.
Well yes, but it would depend on the mentioned squad what weapons I would allow to begin with tbh. The rumours currently have it, that weapon choices are "free", still I'd only issue simple weapons to any regular infantry squad. That is Flamers, GLs, Snipers, Heavy Bolters, Mortars, Autocannons. Maybe 1 model is lucky enough to carry a Melter, but then the squad earned that in a previous game dew to some heroic feat. Only Grenadiers and Command Squads would have the right in my book to carry Melters, Plasma and Las Cannons. So I might not be the best lackmus test. Everyone has a right to play their army the way they want of course.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Free weapons, like Hammer of the Emperor, is another example of abandoning even the pretence of writing a proper set of rules.
I'm agreeing with that mostely. I don't like matched play based on power levels, because it gives you rather limitations than liberties, since I can not save on equipment in order to bring more quantity. So naturally I despise the idea coming into the regular points. I still don't understand GWs focus to granularize everything towards 5pts steps, that is Yugioh level of stupidity where everything is in 500 steps, just so that numbers are larger.
I do like power level in campaigns though, but then those are narrative based. Same with Kill Team, but there the rules and capabilities are a lot more balanced than in 40K.
Overall, I can only refer to the video from Mordian. I actually wanted that veterans, SWS and CS are condensed. But not like this, I feel like they massacred the idea of what the destinction between untrained, regular and veteran levels are and instead just gave us data sheets for the plastic boxes they have laying around, with a focus on, make the new stuff extra good. This all screams terrible design paradigma to me.
The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
What is a horde to you? Basic guardians with no heavy weapons are 90pts, which yes, can be taken in 20s, but ultimately you can still take fewer total due to costing more. You can take a brigade with max infantry squads (assuming whiteshields/conscripts are gone or not 20 man units) for a mere 540 pts. That's 1/4 of an army for 90 fully armed guys no other horde army can do that.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point?
They will have different rules. The Kriegs get Transhuman and the Catachans will have exploding melee attacks.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
No models = no rules, this is the flipside of it where there are models so they must have rules.
None of those units are specifically called Astra Militarum Infantry Squad on the box, so they get datasheets of their own (ala captain with bolt rifle, captain in gravis armour, captain in phobos armour etc), with unique weapons and rules for each (blood of kittens link a few pages back goes into detail on what they get).
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
What is a horde to you? Basic guardians with no heavy weapons are 90pts, which yes, can be taken in 20s, but ultimately you can still take fewer total due to costing more. You can take a brigade with max infantry squads (assuming whiteshields/conscripts are gone or not 20 man units) for a mere 540 pts. That's 1/4 of an army for 90 fully armed guys no other horde army can do that.
I thought it was in the word: a large group of people. Regardeless of the point price (you cannot compare point to point unless you bring stats, saves, abilities, and basic squad equipment to table) the fact is that brigade level you can just place 90 IG vs 180 Guardians, or 180 Orks, or 180 Necrons... and so on.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
What is a horde to you? Basic guardians with no heavy weapons are 90pts, which yes, can be taken in 20s, but ultimately you can still take fewer total due to costing more. You can take a brigade with max infantry squads (assuming whiteshields/conscripts are gone or not 20 man units) for a mere 540 pts. That's 1/4 of an army for 90 fully armed guys no other horde army can do that.
I thought it was in the word: a large group of people. Regardeless of the point price (you cannot compare point to point unless you bring stats, saves, abilities, and basic squad equipment to table) the fact is that brigade level you can just place 90 IG vs 180 Guardians, or 180 Orks, or 180 Necrons... and so on.
M.
Guard don't pay basic squad equipment, that's the point. You cannot bring those numbers of infantry with equipment for those armies and have anything else of note in the force. 180 guardians as an example is 1620 points before heavy weapons.
Maybe it's time guard wasn't just an endless group of meatbags whose only purpose is to die easily, maybe the image now should be here's my 90 core troops, armoured support and my veterans, representing the full guard.
Of all the complaints the fact you can only fit 90 guys in the troops slot has to be the weirdest.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Free weapons, like Hammer of the Emperor, is another example of abandoning even the pretence of writing a proper set of rules.
I figured we reached that point when GW started refusing to credit it's writers and artists.
This gets me crazy. In any other medium not crediting the authors would get global animosity and strikes verywhere. We should held GW more responsible for this donkey-cave move.
I’m cool w free wargear. I like seeing medics, voxes, banners on the tabletop.
Talking about mordian glory and the leaks.. I don’t know if these guys are following leaks well but there are a ton of flavor beyond datasheets that differentiates guard units.. discount on strategems for krieg or catachan or Cadian.. like fire on my position being only 1cp for krieg.. unique models like bombadiers etc. my main concern for the codex is we lost a lot of the special characters. I hope yarrik comes back.
This gets me crazy. In any other medium not crediting the authors would get global animosity and strikes verywhere. We should held GW more responsible for this donkey-cave move.
Until one of their writers or artists sues them in an EU court, there's not much that can be done. Getting GW fans to actually protest something is a lost cause, it's be like crack addicts boycotting their dealer because of a price hike.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
What is a horde to you? Basic guardians with no heavy weapons are 90pts, which yes, can be taken in 20s, but ultimately you can still take fewer total due to costing more. You can take a brigade with max infantry squads (assuming whiteshields/conscripts are gone or not 20 man units) for a mere 540 pts. That's 1/4 of an army for 90 fully armed guys no other horde army can do that.
I thought it was in the word: a large group of people. Regardeless of the point price (you cannot compare point to point unless you bring stats, saves, abilities, and basic squad equipment to table) the fact is that brigade level you can just place 90 IG vs 180 Guardians, or 180 Orks, or 180 Necrons... and so on.
M.
Guard don't pay basic squad equipment, that's the point. You cannot bring those numbers of infantry with equipment for those armies and have anything else of note in the force. 180 guardians as an example is 1620 points before heavy weapons.
Maybe it's time guard wasn't just an endless group of meatbags whose only purpose is to die easily, maybe the image now should be here's my 90 core troops, armoured support and my veterans, representing the full guard.
Of all the complaints the fact you can only fit 90 guys in the troops slot has to be the weirdest.
And Guardians hit on a 3+ with a 4+ save. With a better base weapon...
It's great that you want guard to be a hardened core of troops backed up by the might of the armor corps but that's not what horde means. If you think that horde stops at 90 let me tell you that 180+ bodies was considered the absolute minimum, and during 9th Ed those 90 dudes with t3 and a 5+ save have been like wet tissue in front of your average army no matter how cheap they are.
To reiterate, do you want to play a combined arms guard? Cool, add armor to your heart's content. But without conscripts, and 12 squads of 10 at best (double batt.) guard cannot horde while elite armies can so it's not a weird complain.
I will grant you that some kind of platoon structure in our TO&E would help with the issue, but I'm tired of losing because the basic troop unit of the guard melts like butter under the sun of the Sahara when something stronger than a squad of grots (or other IG) shoots, or charges it.
Miguelsan wrote: The more leaked info I heard, the less the new codex interests me. So according to the latest video from Mordian Glory we are going to have a Cadian squad, a Krieg squad, a Catachan squad... And all will have the same rules, and stats but different load outs. What's the point? Probably keywords that allow the player use stratagem X, or stratagem Y. Just what we needed GW.
Also it's kind of annoying that elite armies like Eldar can out horde a horde army because GW keeps limiting the basic squad to 10 guards.
Great job GW.
M.
What is a horde to you? Basic guardians with no heavy weapons are 90pts, which yes, can be taken in 20s, but ultimately you can still take fewer total due to costing more. You can take a brigade with max infantry squads (assuming whiteshields/conscripts are gone or not 20 man units) for a mere 540 pts. That's 1/4 of an army for 90 fully armed guys no other horde army can do that.
I thought it was in the word: a large group of people. Regardeless of the point price (you cannot compare point to point unless you bring stats, saves, abilities, and basic squad equipment to table) the fact is that brigade level you can just place 90 IG vs 180 Guardians, or 180 Orks, or 180 Necrons... and so on.
M.
Guard don't pay basic squad equipment, that's the point. You cannot bring those numbers of infantry with equipment for those armies and have anything else of note in the force. 180 guardians as an example is 1620 points before heavy weapons.
Maybe it's time guard wasn't just an endless group of meatbags whose only purpose is to die easily, maybe the image now should be here's my 90 core troops, armoured support and my veterans, representing the full guard.
Of all the complaints the fact you can only fit 90 guys in the troops slot has to be the weirdest.
And Guardians hit on a 3+ with a 4+ save. With a better base weapon...
It's great that you want guard to be a hardened core of troops backed up by the might of the armor corps but that's not what horde means. If you think that horde stops at 90 let me tell you that 180+ bodies was considered the absolute minimum, and during 9th Ed those 90 dudes with t3 and a 5+ save have been like wet tissue in front of your average army no matter how cheap they are.
To reiterate, do you want to play a combined arms guard? Cool, add armor to your heart's content. But without conscripts, and 12 squads of 10 at best (double batt.) guard cannot horde while elite armies can so it's not a weird complain.
M.
The army with cheaper per model hordes better. By the time eldar runs out of points guard keeps adding bodies.
You used to be able to bring 55 men as a single troops choice. 90 is pathetic by comparison.
GW introduced the platoon structure to the Guard to sell more models let Guard armies show off massed infantry within the confines of the FOC.
Current 40k may have reduced the FOC to a level of triviality, but Guard have never been the same since platoons went away. We can still take tank squadrons, so why not platoons?
gungo wrote: I’m cool w free wargear. I like seeing medics, voxes, banners on the tabletop.
They should be on the table because they're worth taking, not because they're free.
Points exist to show the relative worth of upgraded weapons and equipment, and so that increasing a unit's power and/or utility comes with a cost.
Two identical units but one has a vox should not cost the same amount of points if one has greater utility than the other.
And Guardians hit on a 3+ with a 4+ save. With a better base weapon...
It's great that you want guard to be a hardened core of troops backed up by the might of the armor corps but that's not what horde means. If you think that horde stops at 90 let me tell you that 180+ bodies was considered the absolute minimum, and during 9th Ed those 90 dudes with t3 and a 5+ save have been like wet tissue in front of your average army no matter how cheap they are.
To reiterate, do you want to play a combined arms guard? Cool, add armor to your heart's content. But without conscripts, and 12 squads of 10 at best (double batt.) guard cannot horde while elite armies can so it's not a weird complain.
M.
Whats extra fun is guard *used* to have the ability to pull both options. They sort of do now with Scions as troops, though the limitations on how you field them and getting your regimental bonuses makes for some hoops to jump through.
Compare to older editions:
3.5 dex - you can either take equipment doctrines, or take stormtroopers as troops, and boom, the army is now looking more like a group of hardened veterans.
5th, 6th - Veterans are troops, and you can pick several options to customize them up to your needs.
And on the horde side, just the fact that a single troops choice was *minimum* 25 bodies if you went regular infantry, Just making a casual glance at the 3.5 dex since its closest, 1 platoon command squad and 2-5 infantry squads for 25-55 bodies for a single slot.
True except for the Detachment limitations. I don't know what will be in the Elite slot with veterans, and SWSs gone, but currently once you've hit 12 squads of guards you are out of slots to add more IG bodies, I guess that you could add HWTs, Ogryns, and the new RRs.
Miguelsan wrote: I will grant you that some kind of platoon structure in our TO&E would help with the issue, but I'm tired of losing because the basic troop unit of the guard melts like butter under the sun of the Sahara when something stronger than a squad of grots (or other IG) shoots, or charges it.
M.
That's what the supposed "purist" Guard players want though?
Did you not see the gakstorm kicked up when I suggested a 4+ save would be appropriate for Guard Infantry Squads modeled ala the Cadians/DKoK?
True except for the Detachment limitations. I don't know what will be in the Elite slot with veterans, and SWSs gone, but currently once you've hit 12 squads of guards you are out of slots to add more IG bodies, I guess that you could add HWTs, Ogryns, and the new RRs.
M.
Kasrkin and Scions are both supposed to be in Elites. The "alternate squad choices" ala the Shock Troops and Death Korps are Troops.
Didn't guard used to have a rule that allowed them to bring back destroyed squads as reinforcements? Maybe that would be a good compromise between wanting a horde and only having 90 infantry?
Miguelsan wrote: I will grant you that some kind of platoon structure in our TO&E would help with the issue, but I'm tired of losing because the basic troop unit of the guard melts like butter under the sun of the Sahara when something stronger than a squad of grots (or other IG) shoots, or charges it.
M.
That's what the supposed "purist" Guard players want though?
Did you not see the gakstorm kicked up when I suggested a 4+ save would be appropriate for Guard Infantry Squads modeled ala the Cadians/DKoK?
.
Wanting the guards to be squishy at the individual side doesn't preclude wanting to have enough of them so you still have enough to secure an objective when you charge in.
Voss wrote: Its been the standard since... 2nd? 3rd?
The time to complain about fluffyness was nearly 30 years ago- seems completely irrelevant to the codex at hand.
Funnily enough the Forge World lists (Krieg, Elysians, unsure about LatD) used to be very stingy with the special weapons in command squads.
Voss wrote: Its been the standard since... 2nd? 3rd?
The time to complain about fluffyness was nearly 30 years ago- seems completely irrelevant to the codex at hand.
Funnily enough the Forge World lists (Krieg, Elysians, unsure about LatD) used to be very stingy with the special weapons in command squads.
The DKoK Command Squads were limited to 2 specials (in any combination) but the Elysians had no restrictions at all. To the point where the Elysian Company Command Squad could take 4 Ground Scanner things too as they were in the special weapons section.
Miguelsan wrote: I will grant you that some kind of platoon structure in our TO&E would help with the issue, but I'm tired of losing because the basic troop unit of the guard melts like butter under the sun of the Sahara when something stronger than a squad of grots (or other IG) shoots, or charges it.
M.
That's what the supposed "purist" Guard players want though?
Did you not see the gakstorm kicked up when I suggested a 4+ save would be appropriate for Guard Infantry Squads modeled ala the Cadians/DKoK?
.
Wanting the guards to be squishy at the individual side doesn't preclude wanting to have enough of them so you still have enough to secure an objective when you charge in.
M.
But there's the issue.
We literally have a unit that should have been "squishy at the individual side". It's called "Conscripts".
There was nothing wrong with wanting Guardsmen to see an actual bump to being the accomplished soldiery that they're supposed to be.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Didn't guard used to have a rule that allowed them to bring back destroyed squads as reinforcements? Maybe that would be a good compromise between wanting a horde and only having 90 infantry?
IIRC that was a special rule for Chenkov and only applied to Conscripts (plus possibly a more general strat in 8e, cba to confirm that atm). Personally, I'd rather we have infantry that can actually do something beyond just respawn forever, as that feels more like a Tyranid thing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You used to be able to bring 55 men as a single troops choice. 90 is pathetic by comparison.
GW introduced the platoon structure to the Guard to sell more models let Guard armies show off massed infantry within the confines of the FOC.
Current 40k may have reduced the FOC to a level of triviality, but Guard have never been the same since platoons went away. We can still take tank squadrons, so why not platoons?
gungo wrote: I’m cool w free wargear. I like seeing medics, voxes, banners on the tabletop.
They should be on the table because they're worth taking, not because they're free.
Points exist to show the relative worth of upgraded weapons and equipment, and so that increasing a unit's power and/or utility comes with a cost.
Two identical units but one has a vox should not cost the same amount of points if one has greater utility than the other.
This is utter nonsense.. extra bits and bobbles is almost always going to be worse then just having more bodies… it’s either overpowered force multipliers or barely useful or useless.. and in general rarely worth the points. It’s almost impossible to quantity each models unique gear and make everything useful and point efficient enough not to be worse then having more bodies… most of the time those bits and bobbles like vox are also situational and not always needed… even w the current leaked rules and vox has multiple decent reasons to take them they are still not worth taking at 5ppm for every infantry unit because they are still situtational and it’s better to just take another guardsmen instead… putting points on everything isn’t some form of holy grail form of balance.. not everything needs points.
The reasons horde was reduced in numbers on every army in 40k was to speed up gameplay.. GW made every horde army cheap units substantially more expensive at the same time… this isn’t an attack on guard platoons.
No, it's how the game functions. Giving your characters/units/vehicles additional or upgraded or new equipment increases their utility or their power, and thus is paid for with points (unless its a lateral shift) to represent that.
gungo wrote: ... extra bits and bobbles is almost always going to be worse then just having more bodies
Now who's talking utter nonsense...
The reason why a Lascannon in a Guard squad should cost points, is because a Guard squad with a Lascannon is better than a Guard squad without one. A Guard squad with a Vox has access to more abilities - situational as they may be - and thus should pay for them. If you don't have to pay for them, then they're not options. You just take the max amount of "free stuff" because there's simply no reason not to. This is why Power Level is a bad system, because you can have a unit with maximum tricked out wargear/weapons/options and have it cost the exact same PL as a bare bones unit that hasn't taken a single upgrade. Why GW decided to spread this disease to the points system (Guard Infantry, Plague Marines, etc.) is beyond me.
This isn't a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Free weapons, like Hammer of the Emperor, is another example of abandoning even the pretence of writing a proper set of rules.
I figured we reached that point when GW started refusing to credit it's writers and artists.
This gets me crazy. In any other medium not crediting the authors would get global animosity and strikes verywhere. We should held GW more responsible for this donkey-cave move.
IIRC it wasn't because "feth the writers", but because they were consistently getting flooded with death threats.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you don't have to pay for them, then they're not options.
I think that's supposedly the whole point: the free things are not meant to be optional to have, they are optional to not have. And since downgrades are kinda silly (Infantry Squad starts with Vox included, but then have the option to remove the Vox for, like, -5 points... that would be really weird) the second-best is to have these not!options for free.
I'm with BHNC--free 'options' are just standard equipment with extra wording. Obviously we are free to have our dudes show up and not use their gear, or show up with half the points, or whatever. The explicit point of Matched play is that everyone is showing up on a similar playing field and giving away notable increases in effectiveness for free is not that.
I think it is fine for stuff like voxes and banners and such to be free. They're flavourful, but in the past it usually was more optimal to save the points and not have them.
No, it's how the game functions. Giving your characters/units/vehicles additional or upgraded or new equipment increases their utility or their power, and thus is paid for with points (unless its a lateral shift) to represent that.
gungo wrote: ... extra bits and bobbles is almost always going to be worse then just having more bodies
Now who's talking utter nonsense...
The reason why a Lascannon in a Guard squad should cost points, is because a Guard squad with a Lascannon is better than a Guard squad without one. A Guard squad with a Vox has access to more abilities - situational as they may be - and thus should pay for them. If you don't have to pay for them, then they're not options. You just take the max amount of "free stuff" because there's simply no reason not to. This is why Power Level is a bad system, because you can have a unit with maximum tricked out wargear/weapons/options and have it cost the exact same PL as a bare bones unit that hasn't taken a single upgrade. Why GW decided to spread this disease to the points system (Guard Infantry, Plague Marines, etc.) is beyond me.
This isn't a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.
Why did they implement Power Level? Easy question, easy answer:
Gamers have become too lazy/stupid to use a calculator in order to write a proper list. So not only the rules have been dumbed down but also the process of creating an army just to lure a larger demographic into the hobby.
If you think about it, communication gear would be standard in any army that's not stuck in the pre-industrial era. So Voxcasters being "free" sort of makes sense.
What is a head scratcher would be stuff like plasma guns being free. You mean to tell me that one has the same level of accessibility to a rare and hard to make piece of military hardware as a ho-hum grenade launcher? Really?
But it's not like people using battlescribe are playing Power Levels lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If you think about it, communication gear would be standard in any army that's not stuck in the pre-industrial era. So Voxcasters being "free" sort of makes sense.
What is a head scratcher would be stuff like plasma guns being free. You mean to tell me that one has the same level of accessibility to a rare and hard to make piece of military hardware as a ho-hum grenade launcher? Really?
The guard release seems to be fraught with the same issues ultimately as the CSM one, but I think there's a lot more disagreement within the guard ranks ot seems. Different people all seem to want and think different things rather than being able to comprehensively say "this bad".
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If you think about it, communication gear would be standard in any army that's not stuck in the pre-industrial era. So Voxcasters being "free" sort of makes sense.
What is a head scratcher would be stuff like plasma guns being free. You mean to tell me that one has the same level of accessibility to a rare and hard to make piece of military hardware as a ho-hum grenade launcher? Really?
Apologies for being behind on the leaks again, but are they doing that? Plasma, Melta, grenade launchers, etc, "free" in the same way that they are for the Traitor Guardsmen squad?
No, it's how the game functions. Giving your characters/units/vehicles additional or upgraded or new equipment increases their utility or their power, and thus is paid for with points (unless its a lateral shift) to represent that.
gungo wrote: ... extra bits and bobbles is almost always going to be worse then just having more bodies
Now who's talking utter nonsense...
The reason why a Lascannon in a Guard squad should cost points, is because a Guard squad with a Lascannon is better than a Guard squad without one. A Guard squad with a Vox has access to more abilities - situational as they may be - and thus should pay for them. If you don't have to pay for them, then they're not options. You just take the max amount of "free stuff" because there's simply no reason not to. This is why Power Level is a bad system, because you can have a unit with maximum tricked out wargear/weapons/options and have it cost the exact same PL as a bare bones unit that hasn't taken a single upgrade. Why GW decided to spread this disease to the points system (Guard Infantry, Plague Marines, etc.) is beyond me.
This isn't a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.
You seem to not comprehend the point. I’m not saying a lascannon can’t have points nice strawman… I literally said.. “putting points on everything isn’t some form of holy grail form of balance.. not everything needs points. ” you are standing on this everything needs points nonsense like they need points to be balanced.. I assure you they don’t… it’s just your myopic view on balance. A vox is currently useful and yet not worth spending any points on because it’s entirely situational.
There’s a whole subsection for bickering about game mechanics… side spats regarding personal feelings on game design aren’t exactly relevant to news and rumours.
The issue with Voxes is an overaching issue, GW has a hard time making things other than guns useful and then assigning them a correct point level.
A simple fix would be to bake it into the cost of every squad (which means we'd all have some converting to do!) and say a vox set allows a squad to do (let's say) receive orders from an officer from anywhere on the board as long as Mr. Vox is alive.
Or if that's too much, make it 24", or line or sight, or something.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The issue with Voxes is an overaching issue, GW has a hard time making things other than guns useful and then assigning them a correct point level.
A simple fix would be to bake it into the cost of every squad (which means we'd all have some converting to do!) and say a vox set allows a squad to do (let's say) receive orders from an officer from anywhere on the board as long as Mr. Vox is alive.
Or if that's too much, make it 24", or line or sight, or something.
One less detail to keep track off.
There is a master vox leak that’s board wide, there is the fire on my position strat leak that’s awesome and only 1 cp for krieg… all of which are great but the problem is situational isn’t really Min/max with points or the best setup.. a wpn is almost always useful unless the entire squad is removed an infantry unit with a vox may never receive an order. What’s the point value in that? there is a +1 to hit artillery ability that uses a vox spotter too. There is so many cool little bits added to using a vox that’s awesome and yet it still isn’t worth 5pts per squad. These wargear should be free as it greatly improves the army as a whole without being a choice between this and an entire infantry squad.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The issue with Voxes is an overaching issue, GW has a hard time making things other than guns useful and then assigning them a correct point level.
A simple fix would be to bake it into the cost of every squad (which means we'd all have some converting to do!) and say a vox set allows a squad to do (let's say) receive orders from an officer from anywhere on the board as long as Mr. Vox is alive.
Or if that's too much, make it 24", or line or sight, or something.
One less detail to keep track off.
There is a master vox leak that’s board wide, there is the fire on my position strat leak that’s awesome and only 1 cp for krieg… all of which are great but the problem is situational isn’t really Min/max with points or the best setup.. a wpn is almost always useful unless the entire squad is removed an infantry unit with a vox may never receive an order. What’s the point value in that? there is a +1 to hit artillery ability that uses a vox spotter too. There is so many cool little bits added to using a vox that’s awesome and yet it still isn’t worth 5pts per squad. These wargear should be free as it greatly improves the army as a whole without being a choice between this and an entire infantry squad.
It doesn't have to be 5pts per squad..? Could be 1pt, for example, which means you could get 5 for the former cost.
gungo wrote: A vox is currently useful and yet not worth spending any points on because it’s entirely situational.
That's inherently a contradiction. If a vox is useful then it has a non-zero point cost that accurately represents its value. It can only not be worth spending any points on if it adds no value to an army. And the fact that a vox isn't worth it at the point cost GW set in some previous book (under completely different rules) doesn't mean it's some ineffable rule that the point system can't cope with, it just means that GW made a mistake in setting its point cost in the past. The answer is to figure out the correct point cost, not to flip the table and declare that everything is free.
And yes, this applies to PL and pseudo-PL in general. It's profoundly stupid design and GW needs to let go of their ego, admit it was a mistake, and get rid of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: The guard release seems to be fraught with the same issues ultimately as the CSM one, but I think there's a lot more disagreement within the guard ranks ot seems. Different people all seem to want and think different things rather than being able to comprehensively say "this bad".
I don't think it's all that divided, not on the key issues. There are a tiny handful of people defending "no model no rules" (some of whom have a history of defending everythingGW does) and a few people yelling "POSITIVE VIBES ONLY" but the majority of the community is opposed to NMNR restrictions, free upgrades, etc. The stuff that's getting more debate is the stuff where there's genuine room for disagreement, stuff that isn't really related to the CSM debacle.
FWIW I'm looking forward to the army box coming out and hoping I can reserve a copy.
In terms of the points for gear - over the years I've argued it both ways. I don't think a Vox can meaningfully have a points value - and so its probably easier to just say this is a standard special rule all guard squads get. Unclear who loses out on this.
Special weapons are a bit different - mainly because we'll all tend to think say a Plasma gun or melta gun is better than a grenade launcher, and a lascannon is better than an autocannon etc. But equally I can see GW arguing there just isn't really a "fair" price for a flamer, grenade launcher, autocannon etc that makes it an interesting choice. Having them be 2-3 points less or something is an artificial distinction that isn't adding much to the game.
Voss wrote: Its been the standard since... 2nd? 3rd?
The time to complain about fluffyness was nearly 30 years ago- seems completely irrelevant to the codex at hand.
Funnily enough the Forge World lists (Krieg, Elysians, unsure about LatD) used to be very stingy with the special weapons in command squads.
The DKoK Command Squads were limited to 2 specials (in any combination) but the Elysians had no restrictions at all. To the point where the Elysian Company Command Squad could take 4 Ground Scanner things too as they were in the special weapons section.
The D-99 list, yes, but in the "normal" Drop Troops list command squads could take just one special weapon.
Tyel wrote: FWIW I'm looking forward to the army box coming out and hoping I can reserve a copy.
In terms of the points for gear - over the years I've argued it both ways. I don't think a Vox can meaningfully have a points value - and so its probably easier to just say this is a standard special rule all guard squads get. Unclear who loses out on this.
Special weapons are a bit different - mainly because we'll all tend to think say a Plasma gun or melta gun is better than a grenade launcher, and a lascannon is better than an autocannon etc. But equally I can see GW arguing there just isn't really a "fair" price for a flamer, grenade launcher, autocannon etc that makes it an interesting choice. Having them be 2-3 points less or something is an artificial distinction that isn't adding much to the game.
Then GW needs to write better rules. You could give pinning effects for something like the Autocannon and Grenade Launcher to make them more interesting, for example.
Twoshoes23 wrote: grenade launcher and flamer are free, plasma and melta 5 pts each...everything else free...problem solved?
That's a bit difficult with the current codex design, as things like special weapons have a fixed point cost. Back then in 3rd edition (first) codex you had the option to have 4 special weapons in a CS, but you had to pay the double price compared to a normal infantery squad. There were other examples where weapons had a hefty price increase when you had more than one in a squad as either the squad was far more effective and/or it was too sure that they got their job done.
Tyel wrote: I don't think a Vox can meaningfully have a points value - and so its probably easier to just say this is a standard special rule all guard squads get.
Why can't it have a point value? It clearly provides non-zero benefit so why can't that benefit be quantified like any other upgrade?
But equally I can see GW arguing there just isn't really a "fair" price for a flamer, grenade launcher, autocannon etc that makes it an interesting choice.
GW can argue that but they'd obviously fail. There's clearly a fair price for those weapons, the only reason there's a problem is that GW keeps making plasma too cheap and leaving no room for other options. And this pseudo-PL nonsense only makes the problem worse, by removing even the possibility that you might consider other options instead of the free plasma gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dryaktylus wrote: That's a bit difficult with the current codex design, as things like special weapons have a fixed point cost.
Huh? In 9th each unit has its own prices for upgrades, there are no more flat prices for a weapon/upgrade across an entire army. And we even have the Tau with an example of increasing costs per weapon for additional copies of the same weapon.
Why did they implement Power Level? Easy question, easy answer:
Gamers have become too lazy/stupid to use a calculator in order to write a proper list. So not only the rules have been dumbed down but also the process of creating an army just to lure a larger demographic into the hobby.
Nah.
GW introduced Power Levels because they initially planned to remove balance entirely like in 1st ed. Age of Sigmar; but when that launched disastrously, they had to bodge a point system back in to 40k before 8th ed. launched.
That now the sheep are content to pay for points updates in addition to codexes is just a happy by-product.
Removing Points Values for things transforms them from upgrades to options. The problem GW then has to address is ways to make those options roughly equal.
Removing the cost for a Vox Caster in a squad means there is no reason to not take a Vox Caster. It becomes an expected option. So just take it and enjoy the limited benefits it provides.
On the other hand, making the option to take a Meltagun, Plasmagun, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer is more difficult. The current rules make the first two clearly superior to the last two. The rules need to be adjusted in such a way that the option more equivalent between the 4. Forcing diversity in choice (you can take 2, but no duplicates) helps reduce the issue, but they still need to do something to keep the Metla-Plasma choice from being clearly superior to the GL-Flamer choice.
Lord Damocles wrote: That now the sheep are content to pay for points updates in addition to codexes is just a happy by-product.
Point updates are free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Removing the cost for a Vox Caster in a squad means there is no reason to not take a Vox Caster. It becomes an expected option. So just take it and enjoy the limited benefits it provides.
Then why even have it as an option? Having a fake "option" that only a clueless newbie would ever take is very poor design.
On the other hand, making the option to take a Meltagun, Plasmagun, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer is more difficult. The current rules make the first two clearly superior to the last two. The rules need to be adjusted in such a way that the option more equivalent between the 4. Forcing diversity in choice (you can take 2, but no duplicates) helps reduce the issue, but they still need to do something to keep the Metla-Plasma choice from being clearly superior to the GL-Flamer choice.
It's easy to keep plasma/melta from being clearly superior to flamer/GL: use the existing point system instead of this idiotic pseudo-PL nonsense GW keeps pushing. The problem only exists at all because GW insists on doubling down on their PL mistake and making all upgrades built into the unit cost.
And forced diversity has nothing to do with balance. Unit options are set by what is on the sprue, not by what makes a balanced unit, and some of those sprues weren't even made during the current edition.
They used to just make Meltas and Plasmas more expensive as a way of balancing that choice. Points are not the great leveller, but they're a damned sight better than "It's all free! WHEEE!!!!!!!".
And Decimus is right, this change has nothing to do with "diversity in choice". It's NM/NR. Remember that the Catachans are being saddled with a limit of 2 Flamers, 'cause the sprue has 1 flamer and you get 2 sprues in a box. Brood Brothers were once stuck with the option of Flamers or Grenade Launchers only, 'cause that's what was on the Cadian sprue. It's got nothing to do with balance, diversity of weapon choices, or anything else. It's just NM/NR. Nothing more. Nothing less.
AtoMaki wrote: I think that's supposedly the whole point: the free things are not meant to be optional to have, they are optional to not have. And since downgrades are kinda silly (Infantry Squad starts with Vox included, but then have the option to remove the Vox for, like, -5 points... that would be really weird) the second-best is to have these not!options for free.
Then they should be baked into the cost of the squad, and not something that's optional to take.
gungo wrote: You seem to not comprehend the point.
Quite the opposite here, I'm afraid.
gungo wrote: I’m not saying a lascannon can’t have points nice strawman
It's not a strawman. Lascannons are currently free in Guard Squads. It's an existing problem. It's literally part of the rules right now.
gungo wrote: I literally said.. “putting points on everything isn’t some form of holy grail form of balance.. not everything needs points. ” you are standing on this everything needs points nonsense like they need points to be balanced.. I assure you they don’t… it’s just your myopic view on balance. A vox is currently useful and yet not worth spending any points on because it’s entirely situational.
And I didn't say anything about a "holy grail of balance", so now who's putting words into someone's mouth?
Options that increase the utility of a unit should cost points. This is a 2 + 2 = 4 situation. If your abilities are greater by taking this object, it should cost points. It doesn't matter if it's "situational". When that ever mattered? Some weapons are situational. You could find yourself with a whole bunch of flamers and be up against Knights or something where they're basically useless, but you should still pay points for them.
If something is so worthless that it shouldn't cost anything then:
1. You make it worthwhile. 2. You make it a default piece of equipment (ie. "A Guard Squad consists of 1 Sergeant and 9 Guardsmen. The Sergeant is armed with a Laspistol and Chainsword, and the Guardsmen have Lasguns. One Guardsmen has a Vox-Caster."). It shouldn't be an option.
Twoshoes23 wrote: grenade launcher and flamer are free, plasma and melta 5 pts each...everything else free...problem solved?
No. Why would a Flamer or GL be free? How does that make any sense. They're better than Lasguns. Theya re an upgrade.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No. Why would a Flamer or GL be free? How does that make any sense. They're better than Lasguns. Theya re an upgrade.
You would have to make the argument that, like how SWS/HWS used to work (start with a lasgun, must replace with the heavy/special weapon), the special weapon upgrade is mandatory and just part of the unit. But there's no reason for that to be the case, other than GW being too lazy to write proper rules and taking away options.
Why did they implement Power Level? Easy question, easy answer:
Gamers have become too lazy/stupid to use a calculator in order to write a proper list. So not only the rules have been dumbed down but also the process of creating an army just to lure a larger demographic into the hobby.
Nah.
GW introduced Power Levels because they initially planned to remove balance entirely like in 1st ed. Age of Sigmar; but when that launched disastrously, they had to bodge a point system back in to 40k before 8th ed. launched.
That would have been suicide waiting to happen (fast). 8th edition was 2 years after the General's Handbook and the rules and stats are more complex and multifarious than those from AoS. I wouldn't rule out that they had plans to scrap point values, but with their real major system it's kinda unlikely for me. I guess they had the plan to make 40k more beginner friendly (they had tried something like that in the Battle for Macragge box with the rules) and to be fair it's not that bad for really new players to have some guide how to arrange their first games. Though it shouldn't take a long time after they see the flaws and change to point values.
Lord Damocles wrote: That now the sheep are content to pay for points updates in addition to codexes is just a happy by-product.
Well, it's free now. And while I never bought any of those Munitorum books I think calling people 'sheep' who did is just arrogant.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Remember that the Catachans are being saddled with a limit of 2 Flamers, 'cause the sprue has 1 flamer and you get 2 sprues in a box.
Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer
EviscerationPlague wrote: Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer
But only two flamers, no more. If you want more then you're a WAAC powergamer.
I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.
The best way to make weapons options and actual choice has nothing to do with points but should be about giving them all a clearly different role. Right now however most of them kind of have the same one and the choice just comes down to efficiency. And the grenade launcher always just is a weaker version of other options so it never gets taken at all.
And then there's granularity. How much is having frag grenades on an infantry squad worth for instance? It basically gives an extra shot to the squad at very short range. A single point already is too much for that.
Dolnikan wrote: I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.
The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Remember that the Catachans are being saddled with a limit of 2 Flamers, 'cause the sprue has 1 flamer and you get 2 sprues in a box.
Thats not true at all. It's because Catachans are in a jungle and therefore would ONLY use flamers in such an environment. Saying otherwise just makes you a WAAC powergamer
...right.
Why? It would make as much sense to JUST use flamers in a jungle as in a heavily built up urban terrain.
Which is to say, none.
Sorry if you're just being sarcastic and I'm not picking up on the nuance.
Dolnikan wrote: I used to think that every upgrade and the
like had a fair points cost that just had to be found but in a game like 40k where many weapons just are slightly better or worse versions of each other that doesn't work. Take the heavy weapons for instance, especially the missile launcher and lascannon. They are fundamentally similar weapons (no one cares about frak missiles) only one of them is a bit deadlier. That means that in actual worth they're relatively close to eachother. But, if you have for instance a 5 point difference between them, everyone will consistently pick the lascannon because as a percentage of the squad price, it's negligible and it's a clearly superior weapon. If you however make the difference more pronounced you make the lascannon too expensive for what it is and no one takes it.
The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.
Ideally, yes. Because that would make them actually different weapons but the frak options of weapons haven't ever been really worth anything and they won't be as long as the game is all about elites and heavy infantry. If the missile launcher (and mortar, and heavy bolter, and autocannon) all had clearly different roles there would be an actual choice to make. But then they don't have to be distinguished by different points costs because they all have a clear niche. Right now though, most of them don't have one at all. They're just slightly different versions of each other. The only weapon with a truly different role is the mortar and that one just doesn't mesh well with infantry squads for obvious reasons.
Although this is heresy in 40k circles, I'm personally in favour of fusing some weapons in the rules. So instead of the usual bunch of similar weapons you get a few much more distinguished types like say an anti-tank heavy weapon where it doesn't matter if it's modelled as a missile launcher, lascannon, or autocannon. Of course, far goes against what is a core design philosophy of the game where every little bit has to have individual rules. 40k however has grown in scale and I think that that should be recognised by abstracting more.
alextroy wrote: The problem here isn’t that the Krak Missile is a less powerful Lascannon. It’s that the Frag Missile isn’t worth the ink it is printed with. If the Frag Missile was reasonably good, the Missile Launcher would have a place as a useful weapon option.
Or if the costs were appropriate. Missile launchers suck and are never taken because GW keeps pricing them at the same cost as a lascannon or, at best, very slightly cheaper*. If the price difference reflected their difference in power both would be viable choices. If both cost zero points as they do in the pseudo-PL system the lascannon is the obvious correct choice. If the missile launcher costs +5 points and the lascannon costs +50 points the missile launcher is the obvious correct choice. Somewhere in the middle is a set of costs where both options are reasonable choices. But instead of putting effort into making a quality game GW would rather flip the table and declare that all upgrades are free.
*It seems like the issue is GW gets emotional and way over-values blast and AoE weapons. The only see the amazing maximum damage you can do with perfect RNG against the perfect target and ignore the reality of what you can expect to get in a real game.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.
Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy
Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.
Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy
Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.
I think trying to tell others what they do for fluff/Narative reasons gets a bit messy. Being efficient and smart itself is a narative point for some players. When GW force silly restrictions it can very easily hurt the narrative that is supposed to be so important for 40k.
Andykp wrote: Love people trying to use fluff to justify taking 4 special weapons in command squads
Being able to take or not being able to take 4 special weapons in a command squad isn't in question though. You can still take 4 special weapons in a command squad. You just can't take more than one of any one special weapon. That's the point of contention. Did you miss that?
No didn’t miss that at all, even said I don’t think it’s a good thing., but guess you missed that. I’m all for choice. You should be able to take any combo of special weapons, I DO NOT like only being able to take the weapons in the kit, even started a thread about it when they did it to skitarii, because it messed up my units and was annoying. Folk should just be honest about why they want to take the multiple plasma guns or whatever was all I was saying. The new rules don’t stop you making fluffy units, they stop you taking powerful combos you like. The new rules are stupid.
Pyroalchi wrote: @ Andykp: if this was in part directed towards me: As I said, I don't have a single squad equiped that way, but 4 with standard, medic, vox and all lasguns or laspistol + CC weapon.
I still think the 4 x the same special weapon had various fluff explanations, regardless of being really efficient powerwise. I personally (feel free to disagree) find a commander accompanied by an elite kill team with the best weapons the regiment can muster pretty fluffy and if you build such a team, 4 x sniper or 4 x melta or whatever looks much more sensible than mixing and matching in between.
Just because something was obviously the best option to do a specific thing (like spamming cheap plasma), it does not automatically mean that it is unfluffy
Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.
I think trying to tell others what they do for fluff/Narative reasons gets a bit messy. Being efficient and smart itself is a narative point for some players. When GW force silly restrictions it can very easily hurt the narrative that is supposed to be so important for 40k.
The new rules aren’t good for any part of the game, andpeople should be able to take what ever kit they want and use what ever fluff suits to create a narrative. But when you a selecting options because they are powerful and then creating fluff to justify that and those options are taken away, you are annoyed because they have taken away the powerful option not the fluff.
Keel wrote: The D-99 list, yes, but in the "normal" Drop Troops list command squads could take just one special weapon.
I'm looking at it right now in the 2nd Ed IA3 list and it allows up to 4 special weapons for the 4 Veterans in the squad. AFAIK, this is the latest version of the army list, as it came well after IA8 (where Elysian Command Squads were indeed limited to 1 special weapon and the Ground Scanner thingy was a separate HQ entry).
AtoMaki wrote: I think that's supposedly the whole point: the free things are not meant to be optional to have, they are optional to not have. And since downgrades are kinda silly (Infantry Squad starts with Vox included, but then have the option to remove the Vox for, like, -5 points... that would be really weird) the second-best is to have these not!options for free.
Then they should be baked into the cost of the squad, and not something that's optional to take.
But then what if somebody doesn't want to take a Vox in their squad?
Andykp wrote: Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.
No, I think it absolutely can be about the fluff. 40k embraces the Asskicking Equals Authority trope. The biggest and strongest ork gets to be in charge, and if you want to take his place you fight him for it. The chapter master isn't sitting in orbit managing strategy for the forces under his command, he's grabbing a plasma pistol and power fist and challenging the enemy leader to a duel. In that context it absolutely makes sense that a guard officer's command squad would be four of the regiment's best marksmen armed with four copies of the most powerful gun a guardsman can carry, and that the unit's primary goal would be to find the biggest threat on the battlefield and erase it from existence.
Andykp wrote: Wasn’t directed at anyone person. Certainly a thing can be powerful AND fluffy. But the reason people like command squads stuffed with optimal special weapons now is because of the power, not the fluff. It’d just be better if people were honest and said that. It’s still a valid opinion.
No, I think it absolutely can be about the fluff. 40k embraces the Asskicking Equals Authority trope. The biggest and strongest ork gets to be in charge, and if you want to take his place you fight him for it. The chapter master isn't sitting in orbit managing strategy for the forces under his command, he's grabbing a plasma pistol and power fist and challenging the enemy leader to a duel. In that context it absolutely makes sense that a guard officer's command squad would be four of the regiment's best marksmen armed with four copies of the most powerful gun a guardsman can carry, and that the unit's primary goal would be to find the biggest threat on the battlefield and erase it from existence.
Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.
Higher level commanders generally aren't front line fighters. This is as much true in real life as it is in the Guard. The ones in the Codex, that you bring to the front line, aren't of that level, so again, why wouldn't the people with them have good weapons?
AtoMaki wrote: That's a good point, but I don't think the Vox is ever implied to be basic gear in the fluff while the lasgun and the flak vest are.
And if it's not basic gear, then it's an upgrade, and if it's an upgrade, it should have a cost associated with that, because if it doesn't then it's not an upgrade and there's never a reason not to take things that are free.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Higher level commanders generally aren't front line fighters. This is as much true in real life as it is in the Guard. The ones in the Codex, that you bring to the front line, aren't of that level, so again, why wouldn't the people with them have good weapons?
AtoMaki wrote: That's a good point, but I don't think the Vox is ever implied to be basic gear in the fluff while the lasgun and the flak vest are.
And if it's not basic gear, then it's an upgrade, and if it's an upgrade, it should have a cost associated with that, because if it doesn't then it's not an upgrade and there's never a reason not to take things that are free.
Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.
Does background vs math hammer matter? Like….at all?
If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.
But how much should GW be restricting player choice? To what extent should they be enforcing the background?
Because it’s not your or my job or place to tell anyone else how to play the game. Ever.
There is of course risk. If like myself you prefer Interesting Project type armies, either as a grand experiment (how well does a purely 2nd Ed Eldar army translate to the modern era), something crunchy in background or other “I’ll take what appeals for a variety of reasons” armies, the risk is we come up against a WAAC list and attitude in our opponent and might struggle to enjoy the game.
For WAAC (sorry to use extremes, but this is just a demonstration) player? The risk is everyone else thinks you’re a low talent goon dependant entirely on super powerful armies and boring/frustrating your opponent with curious rules interpretations and pointless “you couldn’t be more wrong than if you were Liz Truss” rules arguments? The risk is people are going to think poorly of you and ultimately refuse you a game.
Both are entirely valid approaches to the game and indeed hobby. So perhaps a period of winding necks in is required here? You not wanting to field a specific loadout, especially one previous allowed under the rules, is no reason at all for that option to be denied to the next player.
Dudeface wrote: Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.
They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.
Why would you refuse to play someone for taking a perfectly legal and thematic unit? Is this some kind of CAAC thing?
AtoMaki wrote: Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.
Having trap options that, outside of people deliberately sabotaging their in-game performance for narrative reasons, only people who are unfamiliar with the rules will ever take is very poor design. If a vox is standard gear that you're expected to take then it should be built into the unit's rules and not be an option, if it's supposed to be a thing you can opt not to take then it should be an option with a point cost like every other option. And if you're the one in a million person who doesn't want to use it for Reasons even if it's free you can always decline to ever use the rule, just like a person who wants to pretend their guardsmen don't have lasguns can always opt not to shoot with them. But the game shouldn't be designed around that extreme edge case.
Dudeface wrote: Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.
They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.
Real life example. Dick Winters (Band of Brothers fame) apparently never fired his rifle after being promoted to Major.
Why? He was too busy commanding. I'm sure he would have become more involved if the situation demanded it but the Company became his 'rifle'.
But in fantasy and sci-fi wargames, we want our commanders to be Heroic Heroes wading in blood and hearing the lamentations of the enemy's significant others. And more power to their elbows.
I'm not into a lot of historical wargames. How do ACW rulesets reflect General Lee? Close combat monster or providing strategy buffs to get the best out of the troops..
Dudeface wrote: Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.
They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If someone packs a command squad with Plasma, the best you can do is refuse to play them - perhaps with a disapproving tutting to good measure.
Why would you refuse to play someone for taking a perfectly legal and thematic unit? Is this some kind of CAAC thing?
Not saying I would for that, just giving a demonstration.
When I do refuse games it’s usually far less to do with the player’s list, and more to do with the player’s personality. Whilst it’s been bloody ages since I last played a game, let alone was any good (so long I’m pretty much back to Clueless N00b), if someone is WAAC in attitude, I’m not going to enjoy that game much.
I mean, I deal with disputes professionally. That involves a lot of reading, a fair amount of research, and depending on the case, quite a lot of stress. I…..don’t want any of that in my game time. Because it’s meant to be something fun and relaxing.
Don’t get me wrong. If I get gubbed, I get gubbed and I take my losses with good grace. But when someone is nitpicking every single thing, refusing to show rules in their book whilst querying every single one of mine? Regardless of the outcome of that game, I’m not going to play them again, because I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with that behaviour when I’m not being paid to do so.
But I do again stress that is me expressing a preference in opponents. I am not saying anyone else should follow my lead, tastes and peccadilloes. Nobody is playing it wrong. Just sometimes you get a mismatch in opponents.
To flip it? Someone well experienced in the game who enjoys Tournaments is likely to find me a frustrating player, because I’m really not that up on the rules, and may even exhibit an entirely blank expression when they’re explaining an accurate and factual explanation of rule interactions that just caused half my army to get all horribly hacked mangled and squished to death. And whilst I would ask for a little leeway due to my inexperience, they’re not particularly obliged to provide that - especially if I somewhat inadvisably took part in a Tournament, where I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect your opponents to have a decent understanding of the game.
AtoMaki wrote: Somebody might just not want it. For modeling (they don't like the Vox model) or fluff (Their Guys don't use Vox) reasons. That's fair.
Then they wouldn't take it. But it shouldn't be free.
At that point, it might as well be free. Because:
Aecus Decimus wrote:But the game shouldn't be designed around that extreme edge case.
I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.
Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.
AtoMaki wrote: I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.
Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.
I seriously doubt you'll find more than a tiny minority who, if a vox is a free rule included in the unit's base profile, will refuse to use it because they don't think it's fluffy for their unit to have one.
And this isn't just theory. Since GW started with the pseudo-PL idiocy I've seen lots of people post lists that were missing the free upgrades. It's almost always newer players who didn't understand that yes, they could take a bunch of free stuff and there was no reason not to and/or people who were coming back from a break and hadn't kept up with the dataslate changes. And once someone explained the situation to them almost inevitably the response was something like "thanks for explaining that, I'll add all that stuff to my list". The only time I can remember ever seeing someone reject the free upgrades was when their reason was not wanting to invest in WYSIWYG models for something they didn't expect to survive once guard got a real codex. But apparently now GW has decided to make free stuff permanent and take away that reason!
Dudeface wrote: Guard commanders are generally not front line fighters, even in your scenario, the commander isn't finding and destroying the biggest threat, the command squad are, because they have the most point efficient guns. To parallel your fluff example would be the warboss sending meganobs to krump some bladeguard, which isn't quite so heroic suddenly.
They shouldn't be front-line fighters in a realistic universe. In 40k they are. They carry weapons that encourage them to get into combat and most of their relics/WLTs are about buffing their combat ability. And yeah, it's a bit weird that command squads can be independent from the officer but I'm fine with the new codex fixing that. An officer and four plasma gunners is a very fluffy unit that should not be banned just because 20 years ago the sprue designer only put one plasma gun in the box.
Real life example. Dick Winters (Band of Brothers fame) apparently never fired his rifle after being promoted to Major.
Why? He was too busy commanding. I'm sure he would have become more involved if the situation demanded it but the Company became his 'rifle'.
But in fantasy and sci-fi wargames, we want our commanders to be Heroic Heroes wading in blood and hearing the lamentations of the enemy's significant others. And more power to their elbows.
I'm not into a lot of historical wargames. How do ACW rulesets reflect General Lee? Close combat monster or providing strategy buffs to get the best out of the troops..
This is ultimately a subjective issue, to me either you're the front line guy charging and you have your vet buddies who are there to watch your back, or you're the strategist at the back pulling strings and need the aides to manage things with you. For me, neither of those is 4 guys with plasma guns. If that's your fluff then fair play, you do you, but there will be a chunk of people who just wanted an efficient weapon squad, which that's OK too but just accept that reason.
AtoMaki wrote: I would argue it is not an extreme edge case at all. "Modeling" and "fluff" players apparently outnumber "crunch" players by quite a margin, so for all I know people who say that the Vox is compulsory if free might be the extreme edge case while the vast majority doesn't give a flying frick about the extreme cost/benefit ratio, they just want to play with what they like.
Or at least I think this is GW's line of thinking.
I seriously doubt you'll find more than a tiny minority who, if a vox is a free rule included in the unit's base profile, will refuse to use it because they don't think it's fluffy for their unit to have one.
I wouldn't bet on this, personally. Especially if anecdotal circumstances apply because my experience is the complete opposite of yours.
/https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/16373081/illustration-file/07db9549-8444-4855-b2c1-c4dedbec70d0/Broadsword.jpg)
/https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/16373081/illustration-file/311b90d8-36d4-4d0a-8afb-1ad70c5927af/Palisade_Gatling.jpg)
/https://files.cults3d.com/uploaders/16373081/illustration-file/82ab7b0b-54a2-42dc-9e78-0a0011e797da/Pike_Cannon.jpg)
