Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
Not taking advantage of the special/heavy weapons slots is a waste.
A plasma gun is 7 points and dramatically increases the squad's firepower (especially vs low armor save units), a heavy bolter is 8 points and replaces a lasgun with 3 str5 AP-1 shots with 36" range. It is worth it unless you are using the IS purely as a meatshield.
I'd rather have 3 IS with plasma/heavy bolter than 4 barebones IS. Especially since "take aim" or cadian regimental traits nearly eliminates the possibility of plasma overheat.
If you do the math, the tooled up IS sacrifices roughly 25% durability (per point) for a huge offensive damage output increase.
Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
Which is boring. I want to give them that stuff, I built models for it!
Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
Which is boring. I want to give them that stuff, I built models for it!
Fun has no place in the hobby when people are trying to be hyper competitive and squeeze every last point out of a list instead of rolling dice and making pew pew noises.
You can throw a las cannon in every squad if you want. a 60 point lascannon with 10 W 4+ in cover is a deal man. It's just not making the best use of their orders. I'd much rather take 36 str 3 shots and charge with 2 str 4 attacks and tie up enemy units. It's a lot better than sitting back paying more and shooting a lascannon.
Martel732 wrote: I know they are gonna die miserably. I KNOW this. They get nothing. Maybe mortars. I don't have the models, though. I'm new to IG.
The officer doesn't get a vox caster, because they are gonna die, too. 6" is fine. It's a 30 pt model.
But the temporal cost on the opponent is crushing. Even if they don't realize it. Every time they shoot a 4 pt dum dum, or even assault them, I'm pulling ahead. Unless I'm being forced to kill guardsmen, too.
The temporal cost is more than made up for by the VP gain from Butchers Bill, Reaper, and the Primary Kill One VP/EoR Kill More Units VP. There's a reason the top soup lists stick to the bare minimum number of infantry squads and a huge part of that is taking more than 30 guardsmen is pretty much giving your opponent easy VP. Part of the reason why having a Knight is such a boon to a list. If they take your Knight down, you likely will only need to kill two small units to come ahead that round for the killed more primary. If they fail to kill your Knight for whatever reason, then you basically get to pull ahead by a full turn's primary kill VP.
A fix without nerfing guard into the ground is to bring back platoons, say 2 infantry squads and a PL per troops choice minimum for 100 points/troops choice barebones. This makes the cost of a soup CP battery 360 points while doing little to change the structure of most mono-guard armies (other than adding 60 points of PL's you normally wouldn't take). GW has already showed willingness to be flexible with force orgs in the Knight and DE codices so its not breaking any new ground there. This would be a much more elegant fix than vainly searching for a nonexistent points value that magically makes Guardsmen unattractive for soup while at the same time being balanced as a mono-faction.
Would some players still take a 360 point soup battery? Maybe, but it opens up a lot more battalion choices within Imperium to include admech and taking the 360 point platoon-based version opens you up to three reaper, four butchers bill, four headhunter, and a lot of easy primary VP's, which not everyone will see as a worthwhile trade.
Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
(shrugs) I've heard your argument for 25+ years. You play your IG squads however suits you, I'll continue to play them how works for me, & we'll just agree to disagree on wether the other guys way is effective.
w1zard wrote: Not taking advantage of the special/heavy weapons slots is a waste.
A plasma gun is 7 points and dramatically increases the squad's firepower (especially vs low armor save units), a heavy bolter is 8 points and replaces a lasgun with 3 str5 AP-1 shots with 36" range. It is worth it unless you are using the IS purely as a meatshield.
I'd rather have 3 IS with plasma/heavy bolter than 4 barebones IS. Especially since "take aim" or cadian regimental traits nearly eliminates the possibility of plasma overheat.
If you do the math, the tooled up IS sacrifices roughly 25% durability (per point) for a huge offensive damage output increase.
I guess it depends on you look at it.
In a "everything teleports into 12"" scenario (realistic or otherwise) you are doing 32% more damage output than the 4 IS squads, but if I shoot you back I am getting a 37.5% increase (assuming I wipe the squads that is, and this arguably swings things in your favour in a real game situation).
However if I have 2 company commanders issuing FRFSRF on the 4 IS squads, and you have 3 orders on your 3 squads, the damage output increase for you is pretty marginal (just 13% if you are Cadian and rerolling all misses, but not moving can cause issues - and we are not giving a chapter tactic to the 4 IS), while you are still giving your opponent that 37.5% increase to their damage.
On the other hand outside of 12" your HB/plas unit performs a lot better. It would be expected to around 70% more damage for a 37.5% increase in your opponents damage - which is probably worth it, especially as you get the benefit until the special weapons die. This is however mitigated somewhat by orders doubling las output compared to what they can do for the special weapons. (There are also the additional downsides of the HB being heavy, and the plasma gun potentially killing the bearer).
So if you are going to have orders and you expect to get in close (either because you are moving up or they are) I'd argue its not worth it. If you are going to camp at the back plinking away its probably is. Although in my experience most of the armies keen to keep you at range have -1s to hit, which further skews the numbers. You can also say that the Plasma gun opens up new targets - and yes if you run into Primaris or most bikers anything T7/3+ no invuls it will serve you well. On the other hand a lot of these units are judged bad that reason.
In my view you want to keep them cheap, make them Catachan, bundle up the table together and FRFSRF then charge, preferably with 2 or 3 S4 attacks but I can see the argument if you are planning to stay outside of 12" the game.
I'd like if sergeant equipment on just about all codexes was worth it but with certain exceptions this usually isn't the case versus just taking more stuff.
Karol wrote: how about giving armies that have detachments sharing all traits, some sort of a blank buff, on top of what ever they get from the detachments?
the soup would be the flexibility of picking units that are better vs solid rules for someone who has only ultramarines on the board and nothing else.
Yup, Buff Mono rather than nerf soup!
allies get access to all the tools .. mono gets the CP pool to make their limited tools hit harder / more often
I've suggested +3 CP (Random number off top of head) for every detachment that shares the warlords <codex> including the first (replaces battleforged)
Mono guard still get a shed load of CP and continue to not be able to spend them all in a game anyways
Mono Nids, Crons and Marines etc. get access to a few more tools to combat squad or SFTS or go to ground without having to use 20% of their CP in turn 1 just to survive
Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
By 'plenty of [sic] more stuff', are you referring to units other than guardsman?
Or are you saying that even an army like mine - which only uses IG infantry - should still stick to lasguns?
I mean, I can maybe see your point when it comes to Lascannons, since you're increasing the cost of the squad by 50% (though you are gaining significant long-range firepower in return). However, a 7pt plasmagun seems like a pretty good investment on a 40pt squad.
Hmm that would actually be cool I guess. A knight army that is mono could fuel its knights longer or easier, but lack the chaff a soup list would have. GW could even play with some of the stratagems too.Lets say if a all detachments the same, you get some or one stratagem cheaper, or you get auto CP return, so mono lists wouldn't be forced in to running aquilas or specific traits etc. Everyone would still have access to the same stuff, soup would be more flexible, but using a craftworld stratagem on a Inari unit wouldn't be as efficient as doing the same in an alaitoc army.
vipoid wrote: By 'plenty of [sic] more stuff', are you referring to units other than guardsman?
Or are you saying that even an army like mine - which only uses IG infantry - should still stick to lasguns?
I mean, I can maybe see your point when it comes to Lascannons, since you're increasing the cost of the squad by 50% (though you are gaining significant long-range firepower in return). However, a 7pt plasmagun seems like a pretty good investment on a 40pt squad.
Its everything in moderation. A 40 point unit and a 47 point unit with a plasma gun are both different from say a 75~ point fully blinged up unit with a lascannon, a plasma gun, a vox, a plasma pistol etc etc.
Plasma and heavy weapons tend to pull a unit in two directions - because the first wants to be in 12" to rapid fire (which tends to mean moving forward), and the other wants you to stay still to avoid the -1 to hit.
If you are only going to have infantry then I agree you need to bring some heavier weapons along and put them somewhere. A heavy weapons team in an infantry squad is more protected than a heavy weapons squad, which can (LOS ignoring mortars hidden behind a cardboard box aside) be quite easily nuked. So sure - but then saying you only want to run infantry is an arbitrary limit you have placed upon yourself. Mathematically, you probably want a Castellan.
Tyel wrote: Its everything in moderation. A 40 point unit and a 47 point unit with a plasma gun are both different from say a 75~ point fully blinged up unit with a lascannon, a plasma gun, a vox, a plasma pistol etc etc.
Oh, I agree that you don't want to just buy everything (e.g. I'd never have a pistol and Lascannon in the same unit, and I think Vox Casters are abysmal at the best of times), but there's still some middle ground between that and buying no upgrades at all.
Tyel wrote: Plasma and heavy weapons tend to pull a unit in two directions - because the first wants to be in 12" to rapid fire (which tends to mean moving forward), and the other wants you to stay still to avoid the -1 to hit.
12" for Plasma is ideal, but I'm happy to just take a single shot at 24" if it means not having to move my Heavy Weapon.
Also, having a Heavy Weapon and a Plasmagun means the squad gets more benefit out of the 'reroll 1s to hit' order.
Tyel wrote: If you are only going to have infantry then I agree you need to bring some heavier weapons along and put them somewhere. A heavy weapons team in an infantry squad is more protected than a heavy weapons squad, which can (LOS ignoring mortars hidden behind a cardboard box aside) be quite easily nuked. So sure - but then saying you only want to run infantry is an arbitrary limit you have placed upon yourself. Mathematically, you probably want a Castellan.
I'm aware that all-infantry is an arbitrary limit, but that's because I play the game for fun and I find infantry hordes fun.
I'm sure it's mathematically better, but the day I buy a Castellan is the day I snort gunpowder while smoking three cigars.
Martel732 wrote: I know they are gonna die miserably. I KNOW this. They get nothing. Maybe mortars. I don't have the models, though. I'm new to IG.
The officer doesn't get a vox caster, because they are gonna die, too. 6" is fine. It's a 30 pt model.
But the temporal cost on the opponent is crushing. Even if they don't realize it. Every time they shoot a 4 pt dum dum, or even assault them, I'm pulling ahead. Unless I'm being forced to kill guardsmen, too.
The temporal cost is more than made up for by the VP gain from Butchers Bill, Reaper, and the Primary Kill One VP/EoR Kill More Units VP. There's a reason the top soup lists stick to the bare minimum number of infantry squads and a huge part of that is taking more than 30 guardsmen is pretty much giving your opponent easy VP. Part of the reason why having a Knight is such a boon to a list. If they take your Knight down, you likely will only need to kill two small units to come ahead that round for the killed more primary. If they fail to kill your Knight for whatever reason, then you basically get to pull ahead by a full turn's primary kill VP.
A fix without nerfing guard into the ground is to bring back platoons, say 2 infantry squads and a PL per troops choice minimum for 100 points/troops choice barebones. This makes the cost of a soup CP battery 360 points while doing little to change the structure of most mono-guard armies (other than adding 60 points of PL's you normally wouldn't take). GW has already showed willingness to be flexible with force orgs in the Knight and DE codices so its not breaking any new ground there. This would be a much more elegant fix than vainly searching for a nonexistent points value that magically makes Guardsmen unattractive for soup while at the same time being balanced as a mono-faction.
Would some players still take a 360 point soup battery? Maybe, but it opens up a lot more battalion choices within Imperium to include admech and taking the 360 point platoon-based version opens you up to three reaper, four butchers bill, four headhunter, and a lot of easy primary VP's, which not everyone will see as a worthwhile trade.
Except the temporal cost of focusing guardsmen is too great.
You have 1-2 turns where your army is going to be at peak or near peak strength. It reaches a point in the game where guardsmen squads are difficult to remove, simply because points are sorely depleted on both sides of the fence.
For example, i shoot poison at knights in the early going. Because by turn 3 i'll be scraping by with a few units left, with probably 60% of my army dead. That's how it is playing against Knights. I need to kill 2 before turn 3 or i'm dead. And every single shot counts.
Tyel wrote: I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
Maybe so, but I'd still take the Auto Cannon. That's a magnificent gun for the points, I wish Tactical Marines could still equip them.
Tyel wrote: I guess it depends on you look at it.
In a "everything teleports into 12"" scenario (realistic or otherwise) you are doing 32% more damage output than the 4 IS squads, but if I shoot you back I am getting a 37.5% increase (assuming I wipe the squads that is, and this arguably swings things in your favour in a real game situation).
However if I have 2 company commanders issuing FRFSRF on the 4 IS squads, and you have 3 orders on your 3 squads, the damage output increase for you is pretty marginal (just 13% if you are Cadian and rerolling all misses, but not moving can cause issues - and we are not giving a chapter tactic to the 4 IS), while you are still giving your opponent that 37.5% increase to their damage.
On the other hand outside of 12" your HB/plas unit performs a lot better. It would be expected to around 70% more damage for a 37.5% increase in your opponents damage - which is probably worth it, especially as you get the benefit until the special weapons die. This is however mitigated somewhat by orders doubling las output compared to what they can do for the special weapons. (There are also the additional downsides of the HB being heavy, and the plasma gun potentially killing the bearer).
So if you are going to have orders and you expect to get in close (either because you are moving up or they are) I'd argue its not worth it. If you are going to camp at the back plinking away its probably is. Although in my experience most of the armies keen to keep you at range have -1s to hit, which further skews the numbers. You can also say that the Plasma gun opens up new targets - and yes if you run into Primaris or most bikers anything T7/3+ no invuls it will serve you well. On the other hand a lot of these units are judged bad that reason.
In my view you want to keep them cheap, make them Catachan, bundle up the table together and FRFSRF then charge, preferably with 2 or 3 S4 attacks but I can see the argument if you are planning to stay outside of 12" the game.
I'd like if sergeant equipment on just about all codexes was worth it but with certain exceptions this usually isn't the case versus just taking more stuff.
Good analysis.
I think it boils down sacrificing the durability (per point) for offensive output. Sure, a barebones squad can come close to the offensive output of a tooled up squad under very specific conditions (officer within 6"+within 12" of target+available order), but in general the tooled up IS is going to have a much better offensive output in the majority of situations.
For a meatshield squad purely desgined to tank wounds and act as a screen, barebones is probably the better way to run them.
People run mortars for the obvious reason that they make it difficult to hold back line objectives, and they're always shooting (and, of course, they're super undercosted).
You can't leave a min-sized cheap squad with little defense on an objective and expect to hold it against Guard. Unless, you, are also, playing Guard.
And a mortar if left alive will fire 6 times. You can't make the same argument for an autocannon.
Marmatag wrote: People run mortars for the obvious reason that they make it difficult to hold back line objectives, and they're always shooting (and, of course, they're super undercosted).
You can't leave a min-sized cheap squad with little defense on an objective and expect to hold it against Guard. Unless, you, are also, playing Guard.
And a mortar if left alive will fire 6 times. You can't make the same argument for an autocannon.
What is your 'fair cost' for a mortar? Cause a unit of three with a Cadian officer ordering it to reroll all averages 3.5 dead guardsmen without cover. Let's say you use the officer efficiently and throw in a second mortar team, you're up to 96 points invested and you kill... 7 Guardsmen? Alaitoc rangers are pretty much immune, Skitari vanguard are going to be rocking shroudpsalm or using their 5-man unit size to be in cover (3.5 dead on average, rounding up) and/or are stygies for -1 to hit on top of that. What infantry units get completely wrecked by mortars that aren't other guardsmen? Necron warriors lose 4 per turn, which is probably the best ROI you can get on basic infantry, but Necrons are overcosted anyway. They kill about 2.6 Tactical Marines, which is again, not terrible, but for 96 points invested, I think a 26-39 point ROI is somewhat reasonable given 7 guardsmen is a 28 point return. If they're Raven Guard or in cover, that number goes down even further (1.26 dead in cover, the math for -1 to hit is even lower because the rerolls don't benefit as much and if you have -1 and cover, you can effectively ignore the mortars entirely).
Another thing that I think you're failing to take into account here as well is that rule of three reined in mortars' power substantially. The 15-18 you'd regularly see in lists around January are reduced to 9, and frankly, 9 mortars don't get much done, especially since the number of company commanders was similarly limited to three, meaning they're likely getting two buffs to split among the three units, if they even leave one back there.
Also yes, if an autocannon is left alive, it will fire six times. I assume you meant to say that the mortar is guaranteed to get six shots in over the course of a game, which it's not. A mortar HWS is three 60mm bases, they're not that easy to hide and the moment you can draw a bead on any single one of them, the entire squad is crippled or dead. The only terrain feature that all but guarantees their safety is a ruin with ITC rules in place and a large enough footprint to fit three 60mm bases on the first floor. If your opponent had multiple such buildings in their deployment zone to house the other two, then I assume pretty much your whole army must have cover as well or you let your opponent set up the board in his favor.
Personally, I think you and the rest of the guard hater crew got a bit traumatized from the early days of 8th and haven't realized the game has changed substantially since then.
The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
One issue though is that if you remove mortars you effectively take out entire HWS option from the codex. Nothing else is worth putting on 3 super soft models.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
One issue though is that if you remove mortars you effectively take out entire HWS option from the codex. Nothing else is worth putting on 3 super soft models.
And having a bad unit with only bad options is new or bad for w40k, because ?
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
Again, please find a price point for mortars that wouldn't also make them trash tier. They have mediocre damage output against anything that has any type of defensive buff, are easily killed if you can even see one of the three 60mm bases, and can't be brought in significant volume any more to leverage their cheap cost.
9 of them, (the most you can take unless you want to stuff them into infantry squads) get an an average of 32 shots at BS4, killing 2.6 MEQ out of cover. Let's round up and say three dead marines, just a bit over 33% ROI. That's not exactly game breaking. I just don't see how you guys are coming to the conclusion that these things are grossly undercosted. They cost 5 and have an upper ceiling of 7 points before they start stepping onto the heavy bolter's price. Frankly, even at 7points I'd rather just take the heavy bolters at 8 or completely drop the HWS' for other units. I saw one of you jokers throw out 10, which is hilariously overcosted and would basically just delete them from the game.
I really don't know what tables you guys are playing on that you can't draw LOS on a mortar by at least turn 2. Unless you're playing guard players running the old school tiny metal mortars and they fit them all in the first floor of a building, you should be able to wipe out 1-2 easily and the third with some work.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
One issue though is that if you remove mortars you effectively take out entire HWS option from the codex. Nothing else is worth putting on 3 super soft models.
And having a bad unit with only bad options is new or bad for w40k, because ?
Because more gakky units means even less diversity in lists? Mortars are not defining the meta and rule of three ensured that. They're a good unit at a cost that might have a single upward point of wiggle room before they become trash. Or are we just playing the "I can't have nice things so nobody can" card?
Finally, if the big bad mortars have really got you down, a whirlwind scorpius has pretty good odds of deleting two full HWS' in cover (6 mortars) per turn.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
Again, please find a price point for mortars that wouldn't also make them trash tier. They have mediocre damage output against anything that has any type of defensive buff, are easily killed if you can even see one of the three 60mm bases, and can't be brought in significant volume any more to leverage their cheap cost.
9 of them, (the most you can take unless you want to stuff them into infantry squads) get an an average of 32 shots at BS4, killing 2.6 MEQ out of cover. Let's round up and say three dead marines, just a bit over 33% ROI. That's not exactly game breaking. I just don't see how you guys are coming to the conclusion that these things are grossly undercosted. They cost 5 and have an upper ceiling of 7 points before they start stepping onto the heavy bolter's price. Frankly, even at 7points I'd rather just take the heavy bolters at 8 or completely drop the HWS' for other units. I saw one of you jokers throw out 10, which is hilariously overcosted and would basically just delete them from the game.
I really don't know what tables you guys are playing on that you can't draw LOS on a mortar by at least turn 2. Unless you're playing guard players running the old school tiny metal mortars and they fit them all in the first floor of a building, you should be able to wipe out 1-2 easily and the third with some work.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
One issue though is that if you remove mortars you effectively take out entire HWS option from the codex. Nothing else is worth putting on 3 super soft models.
And having a bad unit with only bad options is new or bad for w40k, because ?
Because more gakky units means even less diversity in lists? Mortars are not defining the meta and rule of three ensured that. They're a good unit at a cost that might have a single upward point of wiggle room before they become trash. Or are we just playing the "I can't have nice things so nobody can" card?
Finally, if the big bad mortars have really got you down, a whirlwind scorpius has pretty good odds of deleting two full HWS' in cover (6 mortars) per turn.
Your overy simplifying or ignoring the advantage that NLOS gives as your unit can hunker down hold a back field objective and still shoot at anything with range. A dirrect fire weapon can be manoeuvred around.
It's also a more fundamental issue that a Guardsmen shouldn't cost 3pts like they do in HWS. Combined with mortars stacking to make it offensively undercosted.
The HWS should be 27 or 30 points before weapons if you want
To have a honest discussion as a 5+ sv is worth more than 3 pt. then mortars should be probably 6 points
RogueApiary wrote: 9 of them, (the most you can take unless you want to stuff them into infantry squads) get an an average of 32 shots at BS4, killing 2.6 MEQ out of cover. Let's round up and say three dead marines, just a bit over 33% ROI. That's not exactly game breaking. I just don't see how you guys are coming to the conclusion that these things are grossly undercosted. They cost 5 and have an upper ceiling of 7 points before they start stepping onto the heavy bolter's price. Frankly, even at 7points I'd rather just take the heavy bolters at 8 or completely drop the HWS' for other units. I saw one of you jokers throw out 10, which is hilariously overcosted and would basically just delete them from the game.
If you can't see why "a bit over 33% ROI" (34.47% - and make that 40%~ with stationary Cadians rerolling 1s) at 48" without LOS is good then I don't know what to tell you. What sort of return do you expect? 45%? And you wonder why people think Guard are overpowered?
Take heavy bolters if you like - but you can't camp them behind a breeze block and just plink away. You can't shoot my objective holders who are hiding behind their own breeze block off the table.
Now I guess if you say "we only play with GW terrain and RAW all those holes make LOS blocking essentially impossible" but that's not the case on tables all over the world either at tournaments or more casual games. I find your claim that you will "definitely" get LOS by turn 2 to just be wrong.
Even then, so what. Sure they are not tough - but at 5.5 points per wound this isn't exactly setting you back.
Ice_can wrote: The point is more that ignoring LOS is way under priced for the advantage it gives, especially when you have a decent range.
It's more a GW problem than a Guard problem, however Guard having the most and easiest and cheapest access to NLOS shooting makes them as a codex the poster child for that issue.
Also they came out of the edition change with almost across the board improvements, heck even the last FAQ screwed other factions over harder to even attempt to impact Guard on the CP farming, and strategum spam.
One issue though is that if you remove mortars you effectively take out entire HWS option from the codex. Nothing else is worth putting on 3 super soft models.
And having a bad unit with only bad options is new or bad for w40k, because ?
Not new but obviously bad. Nobody can seriously claim it's good to have bad units in the game.
Howabout rather than just nerf the only good option make the other options worth taking. If you just up the price of mortar which isn't game dominating option anyway you just remove HMS as that won't help other options one bit.
I still think that the cost of a base squad should increase, but the cost of extras and spacial and heavy weapons should decrease.
I think players should be rewarded for taking things like radios, so making them a 1 point upgrade to a 50 point squad would be great. Drop special weapon costs by 2 points as well. Now you have the same before and after costs for a fully tooled up squad, but a more expensive bare bones one to reflect the fact that the guard does expect its men to fire their weapons lots before dying in droves.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I still think that the cost of a base squad should increase, but the cost of extras and spacial and heavy weapons should decrease.
I think players should be rewarded for taking things like radios, so making them a 1 point upgrade to a 50 point squad would be great. Drop special weapon costs by 2 points as well. Now you have the same before and after costs for a fully tooled up squad, but a more expensive bare bones one to reflect the fact that the guard does expect its men to fire their weapons lots before dying in droves.
Yeah, something like this would be good. It is boring that the most optimal squad is the barebones one.
Ice_can wrote: Your overy simplifying or ignoring the advantage that NLOS gives as your unit can hunker down hold a back field objective and still shoot at anything with range. A dirrect fire weapon can be manoeuvred around.
It's also a more fundamental issue that a Guardsmen shouldn't cost 3pts like they do in HWS. Combined with mortars stacking to make it offensively undercosted.
I feel like people grossly exaggerate the firepower, resilience, and general utility of mortar teams. An average of 3.5 Bolter shots hitting on 4s at best isn't a particularly scary model. Their entire utility is that they're cheap and annoying, and in a game where battles are usually resolved by turn 3, the idea of them firing continuously for six turns has little relevance to actual gameplay. A full squad of 3 mortars has an average damage output of less than one basic Marine killed per turn. In all the games I've used them, they've struggled to make back their points, and they're trivially easy for Deep Strikers and the like to kill.
The only reason mortars are favored over the other heavy weapons is that they're the only platform that can avoid dying instantly to anything that looks at them funny. I see them used to fill Brigade slots and occupy table space more than anything else.
In any case, costing one point less per wound seems appropriate considering the combined team is vulnerable to D2+ weapons and only has one lasgun. I can see increasing the cost of mortars to match heavy bolters, or bumping them up to 8pts if basic infantry go up to 5pts, but when literally every single other configuration of HWSes is considered non-competitive I don't think it's the base unit that's the problem.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I still think that the cost of a base squad should increase, but the cost of extras and spacial and heavy weapons should decrease.
I think players should be rewarded for taking things like radios, so making them a 1 point upgrade to a 50 point squad would be great. Drop special weapon costs by 2 points as well. Now you have the same before and after costs for a fully tooled up squad, but a more expensive bare bones one to reflect the fact that the guard does expect its men to fire their weapons lots before dying in droves.
I like that idea lot, since it penalizes CP batteries without negatively impacting kitted-up Guardsmen, and incentivizes taking heavy weapons whereas right now orders reward keeping all lasguns- but how would you balance it? Reducing the cost of special and heavy weapons army-wide would be a buff to a whole slew of units that don't need it, like vehicles. You'd need an army-wide rebalancing pass, increasing the cost of pretty much every weapon platform in the army to compensate.
Martel732 wrote: Games are increasingly not resolved by turn 3. That new stratagem, and ITC style games frequently go down to the wire. Especially IG v IG.
This.
And Mortars are absolutely undercosted. Absolutely. They hit on 4s rerolling everything. For like 100 points you get 6d6 shots. The ability to deny people back-line objectives with min-sized squads - unless they're marines - is not insignificant.
The rest of the non-marine world, T3 5+ or worse as our base troop, can't stand up to mortar fire, especially when it's so accurate. Those 100 point mortars delete a min squad every turn. Meaning, you can't rely on min squads to hold objectives. The mortars dictate that you must put something beefier and therefore more expensive on any objective.
But guard have been undercosted since the jump, this is nothing new, and people will continue to apologize for them, until they see point increases in CA.
If you aren't getting mileage out of your mortars, i would honestly say you need to improve your skills. They are *fantastic* and punch WAY above their points. The top players use them to great effect, you should too.
Marmatag wrote: They hit on 4s rerolling everything. (...) especially when it's so accurate.
I've noticed you seem to regularly do this thing where you implicitly assume very specific buffs, then talk as if those buffed capabilities are a core part of the unit's statline. I'm guessing here you're assuming Cadian doctrine and an officer giving them Take Aim orders, so that 'like 100 points' trio of squads actually requires an additional two officers (minimum of 50pts extra and unable to buff any other unit while babysitting mortars) along with a specific regimental bonus that is commonly considered overpowered (and is incompatible with the Catachan buff combo you use to complain about infantry squads).
When the 'top players' use them for anything more than filling Brigade slots (just checked the top lists from Nova), or otherwise give any indication that they aren't simply the only decent choice among a bunch of poor options, then I'll believe that they're more than slightly undercosted. I already said I'm fine with bringing their cost inline with the other light support weapons.
Maybe you can try making a case for them being significantly undercosted on their own without assuming preconditions that distort their basic value? Man, it's awfully overpowered how Tactical Marines are just 13pts for a unit that re-rolls all failed hits and wounds, isn't it?
Of course they're Cadian, and of course they have orders. You have to bring at least 2 company commanders for a battalion anyway.
I'm sorry but you can sod right off with that one.
I'm sorry to break this to you but no, not every IG player uses Cadian. Not every IG player wants an army that's basically built to be an immobile gunline from the get-go.
As for Orders, once again this is by no means guaranteed. Yes, you'll almost certainly have a couple of Commanders - but you've also got Infantry Squads competing for buffs. And, whilst I can't speak for others, I'd far rather keep my Commanders with the Infantry since they benefit far more from the Order toolbox. I'd far rather have FRFSRF on an Infantry Squad than be rerolling 1s with my Mortars. Not to mention that Infantry are more likely to need Move! Move! Move! or Get Back In The Fight, hence I want my Commanders sticking with them as they advance.
Marmatag wrote: They hit on 4s rerolling everything. (...) especially when it's so accurate.
I've noticed you seem to regularly do this thing where you implicitly assume very specific buffs, then talk as if those buffed capabilities are a core part of the unit's statline. I'm guessing here you're assuming Cadian doctrine and an officer giving them Take Aim orders, so that 'like 100 points' trio of squads actually requires an additional two officers (minimum of 50pts extra and unable to buff any other unit while babysitting mortars) along with a specific regimental bonus that is commonly considered overpowered (and is incompatible with the Catachan buff combo you use to complain about infantry squads).
When the 'top players' use them for anything more than filling Brigade slots (just checked the top lists from Nova), or otherwise give any indication that they aren't simply the only decent choice among a bunch of poor options, then I'll believe that they're more than slightly undercosted. I already said I'm fine with bringing their cost inline with the other light support weapons.
Maybe you can try making a case for them being significantly undercosted on their own without assuming preconditions that distort their basic value? Man, it's awfully overpowered how Tactical Marines are just 13pts for a unit that re-rolls all failed hits and wounds, isn't it?
You guys all try to defend guard making these kinds of silly posts wherein you claim that the obvious, "comes-up-every-single-game-scenario" doesn't come up and can't be assumed.
Assault cannons saw a points increase because of the synergy with Guilliman. Or are you prepared to make the argument that Grey Knights assault cannons were OP? This game isn't played in a vacuum and balance should (and, generally does) respond to what is actually put on the table.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw someone not take an HQ that gives orders?
When was the last time you saw someone auxiliary in a mortar team so they didn't have orders or regimental traits?
When you can answer that question with some credibility then we'll talk about not assuming the obvious.
Marmatag wrote: They hit on 4s rerolling everything. (...) especially when it's so accurate.
I've noticed you seem to regularly do this thing where you implicitly assume very specific buffs, then talk as if those buffed capabilities are a core part of the unit's statline. I'm guessing here you're assuming Cadian doctrine and an officer giving them Take Aim orders, so that 'like 100 points' trio of squads actually requires an additional two officers (minimum of 50pts extra and unable to buff any other unit while babysitting mortars) along with a specific regimental bonus that is commonly considered overpowered (and is incompatible with the Catachan buff combo you use to complain about infantry squads).
When the 'top players' use them for anything more than filling Brigade slots (just checked the top lists from Nova), or otherwise give any indication that they aren't simply the only decent choice among a bunch of poor options, then I'll believe that they're more than slightly undercosted. I already said I'm fine with bringing their cost inline with the other light support weapons.
Maybe you can try making a case for them being significantly undercosted on their own without assuming preconditions that distort their basic value? Man, it's awfully overpowered how Tactical Marines are just 13pts for a unit that re-rolls all failed hits and wounds, isn't it?
You guys all try to defend guard making these kinds of silly posts wherein you claim that the obvious, "comes-up-every-single-game-scenario" doesn't come up and can't be assumed.
Assault cannons saw a points increase because of the synergy with Guilliman. Or are you prepared to make the argument that Grey Knights assault cannons were OP? This game isn't played in a vacuum and balance should (and, generally does) respond to what is actually put on the table.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw someone not take an HQ that gives orders?
When was the last time you saw someone auxiliary in a mortar team so they didn't have orders or regimental traits?
When you can answer that question with some credibility then we'll talk about not assuming the obvious.
Orders present in the army is a given, yes. But what you constantly fail to realize is that orders are a resource, unlike reroll auras, and that even with THREE officers giving orders ONLY to your mortars, you can't cover all nine HWS. So your math is invalid right out the bat. You also assume Cadian when Catachan is currently the meta choice and there's perfectly good reasons to run Tallarn or Armageddon competitively in niche situations.
I already showed the math on why 30 bolter shots from across the map isn't as good as you guys keep letting on, 2.6 dead marines without cover or without -1 to hit for all nine mortars combined. It would take two turns for all 9 just to kick a min sized tac squad sitting out in the open off of an objective. 3-4 if RG or in cover and all fething game if both, in that last scenario, that's all 100 points of 9 mortars firing at 65 points of tactical marines and taking FIVE ROUNDS assuming no returning fire to clear them.
I've already said about three times now it is not difficult to get LOS on any one of three 60mm bases, much less 9 of them. You act like I just leave my mortars out to be shot at turn one like some type of mouthbreathing idiot, and yet I can tell you from personal experience, I'm lucky to have one full set out of three at the end of a game because there's only so many angles you can protect a footprint that large from. Your argument that you can maneuver around lanes of fire works the same for the mortars unless you're playing on extremely crowded tables.
Finally, if you happen to be playing on cityfight boards every day and somehow can't maneuver to get LOS, you can bring your own indirect fire last I checked . Just about everybody has access to it (other than I think Necrons and Orks)? Marines and Chaos have the WW Scorpius, which will completely remove the mortar problem in 1.5 turns before moving on to hit other things with 6D3 S6/AP2/2D.
My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
Of course they're Cadian, and of course they have orders. You have to bring at least 2 company commanders for a battalion anyway.
Is this not the same thread in which folks were complaining that Guard always take the Catachan Regimental trait because they're super overpowered with their "6 strength 4 attacks every turn at 4 points per model?" I guess you could take multiple detachments with different Regimental traits, but then orders are going to be even less available than normal since officers can only issue orders to units within the same Regiment, and you still have a hard max of 3 Company Commanders in matched play.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't use FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't yse FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
And Mortars are absolutely undercosted. Absolutely. They hit on 4s rerolling everything. For like 100 points you get 6d6 shots. The ability to deny people back-line objectives with min-sized squads - unless they're marines - is not insignificant.
The rest of the non-marine world, T3 5+ or worse as our base troop, can't stand up to mortar fire, especially when it's so accurate. Those 100 point mortars delete a min squad every turn. Meaning, you can't rely on min squads to hold objectives. The mortars dictate that you must put something beefier and therefore more expensive on any objective.
You see a problem with the cost of the mortars.
I see a problem with the thought process of whoever is getting shelled by them. They KNOW mortar fire is a thing. And a probable thing at that. Yet they're still trying to hold objectives with min. sized squads? Are they stupid? They aren't dedicating something to deal with the problem? Well, until they do, then they deserve to get shelled into oblivion.
Of course I guess sobbing about it & hoping GW will change your opponnents pts values for the worse is always easier than learning how to play in the 1st place or just modifying your play style.....
Everyone takes Cadians? Considering how much you complain about the Catachan traits with regards to infantry squads, and considering how many tournament lists show mortars in Catachan detachments, that's a pretty interesting claim.
Furthermore, who's keeping commanders in the back to babysit mortar teams rather than sending them forward with infantry? Especially with Cadians it's actually more points-efficient not to devote officers to them, which is probably why I've yet to see it actually done either on the tabletop or online. Why waste orders on giving mortars a ~33% buff, when your required HQ choices can be doubling the firepower of infantry squads instead?
Marmatag wrote: This game isn't played in a vacuum and balance should (and, generally does) respond to what is actually put on the table.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw someone not take an HQ that gives orders?
When was the last time you saw someone auxiliary in a mortar team so they didn't have orders or regimental traits?
You're right, the game isn't played in a vacuum.
So, how exactly does someone take enough officers to provide an order for every single infantry unit in the army (so that you can assume every unit has orders all the time), while simultaneously only taking the minimum number required to fill slots (so that you can ignore the non-negligible cost of unnecessary officers), and while ensuring every infantry squad is Catachan and every heavy weapons squad is Cadian?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
They also dont have access to fundamental things like a transport outside of FW (and even those are a far cry from typical Rhinos, Raiders, Chimeras, Trukks, etc), and they're the mf'ing AdMech .
The Mechanicus as whole is a half-baked incomplete faction currently
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
Marmatag wrote: Many of the Imperium factions are designed with allies in mind. So, that's not entirely a credible argument.
The AdMech is not like the INQ or Assassins or Custodes, either in the background or game. They're a large subfaction of the Imperium who maintain exclusive sovereignty over many worlds, frequently defend their own worlds and wage their own wars and expeditions with their own expansive array of forces, they're just not one GW executed particularly well. The fact that the *Mechanicus* of all things doesn't have a basic transport and, outside of FW, has only one tank, is a travesty
Space Marines and the Guard both had more vehicle units in their very first codex books a quarter century ago than the AdMech codex has now
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
The fact that you can hide Mortars without effecting their use plays a role into them being broken.
And yes its a niche use that that is the battlefield role of Mortars in the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't yse FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
The ETC exists. There is a world outside the US.
Even still, the major events in the UK don't ban FW, see Caledonian Uprising, London GT, and the GWGT. Likewise, Australia appears to use ITC for its GT sized events. If anything, basing competitive discussion off of ETC rules is Europeans being insular. Also, isn't ETC a team format? That has its own skewed meta because of the whole captain chooses matchups pregame phase.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't use FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
So a 215 point unit which requires a minimum of an additional 50 points of units before it can be added to your army. Feels real cost effective against that 99 points of 9 mortars.
Yeah still looks like either the teams or the weapons are undercosted.
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
The fact that you can hide Mortars without effecting their use plays a role into them being broken.
And yes its a niche use that that is the battlefield role of Mortars in the game.
You're telling me that you can't draw a single bead on NINE 60mm bases. These things are not tiny, they have the same horizontal footprint as a dreadnought FFS. Hell, even fitting 12-15 60mm bases pre-rule of three was difficult on certain deployment maps when you added in all the terrain, vehicles, and infantry. Keeping them all simultaneously out of LOS as well was a pipe dream. There should be few boards where a single turns movement does not put you into LOS of a set of three 60mm bases.
All competitive discussions should only be based on GWGT rules, but that's a can of worms that is better kept closed. This discussion is one of the best examples of this. Mortars are far from OP, they are 11 point models with T3 and 5+ where the third model runs on a 5+ if you slay the other 2. They are a gifted kill point many times. They only become a problem in ITC because you can hide them out of LOS, but in a standard 40K game you will be lucky to put a single squad out of LOS, not to mention that if there is a spot like that on the table then you are giving it to a basilysk.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't use FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
So a 215 point unit which requires a minimum of an additional 50 points of units before it can be added to your army. Feels real cost effective against that 99 points of 9 mortars.
If all you're looking at is muppetmowing, sure. Those Mortars however are going to be dramatically less effective (in both absolute and relative cost terms) against anything with more than 1 wound relative to the Scorpius.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You do not seem to remember the cost of those indirect fire units we all supposedly have access to.
Also AdMech don't have access to indirect fire outside FW so...
Good thing FW is a part of 40k then! If you don't/can't use FW, you don't belong in a thread about competitive.
I already showcased the Scorpius available to Imperium and Chaos. It's about 200 points, but it can clear the 100 points of mortars in 1.5 shooting phases, giving it plenty of time to shoot juicier targets with 6D3 S6 AP2 2D. Since it is out of LOS, and we are apparently all on the premise that means it's magically invulnerable to being shot at with direct fire, that's 4.5 rounds of pounding the gak out of things unmolested once it's done it's job.
So a 215 point unit which requires a minimum of an additional 50 points of units before it can be added to your army. Feels real cost effective against that 99 points of 9 mortars.
Yeah still looks like either the teams or the weapons are undercosted.
All Imperium forces have access to the same mortars and about a half dozen other indirect choices if you're so inclined. Chaos can take them without the relic requirement and a list of 3 + 3x PBC is a fething nightmare to deal with. Also, that 215 point unit will clear all 100 points of mortars in 1.5 turns AND CONTINUE MURDERING gak WITH ITS 6D3 STR6 AP2 D2 so it doesn't need to make its points back killing just mortars because it has other viable targets once its done with them, which it will be absurdly quickly. This thing straight up drops 3.5 Aggressors per round of shooting and can get a Basilisk down to mid-bracket on average dice.
Or you can use the -1 traits available to just about every army in the game and MATHEMATICALLY IGNORE THE fething MORTARS WHEN COMBINED WITH COVER.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: All competitive discussions should only be based on GWGT rules, but that's a can of worms that is better kept closed. This discussion is one of the best examples of this. Mortars are far from OP, they are 11 point models with T3 and 5+ where the third model runs on a 5+ if you slay the other 2. They are a gifted kill point many times. They only become a problem in ITC because you can hide them out of LOS, but in a standard 40K game you will be lucky to put a single squad out of LOS, not to mention that if there is a spot like that on the table then you are giving it to a basilysk.
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
The fact that you can hide Mortars without effecting their use plays a role into them being broken.
And yes its a niche use that that is the battlefield role of Mortars in the game.
Return fire doesn't have to use LOS. Return fire could be a flyer. Return fire could be deep strikers in turn two, relying on the mortars not having good targets during turn 1.
As a niche use unit it's only natural that it not have many competitors in it's specialist field. For 100 points it has good light fire support, and low durability. While another unit around the same cost might have less offensive output, but better defense. Not that I'm a huge fan of whirlwinds, but they'll last longer against most return fire, have a longer range, and degrade slower.
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
The fact that you can hide Mortars without effecting their use plays a role into them being broken.
And yes its a niche use that that is the battlefield role of Mortars in the game.
Return fire doesn't have to use LOS. Return fire could be a flyer. Return fire could be deep strikers in turn two, relying on the mortars not having good targets during turn 1.
As a niche use unit it's only natural that it not have many competitors in it's specialist field. For 100 points it has good light fire support, and low durability. While another unit around the same cost might have less offensive output, but better defense. Not that I'm a huge fan of whirlwinds, but they'll last longer against most return fire, have a longer range, and degrade slower.
So a 215 point unit which requires a minimum of an additional 50 points of units before it can be added to your army.
How is 50 points of HS units even an issue?
Technically 50 points of Elites since the Scorpius is a Relic Elite, but that's even more absurd, because the Elite slot units are some of the few things that get used out of the Codex competitively anyway so you're not actually paying a 'tax' to unlock it since chances are good an Elite choice was already in your list. Company Vets/Sternguard (Nanavati and Reece's lists), Company Ancients (any list that leans on Hellblasters), and Aggressors (any Raven Guard list, even post-nerf, they still can start within double tap range of the screen line to get their job done).
Ordana wrote: A whirlwind fulfills a similar role for the same cost yes, and it is more durable. But 1/3 of the damage, which is kind of a big deal.
But its an acceptable alternative if you have no other option.
You're really fixated on having an exact 1-1 analogue of mortar teams for some reason despite having an option that is more expensive, but hard counters it and can then go on to engage targets other than chaff (Scorpius) and that's ignoring the fact that if you're Imperium you have access to the same god damned mortars.
Speaking of which, for balance purposes, it's pretty apparent GW intends for 8th to be balanced between Imperium, Chaos, Tyranids, and Aeldari rather than trying to make every sub faction viable as a monofaction. Necrons, Orks, and Tau kind of get screwed in the arrangement, but it makes a lot of sense in the long run as its much easier to balance 7 factions rather than 25+. Just for example, the top 16 at BFS were 6 Imperium, 4 Aeldari, 3 Chaos, 1 Ork, 1 Nids, 1 Necron. That's still skewed toward Imperium, but all that's missing is Tau from every 'major' faction getting a shot at top table, which is loads better than it was at the start of 8th ed. I'm looking forward to Socal Open's results since it will be the first major with enough prep time to absorb the new FAQ.
Ordana wrote: A whirlwind fulfills a similar role for the same cost yes, and it is more durable. But 1/3 of the damage, which is kind of a big deal.
But its an acceptable alternative if you have no other option.
Damage ratio depends on what you're shooting at, and which version of the Whirlwind. But sure, the Mortars do more damage certainly. . . but they lose lethality faster as they die.
I think in a dumb vs. match a Vengeance Launcher Whirlwind wins, actually.
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
That seems like a pretty niche task. Useful, but niche. You could alter that challenge to take into account return fire and the mortar teams would probably perish a lot quicker than competitors.
The fact that you can hide Mortars without effecting their use plays a role into them being broken.
And yes its a niche use that that is the battlefield role of Mortars in the game.
Return fire doesn't have to use LOS. Return fire could be a flyer. Return fire could be deep strikers in turn two, relying on the mortars not having good targets during turn 1.
As a niche use unit it's only natural that it not have many competitors in it's specialist field. For 100 points it has good light fire support, and low durability. While another unit around the same cost might have less offensive output, but better defense. Not that I'm a huge fan of whirlwinds, but they'll last longer against most return fire, have a longer range, and degrade slower.
Ordana wrote: A whirlwind fulfills a similar role for the same cost yes, and it is more durable. But 1/3 of the damage, which is kind of a big deal.
But its an acceptable alternative if you have no other option.
Damage ratio depends on what you're shooting at, and which version of the Whirlwind. But sure, the Mortars do more damage certainly. . . but they lose lethality faster as they die.
I think in a dumb vs. match a Vengeance Launcher Whirlwind wins, actually.
I was using the Castellan since the goal is shooting infantry that tend to be 1 wound. Funny enough it doesn't matter much if your shooting at GEQ, MEQ or TEQ or even a tank, the ratio in damage remains roughly the same until your shooting at a Knight.
And I would hope Mortars, an anti infantry weapon, would lose against a 2 damage weapon on a Vehicle...
3x the damage is not to be underestimated. If the mortars shoot once (highly likely) it will take 3 turns to do the same with a Whirlwind. If some mortars survive to shoot turn 2 (again, not unlikely) the Whirlwind will not catch up until turn 4-6. By which time the battle has probably been decided.
Being able to remove a squad from an objective in 1 turn as opposed to even 2 can have a noticeable effect on a games score.
Assuming Cadians, for the reroll of 1s, you have 31.5 shots.
63/2 shots
147/8 hits, or 18.38
Against fellow Guardsmen, that's...
49/4 wounds
49/6 dead, or 8.17
So yeah, morale would wipe a squad of Guardsmen. Assuming they don't Insane Bravery it.
Probably the next best target is Kabalites, which take only 6.81 casualties, which IS enough to wipe a min squad. But who uses Kabs for backline sitting? That's a Wrack job! Kabs sit in Venoms and Raiders.
What about Ad Mech? Well, even if they're not Stygies, they still take only 6.13 casualties, so enough to wipe a min squad... Out of cover. Plop them in cover or use Shroudpsalm, and you get only 4.08 dead. Maybe morale wipes them, maybe it doesn't.
And yeah, they might do better than a Whirlwind. Is the Whirlwind considered anything above trash, though? Again-it's been established SPACE MARINES SUCK. Compare to something that we actually WANT to balance against.
Ordana wrote: A whirlwind fulfills a similar role for the same cost yes, and it is more durable. But 1/3 of the damage, which is kind of a big deal.
But its an acceptable alternative if you have no other option.
You're really fixated on having an exact 1-1 analogue of mortar teams for some reason despite having an option that is more expensive, but hard counters it and can then go on to engage targets other than chaff (Scorpius) and that's ignoring the fact that if you're Imperium you have access to the same god damned mortars.
I already explained to you that FW is often not allowed in my region.
Secondly I am Imperium and I use mortars. That doesnt mean I can't complain about how broken they are, because every time I look around to see if there is a viable alternative to my Guard detachment the answer is 'hell no'.
Thirdly I'm 'stuck' on a 1:1 comparison because of my own experience and situation. I run a highly optimized list that has no points to spare. I literally could not fit in a Scorpius without dramatically altering the entire list.
Assuming Cadians, for the reroll of 1s, you have 31.5 shots.
63/2 shots
147/8 hits, or 18.38
Against fellow Guardsmen, that's...
49/4 wounds
49/6 dead, or 8.17
So yeah, morale would wipe a squad of Guardsmen. Assuming they don't Insane Bravery it.
Probably the next best target is Kabalites, which take only 6.81 casualties, which IS enough to wipe a min squad. But who uses Kabs for backline sitting? That's a Wrack job! Kabs sit in Venoms and Raiders.
What about Ad Mech? Well, even if they're not Stygies, they still take only 6.13 casualties, so enough to wipe a min squad... Out of cover. Plop them in cover or use Shroudpsalm, and you get only 4.08 dead. Maybe morale wipes them, maybe it doesn't.
And yeah, they might do better than a Whirlwind. Is the Whirlwind considered anything above trash, though? Again-it's been established SPACE MARINES SUCK. Compare to something that we actually WANT to balance against.
Feel free to offer an alternative unit to the Mortar to compare against. I don't particularly like running a Guard detachment, I don't like painting Guardsman but when your working with small amounts of room where points efficiency matters there is nothing that can compete with them.
Ordana wrote: A whirlwind fulfills a similar role for the same cost yes, and it is more durable. But 1/3 of the damage, which is kind of a big deal.
But its an acceptable alternative if you have no other option.
You're really fixated on having an exact 1-1 analogue of mortar teams for some reason despite having an option that is more expensive, but hard counters it and can then go on to engage targets other than chaff (Scorpius) and that's ignoring the fact that if you're Imperium you have access to the same god damned mortars.
I already explained to you that FW is often not allowed in my region.
Secondly I am Imperium and I use mortars. That doesnt mean I can't complain about how broken they are, because every time I look around to see if there is a viable alternative to my Guard detachment the answer is 'hell no'.
Thirdly I'm 'stuck' on a 1:1 comparison because of my own experience and situation. I run a highly optimized list that has no points to spare. I literally could not fit in a Scorpius without dramatically altering the entire list.
Assuming Cadians, for the reroll of 1s, you have 31.5 shots.
63/2 shots
147/8 hits, or 18.38
Against fellow Guardsmen, that's...
49/4 wounds
49/6 dead, or 8.17
So yeah, morale would wipe a squad of Guardsmen. Assuming they don't Insane Bravery it.
Probably the next best target is Kabalites, which take only 6.81 casualties, which IS enough to wipe a min squad. But who uses Kabs for backline sitting? That's a Wrack job! Kabs sit in Venoms and Raiders.
What about Ad Mech? Well, even if they're not Stygies, they still take only 6.13 casualties, so enough to wipe a min squad... Out of cover. Plop them in cover or use Shroudpsalm, and you get only 4.08 dead. Maybe morale wipes them, maybe it doesn't.
And yeah, they might do better than a Whirlwind. Is the Whirlwind considered anything above trash, though? Again-it's been established SPACE MARINES SUCK. Compare to something that we actually WANT to balance against.
Feel free to offer an alternative unit to the Mortar to compare against. I don't particularly like running a Guard detachment, I don't like painting Guardsman but when your working with small amounts of room where points efficiency matters there is nothing that can compete with them.
Sorry, but just about every major event format outside the EU, to include those in the country that makes the game, allows FW. It's not just me being focused on the US.
You're also not taking that Guard detachment for the mortars, you're bringing 8 objective scoring units and 5 CP. Let's be honest about which parts of that detachment are the actual reason you're taking the guardsmen, especially since your list already has 120 bolter shots that hit on 2's, rerolling 1's.
But yes, in the context of your list, there is probably not a better use of 100 points than 3 mortar HWS. But acting like the mortars are the lynchpin of that list and are the thing that is breaking your opponent's back is being disingenuous at best.
Tyel wrote: A Cadian spearhead sets you back 129 points. Oh noes.
And an entire detachment.
If you want to take more units make it a batallion. This isnt a meaningful limitation.
If you add troops then you want it Catachan for that +1 Str on troops.
Let's not downplay it, bringing cadian mortars has an opportunity cost. A small one that's for sure, but since you are doing it to bring a 100 point light support unit, then even a small cost becomes relatively huge.
Mortars could use a couple of points more on the weapon, but even like this it's not like they are breaking anything.
Ordana wrote: My challenge still stands for those who claim Mortars are not broken.
Find me a better option for 100 points to clear out weak objective units over the course of a game while my remaining 1900 points draw the attention, then 9d6 bolter shots at 48" without needing LoS.
9 mortars costs 99 points.
That is 18 T3 5+ wounds that can shoot and average of 31.5 bolter shots from outside of LOS at a BS of 4+.
9 scouts with bolters cost the same amount. That is 9 T4 4+ wounds that can shoot 18 bolter shots within LOS at a BS of 3+.
31.5 bolter shots at BS4+ is 15.75 hits. 18 bolter shots at BS 3+ is 12 hits. On average.
Scouts getting shot at with 20 lasgun shots take 1.6 wounds on average, while mortars take 3.33 wounds. Taking into account number of wounds... they have roughly the same survivability per point against small arms fire. (Scouts are technically better due to morale).
Conclusion: A trio of mortar HWS can hit 2.75 more bolter shots per turn than the equivalent points of scouts. They have comparable survivability with scout scout squads vs small arms fire. The mortars can hit targets outside of LOS at a range of 48", while scouts trade that range for being much better in melee, having better morale (which gives them more staying power across the board), more mobile (no heavy weapon penalty on movement), and having a wider array of wargear options that opens up different tactics. I'd say mortars are better, but not by an amount I would say is "gamebreaking".
So there you have it... mortars are slightly better than the equivalent amount of points of light infantry from one of the worst codices in the game.
You are right, this is a huge balance issue that must be addressed immediately.
So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
While technically correct, this is misleading. 30% more damage is an extra 2.75 bolter hits. That is an extra dead GEQ per turn. That is not a big of a gap in firepower as you are making it seem.
I still stand by the comparison. 3 HWS squads of mortars is basically a 9/10 man scout squad that is able to stay outside of LOS and shoot at 48" range. I can see this maybe being a problem at sub 1K point levels (where it is impossible anyway due to rule of 3 scaling), but if your 2k list can't deal with this then it wasn't going to be winning any tournaments anyway.
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
While technically correct, this is misleading. 30% more damage is an extra 2.75 bolter hits. That is an extra dead GEQ per turn. That is not a big of a gap in firepower as you are making it seem.
I still stand by the comparison. 3 HWS squads of mortars is basically a 9/10 man scout squad that is able to stay outside of LOS and shoot at 48" range. I can see this maybe being a problem at sub 1K point levels (where it is impossible anyway due to rule of 3 scaling), but if your 2k list can't deal with this then it wasn't going to be winning any tournaments anyway.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think 9 scouts are as useful as 9 mortars - and I suspect you know this.
Still I don't think 9 mortars are breaking the game - but its indicative of a theme.
"Okay mortars are a bit (a lot) better than comparable units. Eh, its fine."
"Okay guardsmen are harder to kill for the points than comparable units, but its fine.
"Also with orders and regiment tactics they do quite a more damage than comparable units for their points too. But eh, its fine."
"Also we have really cheap and useful HQs, so there is almost no tax in our detachments. But eh, its fine."
"Just about everything we have is so cheap and useful that accumulating CPs via brigades and batallions has no real reduction in effectiveness, but eh, its fine".
At some point - its not fine. Its just "better".
The thing that is odd is that Guard have been consistently too good since their codex dropped, and yet people defend them to the hilt.
By contrast very few people leak to the defend the obnoxious elements of say Eldar or Chaos.
I mean I mainly play DE with some soup dabbling. I can tell you 15 point dissies are overpowered. I guess I could do your mortar defense here "oh they are not that bad, and I only get 3" but they are just obviously better than most comparable units in other factions. I can tell you going 5++ to 4++ "for free" on covens units is overpowered. My fear is that Covens stuff will just get a points hike, making the 4++ even more mandatory, because thats bad design, but I wouldn't be surprised. Kabalites could go to 7 points - but they are really incidental to a DE army. I am not convinced paying an extra 15-25 points is going to break the bank or meaningfully alter the effectiveness of grabbing objectives or sniping things when flying around in a venom.
Eldar will hopefully see Shining Spears get a hike - possibly a slight upward movement on Wave Serpents (again, not obnoxious but obviously better than comparable units) and potentially a look at things like Doom - but the way powers work as a probabilistic all or nothing makes them hard to balance.
Is anyone going to stand up and say impacting these obviously good units is going to make them unplayable trash? I doubt it.
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.
Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.
Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.
This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.
Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.
This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?
Oh yes scouts are dominating the meta right now, definitely seeing as much play and success as mortars
JNAProductions wrote: I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.
Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?
I don't think it wise to balance anything by IG either. Do we want nine point tacticals? Thing is, it is easier to balance things when the numbers are bigger, as each point represents a smaller fraction of the overall cost. But let's meet in the middle, five point IG infantry, twelve point tacticals for example.
Tyel wrote: So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.
Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.
Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.
This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?
It's not silly and not hyperbole. Its marines in 8th. 11 ppm is way too much for 4+ armor models with terrible weapons. Theres not as many factors as your pseudo-intellectual post would indicate. Scouts suck and bleed points. Just like most marine units that arent Bobby g or leviathan dread.
JNAProductions wrote: I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.
Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?
I don't think it wise to balance anything by IG either. Do we want nine point tacticals? Thing is, it is easier to balance things when the numbers are bigger, as each point represents a smaller fraction of the overall cost. But let's meet in the middle, five point IG infantry, twelve point tacticals for example.
That's fair.
Honestly, I'd say Marines actually have a desirable trait for balance-more durability than offense. I want stuff to last on the table, for at least a few turns.
But overall, I'd say the Guard Codex (with several viable builds, and most units having a place) is a much better balance spot than Marines.
JNAProductions wrote: For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.
If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)
I mean Infantry were directly compared to other troop choices including Fire Warriors which are amazing for the price.
Yeah, but that was some really silly math. The method used was discutible, at best.
I do agree that the game would probably be better with IS at 5 points (it's only a minor issue in any case), but surely that math was not how you would try to demonstrate it
JNAProductions wrote: I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.
Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?
If you want to be literal about it everyone who isn't a d-bag power gamer wants everyone to be "just as good as Space Marines and no better", that would mean that all the factions were balanced against each other. Whether that happens by everyone exept Marines getting nerfed (and poor, poor GKs getting buffed), or by Marines and GK getting significant buffs is irrelevant.
And to be fair, I do think the game would be more fun if the lethality got turned down a notch or three. That would put things closer to Marine teritory than anything else.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
Dude, do you have a personal grudge against me or something because I disagreed with you in previous threads? Read my posts, I never said that scouts were better than mortars, I was making a comparison to the equivalent points in scouts.
I have already said that I think guardsmen need to go to 5 points. Multiple times, and not only in this thread.
What I disagree with is this notion that Guard need to be worse than space marines, or that space marines are the "balancing point" where all factions need to be tuned around.
I get it, guard are on the higher end of the bell curve right now, but where are all the threads calling for Eldar/DE nerfs? My favorite faction is fething USABLE for once since 3rd edition (outside of small windows of vendetta spam in 5th, and leafblower parking lot in 6th). I don't mind measured nerfs to a few outstanding things in the guard arsenal, but I'd really rather not have Guard nerfed down to space marine levels and have them relegated to a shelf for another edition, because that is what people seem to be asking for.
Tyel wrote: I think you are kidding yourself if you think 9 scouts are as useful as 9 mortars - and I suspect you know this.
I never claimed that scouts were better than mortars... I said they have comparable damage output.
My point was that 3 HWS of mortars has roughly the equivalent damage output to the same points in scouts. (Mortars do have slightly more).
If your 2K list cannot take the rough equivalent of scout squad firing at you from outside of LOS every turn, your list is bad and you are losing because your list is bad, not because IG is good.
Mortars are good, but you will only ever see 9 max in a 2K point game unless they are stuffing IS with them and that is a waste. The equivalent damage output of a 10 man scout squad. If you think this is gamebreaking... I don't know what to tell you because I don't think we will ever agree on a definition of "gamebreaking".
Look, Space Marines are garbage right now. The fact is that IG are better than marines in pretty much every way. That doesn't mean IG is OP, especially when IG isn't even the strongest mono-codex (Eldar) it means that marines need buffs or a codex rework. If you try to look at IG through the lens of a lower tier codex like SM, GK or necrons, IG is going to seem OP. You need to look at IG through the lens of the mid/upper tier codices like Eldar/DE/T'au/Tyranids, the difference in power is much less noticeable.
Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.
Nobody has a grudge against you, the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.
Mortars are good, but you will only ever see 9 max in a 2K point game unless they are stuffing IS with them and that is a waste. The equivalent damage output of a 10 man scout squad. If you think this is gamebreaking... I don't know what to tell you because I don't think we will ever agree on a definition of "gamebreaking".
Look, Space Marines are garbage right now. The fact is that IG are better than marines in pretty much every way. That doesn't mean IG is OP, especially when IG isn't even the strongest mono-codex (Eldar) it means that marines need buffs or a codex rework. If you try to look at IG through the lens of a lower tier codex like SM, GK or necrons, IG is going to seem OP. You need to look at IG through the lens of the mid/upper tier codices like Eldar/DE/T'au/Tyranids, the difference in power is much less noticeable.
Dude... what? Just... what? I can't even begin to understand the circular logic here. You were given the ENTIRE GAME to select from to pick a unit that matched Mortars - you CHOSE scouts. Don't blame the dex for being too weak, he disproved the comparison YOU chose, you were in no way limited to the SM dex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.
So you're saying there was a points value that let flying hive tyrants be good, but not so good that you'd want to ever take more than three? Cause I can tell you that such a points value does not exist. Either you price it so high taking a single hive tyrant is a non-competitive option or it's low enough that you can still fit 5+ in a list. Rule of three fixed it because it turns out when you can stop something from being spammed, it changes the way the unit can be leveraged within the context of an army.
In this case, pre ro3, you had 15+ mortars in many IG lists. This was OP because you were able to direct enough volume of shots on targets with defensive buffs to ignore them and absorb losses to the mortars while still maintaining killing power. The fact you're capped at 9 means losses reduce proportional firepower more quickly and that you can't bring enough shots to overwhelm power armor in cover/-1 to hit units in a single turn's shooting, as the math several pages ago showed.
Are mortars still good? Yes. But they're not even close to being the lynchpin of a winning list. You could raise their cost to 10 points and top soup lists would just drop them and not notice the difference.
SHUPPET wrote: Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.
I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...
SHUPPET wrote: ...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.
..because it sure as feth sounds like you do. Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.
By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.
SHUPPET wrote: Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.
I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...
SHUPPET wrote: ...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.
..because it sure as feth sounds like you do.
Forming an opinion is a response to the posts you make. It's literally the only thing that can and should color my opinion of you. A grudge would be if I continued to feel this way even after the terrible, illogical posts stopped, which I just told you I wouldn't - you're fully capable of changing how people view you at any point, but you just have more interest in irrationally defending your army than doing so, so I doubt you ever will.
w1zard wrote: Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it. At no point did I say 7ppm Guardsmen, nor did I see anyone else say it, nor did I agree with that, so why you are attributing that to my statements, isn't actually a surprise to me, because you care naught for logic or facts when going on one of your overly biased rants. Why would this time be any different I guess.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.
By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.
Actually rule of 3 is both beneficial whether this logic holds true or not. If he's wrong, that means by definition some units are broken if spammed, but if he's right, then rule of 3 stops the broken things currently in the gamebeing spammed. Unless you think this game is perfectly balanced of course.
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
Intercessor-S4, T4, 3+ BS, 3+ save, AP-1 on their gun, Objective Secured (usually), with many different beneficial Chapter Tactics (notably Raven Guard and Ultras, if using Bobby G)
Mortar HWT-12" of range, +2.5 shots at max range and +1.5 shots at 15" or less.
Also, by that logic, an Intercessor should cost twice what a Marine costs-double the wounds clearly must equal double the points.
I'm using the simple logic that a base HWT costs 8 because 2 guardsmen are 8 points. How many indirect shots can the marine take? Also - the guard units have great chapter tactics (reroll all hits for cadian orders)
Xenomancers wrote: I'm using the simple logic that a base HWT costs 8 because 2 guardsmen are 8 points. How many indirect shots can the marine take? Also - the guard units have great chapter tactics (reroll all hits for cadian orders)
If standing still. And getting an order. As opposed to Marines, who can apply that to every single unit who has a single model within 6" of a Chapter Master.
And again-a HWT is basically two Guardsmen, except they're extra vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. If they should cost twice what a regular Guardsmen costs, then an Intercessor (which is basically two Marines smooshed together) should be twice what a normal Marine is. Do you agree with that?
SHUPPET wrote: Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.
I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...
SHUPPET wrote: ...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.
..because it sure as feth sounds like you do. Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.
By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.
Actually YEAH the Rule Of Three is pointless as long as models are imbalanced as they are.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.
So you're saying there was a points value that let flying hive tyrants be good, but not so good that you'd want to ever take more than three? Cause I can tell you that such a points value does not exist. Either you price it so high taking a single hive tyrant is a non-competitive option or it's low enough that you can still fit 5+ in a list. Rule of three fixed it because it turns out when you can stop something from being spammed, it changes the way the unit can be leveraged within the context of an army.
In this case, pre ro3, you had 15+ mortars in many IG lists. This was OP because you were able to direct enough volume of shots on targets with defensive buffs to ignore them and absorb losses to the mortars while still maintaining killing power. The fact you're capped at 9 means losses reduce proportional firepower more quickly and that you can't bring enough shots to overwhelm power armor in cover/-1 to hit units in a single turn's shooting, as the math several pages ago showed.
Are mortars still good? Yes. But they're not even close to being the lynchpin of a winning list. You could raise their cost to 10 points and top soup lists would just drop them and not notice the difference.
Yeah the point value DOES exist. It's up to GW to find it. Personally I would've done maybe a 15-20 point increase for wings for starters. The wings were the cause of the whole problem after all.
So let's just say, for example, Terminators now all the sudden came with Assault Cannons for free, an extra attack, an extra wound, and had rerolling all hits and wounds on their Assault Cannons and Power Fists and all the sudden they're just 20 points total for everything.
What, exactly, is Rule Of Three going to fix? Yeah you only get three squads, but the squads are broken yes? In the same manner, we had just a few Special Characters last Edition and this Edition that needed an obvious fix, but did it matter you could only take one of them?
Of course the former example is an exaggeration, but it proves the point that if a unit is broken, then Rule Of Three does jack gak. GW needs to attempt to find that point value for Flying Tyrants.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning
Xenomancers wrote: The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning
>thinks allies are banned in tournament
lel
then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
>Talks about the tournament scene >Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating >Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning
>thinks allies are banned in tournament
lel
then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)
I'm all for tournament scene being solo armies. I have talked about that too.
If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard". If my GSC Magus got too powerful as they were almost looking for a bit, I'd handily accept a nerf to them, even tho solo GSC is basically a form of humor.
This thread is over 20 pages because of posters like you and w1zard. Every Guard thread is. You The last one, you literally had SEVEN ENTIRE PAGES worth of responses alone. What an achievement. These arguments don't get carried on for so long when there isn't a couple of people rejecting reality to preach their bias in response to every single disagreeing opinion. You act like people are against nerfing other armies best units as well along with Guard. The reason their threads die so much quicker is because they don't employ these ridiculous tactics you two seem to live by. E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.
23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless
Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet
>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning
>thinks allies are banned in tournament
lel
then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)
I'm all for tournament scene being solo armies. I have talked about that too.
If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard". If my GSC got Magus got too powerful as they were almost looking for a bit, I'd handily accept a nerf to them, even tho solo GSC is basically a form of humor.
This thread is over 20 pages because of posters like you and w1zard. Every Guard thread is. You The last one, you literally had SEVEN ENTIRE PAGES worth of responses alone. What an achievement. These arguments don't get carried on for so long when there isn't a couple of people rejecting reality to preach their bias in response to every single disagreeing opinion. You act like people are against nerfing other armies best units as well along with Guard. The reason their threads die so much quicker is because they don't employ these ridiculous tactics you two seem to live by. E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.
These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.
If you balance soup where there is a drawback to soup you will bring all armies closer in line. The game gets more balanced and everyone wins both soup and mono players
If you go nuking units based on performance you will get this
Unit x is strong in soup increase the points of unit x
Unit x is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit x with unit y
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit x. Codex x is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup
Unit y is strong in soup increase the points of unit y
Unit y is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit y with unit z
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit y. Codex y is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup
Unit z is strong in soup increase the points of unit z
Unit z is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit z with unit a^1
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit z. Codex z is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup
rinse and repeat until you have exactly one balanced viable build and a slew of mono codexes that get blown out of the water by everything unless they soup. People are adamant about this point because your proposed fix is terrible for the overall game balance. All your proposed "fix" will do in the long run is reduce unit/army diversity and make 8th an edition less fun...... On the other hand, addressing soup and then adjusting army balance will actually lead to more lists diversity and a more enjoyable gaming experience.
Too bad you are too blinded by your hate for a single codex to see the course this type of change sets 8th on
These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.
I mean, that's immediately even disproven by the post you just responded to. Castellan is FOTM and everyone, including myself, wants that gone, I see no 100 pages of debate about that tho, clearly there's another factor here lol
These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.
I mean, that's immediately even disproven by the post you just responded to. Castellan is FOTM and everyone, including myself, wants that gone, I see no 100 pages of debate about that tho, clearly there's another factor here lol
you're incapable of self awareness my man
I've brought up in other threads I don't want it gone..... in order to be OP it needs a funnel of CP that is not possible in its mono codex and only operates as broken when taken in soup. If you were unable to share CP between detachments i doubt you would need to adjust it..... The shame is mono knight players just got shafted by the most recent FAQ while castellan soup builds were hardly effected.... proving my point
SHUPPET wrote: What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it.
At one point I did think that guardsmen should not have been 5 points, until someone laid down the math for me. I changed my mind in that thread, you know, something that a reasonable person should do when confronted with evidence that their opinion is incorrect? I have espoused that view for months now, and am firmly in the "5ppm" guardsmen camp.
I have never argued that "everyone elses" infantry needs to be nerfed along with guardsmen, my point in the "5ppm guardsmen" thread was that if guardsmen going to 5ppm and ONLY guardsmen going to 5ppm is not fair to guard when things like 6 point kabalites, 7 point rangers, and 5 point neophytes exist. Guardsmen going to 5 points needs to happen, but it also needs to happen as part of a larger, sweeping balance change that sees buffs for factions that need it (SM, GK, etc...) and nerfs to other OP units. Putting guardsmen at 5ppm and changing nothing else only hurts guard in relation to everything else and contributes very little toward overall game balance. Guard are strong, but they are NOT the king of the hill, and do not deserve to be singled out for balance changes to the exclusion of all other factions.
SHUPPET wrote: At no point did I say 7ppm Guardsmen, nor did I see anyone else say it, nor did I agree with that, so why you are attributing that to my statements, isn't actually a surprise to me, because you care naught for logic or facts when going on one of your overly biased rants. Why would this time be any different I guess.
Firstly, I never attributed that to you, so stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
Secondly:
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
Although I will apologize for saying 7ppm, that was apparently incorrect. Either I misremembered or they edited their comments after realizing how stupid they sounded. 6ppm is almost equally as ridiculous.
I can dig up many more ridiculously stupid ideas for "balancing" guard in this thread if you wish.
SHUPPET wrote: If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard".
Nerfing guard so that they are balanced in a soup environment may make them totally underpowered outside of that soup environment. That may be acceptable for you, but it is not for me. I want my faction to function outside of being meatshields for Custodes, or CP batteries for knights.
If soup is the problem, then nerf soup. Both mono lists AND soup lists should be viable against each other. If being able to ally things together willy nilly is creating balance issues, then impose restrictions or penalties for allying things together, such as limiting CP to the detachment that generated it. There is a smarter way to do things then continuously hitting problem combos with a mallet, when the units that make up those combos may not be a problem individually. Nerf the synergy, not the units themselves.
SHUPPET wrote: E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.
As if "mono knights" can even function as an army? Yea armigers... so I guess "Technically" you can have a mono-knight army, but small model count heavy hitter armies need screens to really function. The reason you don't see people arguing to save "mono knights" is because "mono knights" didn't even exist as an army choice until 8th edition, and realistically still doesn't. You are acting like "mono-guard" is some niche way to play... it was the ONLY way to play them until 8th edition, and I am willing to bet that most people who have guard models (outside the FOTM people who picked up a battalion of guardsmen because they are good right now) run them as a mono force.
SHUPPET wrote: What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it.
At one point I did think that guardsmen should not have been 5 points, until someone laid down the math for me. I changed my mind in that thread, you know, something that a reasonable person should do when confronted with evidence that their opinion is incorrect? I have espoused that view for months now, and am firmly in the "5ppm" guardsmen camp.
I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread, or even just the fascinating 7 pages that were your posts so I had no idea you changed your mind on that. I did however see you confronted with overwhelming evidence for many of the proceeding pages and, by your own description, act like a completely unreasonable person and just discount it all. Glad to hear you weren't totally immune to logic.
Fix the formatting on the rest of your post and I'll read it, I'm not doing this this gak where I have to sift through an individual quote per sentence reply, it's god awful to read. I can remember what I said, just respond to it in turn, or limit the in-passage quotes to where it's most needed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The shame is mono knight players just got shafted by the most recent FAQ while castellan soup builds were hardly effected.... proving my point
I'm not arguing that your wrong, or right, about the way to balance Knights, I'm saying that Knights are a much larger target than AM for balance from both the players and GW, and yet there isn't 100 pages whining about it, while there is one for guard, proving MY point. Allies need to be changed, but GW says they won't do that, in which case the strongest components of "soup" lists need to be toned down, and Castellan is definitely one of them imo. 50 page Knight thread is go?
SHUPPET wrote: I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread, or even just the fascinating 7 pages that were your posts so I had no idea you changed your mind on that. I did however see you confronted with overwhelming evidence for many of the proceeding pages and, by your own description, act like a completely unreasonable person and just discount it all. Glad to hear you weren't totally immune to logic.
Fix the formatting on the rest of your post and I'll read it, I'm not doing this this gak where I have to sift through an individual quote per sentence reply, it's god awful to read. I can remember what I said, just respond to it in turn, or limit the in-passage quotes to where it's most needed.
If you're too lazy to even read my responses, then don't read it, and good riddance. Someone who has almost 4 times my amount of posts shouldn't be slinging insults about posting too much.
I have 4x as many posts as you but I've been here for over 6x as long as you. Regardless, my point wasn't about posting much, nor was it to insult you, it was about the folly of posting nonstop in the one thread and then wondering why it reaches 45 pages long and why it feels like everyone is targeting Guard, when in reality people just want a balanced game for every race. Other people aren't acting like you are.
I main Nids and have done for a decade, and I'm allying Guard in with them, stop and think about that for a second
Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.
Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.
Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.
Yep, I'd definitely give that a go too, and that's exactly my point. These incredibly strong units that push soup list over the top need to balanced down if the rules for taking them will not be, as GW has expressed they want their design philosophy to be concerning allies.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.
Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.
Yep, I'd definitely give that a go too, and that's exactly my point. These incredibly strong units that push soup list over the top need to balanced down if the rules for taking them will not be, as GW has expressed they want their design philosophy to be concerning allies.
Honestly the worst offenders ( slamguiniusses, castellans and Co.kg) need a nerf aswell as a general rework of allies. But that is my two cents.
Edit: i'd also like some buffs for units like necron warriors. Old marine profile users (assult,raptors etc.)
I also generally think that some troops (guardsmen, kabalites, firewarriors) should probably slightly increase in price in order to stop the duality of either terrible troop choices and Auto troop choices.
Xenomancers wrote: The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.
They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.
Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.
Xenomancers wrote: The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.
They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.
Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.
They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.
Martel732 wrote: I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.
If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.
Xenomancers wrote: The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.
They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.
Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.
They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.
Martel732 wrote: I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.
If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.
You could also take HWT as HS slots no? Didn't see a lot of IG play in 7th around platoons. It was almost always vets in my meta.
Anyways - the key issue here is indirect fire and their range. It was as useful in 7th but you couldn't hurt a lot of things. Now in 8th - it's basically impossible for mortars to not have a good target while shooting from the back of your DPZ (unless it's an army of knights). The weapon cost needs increasing based on indirect fire.
Xenomancers wrote: The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.
A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.
That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?
You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.
They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.
Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.
They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.
Martel732 wrote: I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.
If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.
You could also take HWT as HS slots no? Didn't see a lot of IG play in 7th around platoons. It was almost always vets in my meta.
HWS's were also available as HS units in 3E/4E (also as a Platoon type structure, with multiple per HS slot) in addition to Troops platoons, but not after that, except for FW lists like DKoK, but were always available in vast numbers in Platoons,
Anyways - the key issue here is indirect fire and their range.
This hasn't changed for IG mortars in over 20 years however.
It was as useful in 7th but you couldn't hurt a lot of things.
Finding any pre 8E list (even going back to 2E) with Mortars even in a noncompetitive environment would be difficult. Despite having indirect fire they were never terribly useful for what they cost and they havent changed what they can *realistically* hurt all that much.
They also lost their Pinning capability with 7E/8E.
Now in 8th - it's basically impossible for mortars to not have a good target while shooting from the back of your DPZ (unless it's an army of knights).
Aside from AV11+ vehicles and t8+ units, they could hurt anything they can now, with broadly equal effectiveness (e.g. they wound a Carnifex on a 5 now instead of a 6, but theyve got 7 wounds instead of 4 also).
Of those things they couldn't hurt that they can now, they're still not exactly effective, only able to resort to desperation fire. For example, while they couldn't hurt a Rhino or Predator in 3E-7E, they need an average of 180-200 shots to kill a Rhino or Predator now (17-19 HWS's worth of shooting, 561-627pts worth), not exactly effective or reliable. It was actully easier slightly easier to kill a side-AV 10 Chimera chassis vehicle with Mortars in older editions than now as though they only glanced on 6's the Chimera chassis had no save and only 3 wounds (requiring an average of 10-15 units of fire depending on if they had LoS or not)
Even if there's a case for upping the cost of a mortar HWS, going back to their old price range would likely see them disappear again. I wouldn't cry if Mortars were made 8pt weapons, but a heavy weapons team also going to 10ppm on top of that would be punitive.
Indirect fire has changed though - it does not lose accuracy outside of LOS.
You are getting d6 shots at that carnifex with a 50% chance to hit vs 1 max shot with about a 45% chance to hit or much less if you are out of LOS.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th. Can be fired on the move - can shoot flyers - can do more than 1 hit to a single target - average more hits. None of these weapons should have gone down in cost. The mortar did - and so did the guy carrying it - even though he got better in the current game.
GW logic. Mortars get better and get price cut. Landraiders get worse and get huge price increase.
Sure, though the relevancy of that is hard to judge. Against a vehicle target for example, you were hitting outright 33% of the time and still hitting with a scatter of 2-4" depending on the vehicle size, so you're not gaining that much, if anything. Against a small and spread out infantry unit the mortars are much more effective now, while against a large clumped up horde they're probably less effective. They're also probably less accurate now than in previous editions when they do have LoS, particularly against larger targets.
Meanwhile they've lost the ability to Pin units that they had in most previous editions, and as cover has changed their ability to ignore intervening cover also became meaningless.
Edit: the rae of fire vs single targets is a fair point, as I granted above, but again, it's still not like Mortars are spectacularly effective against those larger targets, you're going to need a dozen mortar squads worth of fire to kill a Carnifex, about 18 to kill most tanks, and thats only if there aren't any better infantry targets to kill anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.
Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.
Marmatag wrote: Land Raiders actually got better. The problem is that the guns which target land raiders also got better.
And honestly with prepared positions you'll have 1+ land raiders.
The problem is they came out with models like the Castellan, and other stuff with -5 shooting.
Speaking from a net perspective - LR got worse. They went up in cost and they don't survive well. They even get murdered by rockets and plasma guns and battle cannons now.
Xenomancers wrote: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.
Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.
Agreed - how is it that it has gone this far into the edition with that being the case?
Xenomancers wrote: Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.
Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.
I think the issue here is more that the Vanquisher cannon is just fundamentally bad.
You can nerf the Battlecannon as much as you want, nobody is going to suddenly start fielding Vanquishers. At 162pts with a hull lascannon, assuming no movement (so full BS on hull gun and two shots from turret gub), a Vanq averages 3.5 wounds against a T7 target and 2.83 wounds vs a T8 target. For a dedicated tank hunter at that cost, that's just not pulling its weight.
Edit: it should also be noted that weapons like the Earthshaker and Battlecannon were always supposed to be multirole weapons but were comparatively garbage against single targets (relative to what they cost, 125pts for a Basilisk to get a single S9 shot on a tank or MC for instance) in previous editions, with the Basilsk in particular being relatively uncommon in general and the Battlecannon seen largely as an anti-MEQ gun.
4 HP 11/36 chance of glancing
Call it a 3/4 chance of hitting, since Land Raiders are big.
It would require...
17.45 Battle Cannon shots to kill a Land Raider.
Now, it requires...
16 HP 8 failed saves
16 wounds
32 hits
64 BS 4+ shots, or 48 BS 3+
But Battlecannons do 3.5 the amounts of hits, so in total...
They're more durable against BS 4+ Battle Cannons, less durable against BS 3+.
Rockets, they're DEFINITELY less durable against, same with Plasma.
But they got one HELL of a lot better against Melta.
Math looks good here. So from this we can conclude that LR take 100% more damage from standard russ battle cannon (not factoring catachan reroll) If you have 9 heavy bolter shots that were previously wasted for no split fire now those same shots average about another wound too! It also went up in cost about 40% too.
EDIT: did forget about doublefire there, too many numbers, thx for the reminder
Still, a Battlecannon Russ with a Hull Lascannon at 164pt is going to take 6 turns of fire to kill a Land Raider in 8E, that doesn't feel inappropriate.
That said, looking at the Vanq versus the Land Raider, in 7E we needed an average of 7.6 turns of fire (assuming no cover) with a Lascannon Vanq to kill a Land Raider, in 8E we need 8.4 turns. The Vanq was just...super poorly designed.
4 HP 1/6 chance of glancing with Gauss
2/3 chance of hitting
36 Shots to kill a Land Raider, or less than a full squad rapid-firing
As compared to...
16 HP 1/3 chance of failing a save
1/6 chance of wounding
2/3 chance of hitting
432 shots to kill.
4 HP 11/36 chance of glancing AND immobilizing with Grav
2/3 chance of hitting
14.73 Grav Cannon with Amp shots to kill a Land Raider. And about 5 to make it useless, via Immobilization.
As compared to...
16 HP 2 Damage a shot on average
2/3 chance of failing a save
1/3 chance of wounding
2/3 chance of hitting
54 shots to kill.
And Leman Russes have Grinding Advance, which doubles their shots.
LR were buffed from 7th that's for sure. They got more consistent, previously you had the risk of the first lascannon shot from your enemy taking it out right there. Now at least it takes a whole lot of attention to take one down (especially at 1+). The LR has other problems now, not durability. I would start looking from the fact that it is a transport in a faction where you don't have anything good to transport.
A leman russ is a fraction of the points of a land raider. A more honest comparison would be like 3 leman russes double firing into a land raider. Because points matter.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
I actually loved D weapons. They were the counter to things that were too hard to kill - the game needs something like this now IMO. Invo saves are too strong right now.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
I actually loved D weapons. They were the counter to things that were too hard to kill - the game needs something like this now IMO. Invo saves are too strong right now.
No it doesn't. That thing is Mortal Wounds, which are fine from weird sources like psykers, but shouldn't be doled out like candy for other weapons. Down that road lies spam and horrid design cul-de-sac, which renders units like terminators and land raiders and what-nots even worse than they are, since they pay so much for their armour. What should be done would be to rather reduce the doling out of invulnerables so that the proper AP values would actually be useful against xenos targets too.
Marmatag wrote: A leman russ is a fraction of the points of a land raider. A more honest comparison would be like 3 leman russes double firing into a land raider. Because points matter.
3 Battlecannon Russ tanks with hull Lascannons at 492pts (164pts each) doublefiring with no movement penalties are averaging 7.5 wounds against a (iirc) 360pt Land Raider.
So, it takes about a thousand points of BC/LC Russ tank fire to kill a Land Raider.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
200% truth.
A least outside of specially set up large games involving special use of rare big units like Reaver Titans. When they started handing them out to things like infanry units, and flyera and the smallest of superheavy classes, they got absurd.
When they started to have to be relied on for dealing with especially tough units, that should have indicated a major game design issue.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
I actually loved D weapons. They were the counter to things that were too hard to kill - the game needs something like this now IMO. Invo saves are too strong right now.
This continuos escalation is what leads to the eventual collapse of a game system (and the mandatory reboot).
How much this is intentional is anyone's guess.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
I actually loved D weapons. They were the counter to things that were too hard to kill - the game needs something like this now IMO. Invo saves are too strong right now.
This continuos escalation is what leads to the eventual collapse of a game system (and the mandatory reboot).
How much this is intentional is anyone's guess.
IDK about that - it kinda turns to RPS. RPS is more fun that "this list always wins".
IDK about that - it kinda turns to RPS. RPS is more fun that "this list always wins".
That's all fine and dandy until you realize that not everyone had rocks. Rocks were a privilege of specific pointy-eared fellows in the example you made above. Also, the lack of 0-1 choices has an additional, deleterious effect IMHO: "normal" units without super weapons (or sometimes whole armies) are just not deployed*. Said this, as a design PRINCIPLE - better executed - I am all with you.
*Edit: to elaborate on that - if every army has one specific "delete that" unit, and such unit is well designed and perhaps has one specific, thematic fault in each army (be this fault the delivery, the range, or whatever) you can build an army of normal units around that as a support. But this is not what happens in Spamhammer 40k.
Marmatag wrote: D weapons were stupid and shouldn't have existed.
I actually loved D weapons. They were the counter to things that were too hard to kill - the game needs something like this now IMO. Invo saves are too strong right now.
This continuos escalation is what leads to the eventual collapse of a game system (and the mandatory reboot).
How much this is intentional is anyone's guess.
IDK about that - it kinda turns to RPS. RPS is more fun that "this list always wins".
Haywire is the exact opposite of TAC. It is good at killing vehicles and that's it. AT weapons at least are good against vehicles and monsters.
IDK about that - it kinda turns to RPS. RPS is more fun that "this list always wins".
That's all fine and dandy until you realize that not everyone had rocks. Rocks were a privilege of specific pointy-eared fellows in the example you made above.
Also, the lack of 0-1 choices has an additional, deleterious effect IMHO: "normal" units without super weapons (or sometimes whole armies) are just not deployed*.
Said this, as a design PRINCIPLE - better executed - I am all with you.
*Edit: to elaborate on that - if every army has one specific "delete that" unit, and such unit is well designed and perhaps has one specific, thematic fault in each army (be this fault the delivery, the range, or whatever) you can build an army of normal units around that as a support. But this is not what happens in Spamhammer 40k.
OFC - every army should have access to rock scissors and paper. Current the game doesn't support that. Plus many armies posses rock paper and scisors on the same unit. It just starts getting silly.
Xenomancers wrote: No it's not. It's excellent against infantry too with d6str 4 ap-1 shots. Each one is a plasma grenade basically.
For 45 points?
That is the cost of the entire unit - which is actually higher if you give it the glaive (and you should) The weapon costs 15. Which it basically makes up every-time it shoots at a vehicle and after that it's mobility plus range means you are putting ap-1 en mass on infantry
Lets just say you take 18 of them (not a bad idea) That kills 23 gardsmen with average rolls - then they can charge and kill 32 more. Nearly all the gardsmen in a brigade killed in a single turn...I wouldn't say they are really lacking in the anti infantry department.
Xenomancers wrote: That is the cost of the entire unit - which is actually higher if you give it the glaive (and you should) The weapon costs 15. Which it basically makes up every-time it shoots at a vehicle and after that it's mobility plus range means you are putting ap-1 en mass on infantry
Lets just say you take 18 of them (not a bad idea) That kills 23 gardsmen with average rolls - then they can charge and kill 32 more. Nearly all the gardsmen in a brigade killed in a single turn...I wouldn't say they are really lacking in the anti infantry department.
Yes I know that is 900 points of bikes lol.
I'd say that was pretty terrible for your 900 points under close to optimal conditions.
If you are shooting less effectively than Necron Warriors outside of rapid fire range you are not an effective anti-infantry choice.
Xenomancers wrote: That is the cost of the entire unit - which is actually higher if you give it the glaive (and you should) The weapon costs 15. Which it basically makes up every-time it shoots at a vehicle and after that it's mobility plus range means you are putting ap-1 en mass on infantry
Lets just say you take 18 of them (not a bad idea) That kills 23 gardsmen with average rolls - then they can charge and kill 32 more. Nearly all the gardsmen in a brigade killed in a single turn...I wouldn't say they are really lacking in the anti infantry department.
Yes I know that is 900 points of bikes lol.
I'd say that was pretty terrible for your 900 points under close to optimal conditions.
If you are shooting less effectively than Necron Warriors outside of rapid fire range you are not an effective anti-infantry choice.
They are about as effective as a necron warrior at 24" - yes. When you put it like this - it kinda doesn't sound so bad "18 harlie bikes are as effective as 60 necron warriors shooting at infantry."
Marmatag wrote: Eh, I would argue that Haywire is a good place overall.
It's specialized.
Not the most optimal choice to fight infantry.
Not the most optimal choice against vehicles without an invulnerable save.
Has the ability to wound high toughness, great invulnerable save vehicles.
It's a niche use case. It's use case is amplified by knights being common.
Haywire on it's own is annoying but not OMG OP but Haywire plus Doom is OP.
Not even. Knights still have a 5+++ against mortal wounds for 1 CP.
Doom is only good if your opponent sinks a ton of points into big things.
There is a different between being effective and being Op.
Why did you assume it was Haywire vrs knights?
It's more the general interaction of the two that is supper busted, much like the interactions between Guilliman and things like assualt cannons etc that GW needs to address as haywire without doom and haywire with doom is not worth close to the same points cost.
Rerolling 1's sort of works as it still favours taking the right weapon for a given target, however all wounds rerolls leads to some terrible rules interactions.
Ice_can wrote: Why did you assume it was Haywire vrs knights?
It's more the general interaction of the two that is supper busted, much like the interactions between Guilliman and things like assualt cannons etc that GW needs to address as haywire without doom and haywire with doom is not worth close to the same points cost.
Because Knights are the only real target (I guess Baneblade Variants and some Forgeworld stuff) where the return on your points starts to get too good.
As Marmatag said - doom is beneficial on big things. You put doom on a 100 point vehicle - okay, its going to die - but that Farseer wasn't free and doom isn't automatic.
By contrast you might shoot your whole army at a Castellan to kill it - and your whole army gets the benefit of doom. You are making say 1000 points more efficient rather than the two hundred or whatever you might have expected to kill that 100 point vehicle. This is where the return on your points becomes overpowered.
Much like Guilliman. The issue is you castle around him, and he effectively improves the expected damage output of everything around him by 100%+. So you can "gain" 1000 points worth of damage output. Which is a bit stupid (or certainly would be if Marines had great options to begin with.)
Marmatag wrote: A leman russ is a fraction of the points of a land raider. A more honest comparison would be like 3 leman russes double firing into a land raider. Because points matter.
3 Battlecannon Russ tanks with hull Lascannons at 492pts (164pts each) doublefiring with no movement penalties are averaging 7.5 wounds against a (iirc) 360pt Land Raider.
So, it takes about a thousand points of BC/LC Russ tank fire to kill a Land Raider.
Yes, to kill it in a single turn. Most games last longer than one turn.
The Raider would have a high chance of death in the second turn. It also would only average 6.63 wounds against the combined 36 wounds of Russ tanks.
Doesn't matter, though. The most efficient way to remove a Land Raider is 4 points of bayonet rendering it essentially worthless
62.22 Guardsmen under the same optimal circumstances.
Against Guardsmen, they are LESS EFFECTIVE than Necron flipping Warriors. A crappy unit.
You are missing the point. If you spam 18 harlie bikes and can do ether of these in a turn - you are TAC. Kill and entire brigade of infantry squads or drop a castellan knight and then some.
Plus - their close combat weapons are pretty good against elite things too. ap-3 flat 2 damage.
No one was considering Harlequin bikes before Knights were the meta, though. Because why pay that much for a gun that's pretty bland unless there's a really tough vehicle?
In Dark Eldar I can pay the same points for Shredders in my Scourges.
Bharring wrote: OTOH, they're quite vulnerable to things like Boltguns and Lasguns.
There have to be boltguns and lasguns alive to make that happen. Their speed let's them decide when and where they impact, and killing 60+ guardsmen makes a pretty big hole in the line that's not returning fire.
So, subtract 240 points of Guard, and you have 165 Guard.
That’s 330 shots.
110 hits.
37 about wounds.
And 18-19 wounds unsaved.
Ok, now find a board where you can get 165 guardsmen all within rapid fire range of the bikes, after those bikes burned a 60 model hole in the line to give themselves a safety zone. Because that's where the pure damage math model falls apart. The theoretical maximum damage output of guardsmen is dramatically hampered in practice because of the physical restraints of the board.
Bharring wrote: OTOH, they're quite vulnerable to things like Boltguns and Lasguns.
Not really. They are base -1 to hit. Have stratagems for 3++ and can go to -2 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: No one was considering Harlequin bikes before Knights were the meta, though. Because why pay that much for a gun that's pretty bland unless there's a really tough vehicle?
In Dark Eldar I can pay the same points for Shredders in my Scourges.
Haywire is d6 for harliquens. That is a huge difference. They also are useful vs all vehicals - very few armies have 0 vehicals. If you can kill a 28 wound castellan with them. You can kill 2 of any other vehical.
We are talking about targets where a smite can set you back 51 points, i fully expect it to at least have some way trough stratagems to survive.
They are good sure, but as Marma said, no one was bothering with them previously, and there's a reason.
They are the counter to high invul vehicles, but for anything else Shining Spears are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Mathhammer wise 18 bikes fail to take down a Castellan (but not by much). They need doom to make it.
Yeah and guess what's great at clearing out termies? d6ap-1 str4. -1 to hit also hurts nids badly too.
Daemons admitably they aren't great vs daemons. They are pretty good at clearing cultist though.
urgh, brainfart sorry, thought company commanders had 3 orders for some reason.
