Hello fellow guard players, I just wanted to start a thread to collect everything we know about the Guard in 8th so far.
So far we've only seen the faction focus, which really didn't reveal much besides an, to some, underwhelming battlecannon and the fact that orders are now automatically.
As SoB has been leaked somebody has the Imperium II book which contains guard, so maybe it's only a matter of time.
So if you know anything please post it here and we can collect everything.
>taurox and taurox prime m14&qu[spoiler]ot; w10 r6 3+
>chimera m12" w10 r7 3+
>veterans have same stats as normal infantry except bs 3+; can have 3 special weapons, a heavy weapon a heavy flamer; 6ppm without equip
>valkyrie m20"(min)-45"(max); w14 s7 t7 3+
>can go in stationary flight mode and reduce its movement to up to 20", but loses the other rules of fliers (-1 to be hit, can only be charged by flying stuff)
>grav-chute deployment still in: if performed when moving more than 20" 1/6 models die
>hellstroke missiles: heavy1 s8 ap-2 d6 >ogryns w3 s5 t5; ws3+; +1 attack on charge; weapon is 12" ass3 s5 ap- d1
>vanquisher is heavy 1 72" s8 ap-3 d6, roll 2 dice for damage and discard the lower
>basilisk 240" heavyD6 s9 ap-3 d3, roll 2 dice for determining the number of shots and discard the lower; can shoot on units it can't see
>confirmed characters: yarrick, pask, creed, kell, harker, straken, nork
Leman Russ base cost 132
battlecannon 22
heavy bolter 8
thats the base setup. so 162
the sponson and hull mounted weapons no longer have to snapfire and can fire on different targets, they got overall better. playtested them a bit.
>>53521030
how about some orders aswell?
aim! reroll to hit rolls of 1 for the target unit
first row second row fire! all lasguns and high energy lasguns are rapidfire 2 for the target unit
destroy it! reroll to wound rolls of 1 for the target unit
onward for the emperor! the target unit may fire even if it advanced this turn
get a grip! the target unit may fire, even if it disengaged from combat
go go go! instead of firing, the target unit may move as if it is its movement phase. cant assault though
get the bajonett! may only issued to units within 1" of a enemy, the target unit may attack as if it is the close combat phase
guardsmen remained the same basically, can move 6" and are 4 points each.
baneblade variants are t 8 w 26 with 3+ each btw.
>>53521081
yarrik is 130 pts
m6 ws 2+ bs 2+ s 3 t 4 w 4 a 3 ld 9 sv 4+
his claw is s x2 ap -3 dmg d3 and -1 on to hit rolls
astra militarum units within 6" may use his ld
each time yarrik loses his last wound roll a d6 on 3+ he wont lose the last wound
astra militarum units within 6" may never lose more than 1 model when doing leadship tests
6" reroll 1's to hit bubble against orks
4+ invul
rough riders are 10 points with gear (8 base lance is 2)
can come from the side of the board at the end of any movement phase with 7" range up to 9" from the enemy. can assault of course.
their lances are s5 ap -2 dmg d3
>vanquisher is heavy 1 72" s8 ap-3 d6, roll 2 dice for damage and discard the lower
I refuse to believe the vanquisher could be this awful. How does re-rolling the d6 damage make up for being single shot on a BS3 model?
It is literally just a battlecannon with less shots and a re-roll. People were already speculating that the battlecannon Russ was going to be the budget variant to make up for its underperforming main weapon, so where does that place this thing?
>vanquisher is heavy 1 72" s8 ap-3 d6, roll 2 dice for damage and discard the lower
I refuse to believe the vanquisher could be this awful. How does re-rolling the d6 damage make up for being single shot on a BS3 model?
It is literally just a battlecannon with less shots and a re-roll. People were already speculating that the battlecannon Russ was going to be the budget variant to make up for its underperforming main weapon, so where does that place this thing?
Hope these rumors are false.
man that is super bad, I was expecting at least AP-4 as well. I've been really disappointed with the Leman Russ weapons so far :( I hope they are dirt cheap
>vanquisher is heavy 1 72" s8 ap-3 d6, roll 2 dice for damage and discard the lower
I refuse to believe the vanquisher could be this awful. How does re-rolling the d6 damage make up for being single shot on a BS3 model?
It is literally just a battlecannon with less shots and a re-roll. People were already speculating that the battlecannon Russ was going to be the budget variant to make up for its underperforming main weapon, so where does that place this thing?
Hope these rumors are false.
While I do agree, I'm 99% certain orders will apply to vehicles.
Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!
edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(
It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.
Vanquisher cannon is pretty much just a mutlimelta. I can get on board with all these Russ changes if they are cheap and you can make a decent sized tank company, but I get the feeling they are going to be expensive, decent durability but meh guns.
Maybe if we take it as an entire package of turret + 3 guns it will be worth the points. However, not only do we need to know the points but we need to know all the other points in the game to see how they measure up.
It does seem like missile launchers are going to vastly outclass the Vanquisher cannon simply because the launcher itself is way cheaper, and it can be fielded on a much cheaper platform. So you can actually put enough of them on the table to be threatening.
So far every vehicle has gone up in points, i think the Russes will either stay their 7th points (technically gone down) or increase in price. If the latter is the case it's rather fethed. The battlecannon isen't great and neither is the vanquisher.
Veterans have gone down 1 point like space marines.
Man i hope bullgryns and ogryns have gone way down in points, cos their stats haven't changed since 7th.
I wonder if we can still shoot out of the chimera. Open topped now allow for models to shoot so maybe you can't shoot out of closed transports anymore.
From what we have seen thus far, their durability wont even be that good, they'll have 1pt of T and 1 extra wound over a Predator, they dont appear to be functionally any more resilient than they are now, which isnt great.
12 wounds and a 3+ looks great on paper, but when weapons like Lascannons are doing D6 wounds and stripping most of that armor away and they're going from AV14 (effectively T10 that's immune to anything below S8) to T8 and vulnerable to even S1, they arent any better off than being AV14 HP3.
The annihilator variant would be simply better than the vanquisher variant at all times, especially with orders. This vanquisher with these rules would need to be the cheapest one to warrant its existence.
Also, what's the deal with the exorcist becoming better both offensively and defensively than a leman russ battle tank?
jaxor1983 wrote: The annihilator variant would be simply better than the vanquisher variant at all times, especially with orders. This vanquisher with these rules would need to be the cheapest one to warrant its existence.
Which is really weird, as the annihilator is supposed to be a cheap alternative to the super-powerful-rare-can't-be-made-anymore vanquisher.
it seemed like it was implied that the punisher cannon won't have as many shots as before, because of a post on fb someone made about having twin-linked punisher cannons and the response was "if it still has that many shots"
we have yet to see anything about the exterminator autocannon or the executioner plasma cannon
but it looks like the meditocore battle cannon or executioner autocannon might be what I should run my leman russes as, if the Executioner is still really prone to killing itself.
We still have hope in the form of the Forgeworld version of the vanquisher cannon with the co-axle for increased accuracy, also maybe Beast-Hunter shells will still be a thing!
What's funny is the exterminator autocannon might become one of the best Russ guns, if its Heavy 4 Twin Linked turns into Heavy 8.
72" Heavy 8 S7 AP-1 D3 is not too shabby, especially for what is currently the cheapest Russ gun...
We still have hope in the form of the Forgeworld version of the vanquisher cannon with the co-axle for increased accuracy, also maybe Beast-Hunter shells will still be a thing!
I've got two of those Ryza Pattern Vanquisher turrets, I really hope beast hunter shells still exist in the form of mortal wounds or something.
We still have hope in the form of the Forgeworld version of the vanquisher cannon with the co-axle for increased accuracy, also maybe Beast-Hunter shells will still be a thing!
I've got two of those Ryza Pattern Vanquisher turrets, I really hope beast hunter shells still exist in the form of mortal wounds or something.
it's pretty bad if Guard have to rely on forgeworld every damn edition.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!
edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(
It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.
BS is exactly the same. .5 hits per shot fired.
The battle cannon averages 3.5 shots per turn netting 1.75 hits vs t8, with an average d3 damage of 2, that is 1.75 damage to be saved at ap-2.
The vanguisher huts half the time, wounding 1/4 of the time vs t8. Average damage of 2d6 pick high is 4.47 damage if 1.1175 damage to be saved.
Against t7, both get the same # of hits, with 1.1666wounds doing 1.3333 damage on the battle cannon and .6666 wounds doing 1.48888 damage on the vanquisher.
T9 goes the opposite way with .744999 damage to be saved from the vanquisher and 1.1666 damage from the battle cannon
So, yes it is worse against t8, but it is better against t7 or lower. Well, single model multi-wound targets anyways. The battle cannon damages multiple-model units better that the vanquisher(but it is supposed to).
Also the current vanquisher is a single shot on a bs3 model with a better armor penetration rate. The new one can also hurt mcs and gmcs. It is an upgrade .
Can someone please confirm that the Russ stats are either bull or the cost has dropped to almost nothing, because those look horrible. Being no more survivable than a Predator that also happens to heavily outgun it, the Russ is not in a good place. And that Vanquisher stat line is an outright insult to what was THE iconic tank hunter of 40K.
The Vanquisher has been an awful tank hunter, in actual practice, since...ever, sadly, and that doesnt look to change.
However, the stats for T, W and Sv are straight from GW's website, the Russ was one of the first vehicles profiled, to show "how much stronger" they supposedly are...
The changes to the LR are atrocious. Anyone hoping that the will be reduced in points or stay the same will be deeply disappointed. The Chaos Vindicator with the demolisher cannon became nearly 50+ points more expensive, I'm 100% convinced that according to GW's mindset, because the LR no longer has to snapshot after shooting with ordinance and multi damage is "super good" and got a "huge boost to its survivability", that they have now convinced themselves to believe that that now warrants massive increases in points.
If I had to take a guess, then I'd say the Exterminator variant will now see massive table time and Pask will be on an Executioner variant. If you compare how other multiple small blast template weapon got treated, the Executioner will likely have 3d3 shots along with 2d3 sponsons shots, which isn't really that bad. Assuming I'm correct of course.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!
edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(
It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.
BS is exactly the same. .5 hits per shot fired.
The battle cannon averages 3.5 shots per turn netting 1.75 hits vs t8, with an average d3 damage of 2, that is 1.75 damage to be saved at ap-2.
The vanguisher huts half the time, wounding 1/4 of the time vs t8. Average damage of 2d6 pick high is 4.47 damage if 1.1175 damage to be saved.
Against t7, both get the same # of hits, with 1.1666wounds doing 1.3333 damage on the battle cannon and .6666 wounds doing 1.48888 damage on the vanquisher.
T9 goes the opposite way with .744999 damage to be saved from the vanquisher and 1.1666 damage from the battle cannon
So, yes it is worse against t8, but it is better against t7 or lower. Well, single model multi-wound targets anyways. The battle cannon damages multiple-model units better that the vanquisher(but it is supposed to).
Also the current vanquisher is a single shot on a bs3 model with a better armor penetration rate. The new one can also hurt mcs and gmcs. It is an upgrade .
You roll for saves before rolling for damage- you only roll damage for unsaved wounds.
So in the case of T7, the battlecannon is averaging 1 unsaved wound (2 damage total) and the vanquisher is averaging .33 unsaved wounds (0 damage total).
SeraphimXIX wrote: Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!
edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(
It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.
BS is exactly the same. .5 hits per shot fired.
The battle cannon averages 3.5 shots per turn netting 1.75 hits vs t8, with an average d3 damage of 2, that is 1.75 damage to be saved at ap-2.
The vanguisher huts half the time, wounding 1/4 of the time vs t8. Average damage of 2d6 pick high is 4.47 damage if 1.1175 damage to be saved.
Against t7, both get the same # of hits, with 1.1666wounds doing 1.3333 damage on the battle cannon and .6666 wounds doing 1.48888 damage on the vanquisher.
T9 goes the opposite way with .744999 damage to be saved from the vanquisher and 1.1666 damage from the battle cannon
So, yes it is worse against t8, but it is better against t7 or lower. Well, single model multi-wound targets anyways. The battle cannon damages multiple-model units better that the vanquisher(but it is supposed to).
Also the current vanquisher is a single shot on a bs3 model with a better armor penetration rate. The new one can also hurt mcs and gmcs. It is an upgrade .
You roll for saves before rolling for damage- you only roll damage for unsaved wounds.
So in the case of T7, the battlecannon is averaging 1 unsaved wound (2 damage total) and the vanquisher is averaging .33 unsaved wounds (0 damage total).
Wow so unless it's cheap it's rendered useless by the battlecannon.
Just a minor FYI, the land raider has T8 as well, so that part represents AV 14. The land raider getting a 2+ sv while the Russ gets a 4+ save likely has to do with a translation of rear AV values.
That said, Narthicium heals wounds, and Ill bet you 20$ that techpriest engineseers will also heal wounds.
The knight pages were leaked. As expected, the rapid fire battle cannon is a 2D6 version of ours. Unfortunately, they seem to think that its worth 100 points which isn't promising for the Russ
Chris521 wrote: The knight pages were leaked. As expected, the rapid fire battle cannon is a 2D6 version of ours. Unfortunately, they seem to think that its worth 100 points which isn't promising for the Russ
I wonder if the Russ chassis is 100 points then, and the battlecannon is 50
I do wonder though if medics will be able to heal squads other than the command squad, considering the change to apothecaries. Of course, getting a single Guardsman back on a 4+ isn't too big a deal, but it is something. And arguably more than they did in previous editions, where they only affected five models out of your whole whole army (and one of those models was the medic).
Though I wouldn't mind being able to just make my command squad project a FNP bubble either...
The Vanquisher's always been an awful gun to put on a lone BS3 model. I think it was a bit optimistic to expect otherwise. Give it to a tank commander and maybe it can do some work.
It's important to keep in mind that Russes have likely gained a decent amount of mobility and firepower with the changes to ordnance and movement rules, and are no longer paper in assault either. Looking at them as just a platform for their turret may not be the best way to think about them any more.
Chris521 wrote: The knight pages were leaked. As expected, the rapid fire battle cannon is a 2D6 version of ours. Unfortunately, they seem to think that its worth 100 points which isn't promising for the Russ
I wonder if the Russ chassis is 100 points then, and the battlecannon is 50
Well a predator is already 102 base, so I could see the base russ being 120+. We could be looking at 200 points for one of these when you add in the front bolter and sponsons
Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Trickstick wrote: Let's hope that the keywords don't let medics heal tanks. That would be silly.
Medics would probably say something along the lines of "restore a wound to a model without the Vehicle keyword" while something like the enginseer would be "restore a wound to a model with the Vehicle keyword".
Let's not forget what a Russ can get away with under the new rule set. And I don't just mean gaining firepower the loss of Ordnance.
T8 W12 Sv3+ may be equivalent to AV14 HP3 in 7th in terms of raw survivability, but no more vehicle damage table means that a single penetrating hit won't cause a lost turn at best and a totally incapacitated vehicle in the majority of situations. So you'll get more turns of use out of the main gun, even if it's less effective by raw power.
No rear armor, krak grenades/meltabombs no longer being melee weapons, and the new statlines means that a Russ can shoot and then charge a squad that will only wound it on 6s, while throwing back a few inaccurate but decent-strength attacks of its own. What would be a suicide tactic before is now a decent delaying strategy.
I don't mind the Russ' durability, personally- I think it's fine. But it will be dead in the water if its shooting isn't very good.
Like today's 40K. The Russ isn't particularly hard to kill, but even as fragile as the Russ is right now it's often easier to just ignore them altogether. Why bother focusing any firepower at all on a unit that's only going to be killing two or three models a turn, or plinking a few points off a MC/vehicle each turn?
What makes a tank a tank (in RPG terms) is its ability to attract damage in addition to surviving it.
Vaktathi wrote: Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway. Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeraphimXIX wrote: I don't mind the Russ' durability, personally- I think it's fine. But it will be dead in the water if its shooting isn't very good.
Like today's 40K. The Russ isn't particularly hard to kill, but even as fragile as the Russ is right now it's often easier to just ignore them altogether. Why bother focusing any firepower at all on a unit that's only going to be killing two or three models a turn, or plinking a few points off a MC/vehicle each turn?
What makes a tank a tank (in RPG terms) is its ability to attract damage in addition to surviving it.
Autocannon turrret + lascannon + multi melta sponsons = OUCH in 8th.
Depends on the points. Below 150 for that set-up and things are looking good. Rumors are putting the lascannon sponsons at 60-70 alone though. When you start hitting around the 200 point mark for a single vehicle that isn't even superheavy-tier I start to think you might be better off with something else.
EDIT- I am very optimistic about the exterminator though. Assuming it ends up with 8 shots that thing is going to be a beast. Due to how pen works it really shreds anything below T7. It doesn't have the volume of fire to be a real horde-clearer but it does really decent damage against single models, like MC's and transports.
The only thing I'm worried about is GW jacking up its points cost due to how popular it was (for a Russ) in the prior editions.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Depends on the points. Below 150 for that set-up and things are looking good. Rumors are putting the lascannon sponsons at 60-70 alone though. When you start hitting around the 200 point mark for a single vehicle that isn't even superheavy-tier I start to think you might be better off with something else.
Be prepare to many many vehicles costing more than 200 points in 8th edition. A Rhino is 70 points, a Droppod 103.
jaxor1983 wrote: The annihilator variant would be simply better than the vanquisher variant at all times, especially with orders. This vanquisher with these rules would need to be the cheapest one to warrant its existence.
Also, what's the deal with the exorcist becoming better both offensively and defensively than a leman russ battle tank?
The Exorcist has been better than the Leman Russ for a long time. Not something new, really.
The only Leman Russ, IMO, that actually might be better than the Exorcist is the Tank Commander Vanquisher, because it has Instant Death and Armorbane, but it also costs 200 points compared to 125.
Vaktathi wrote: Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.
Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.
Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.
To be fair, the Predator is an APC with a turret stuck to it, it was never designed from the ground up as a main battle tank, but rather as a logistically simple fire support option to back up power armored super soldiers. The AV11 made perfect sense from that perspective at least.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I like the point increase on vehicles, the whole "cheapening" of vehicles from 4th to 5th was what cause the whole debacle in the first place.
Yes, I'm in love to. After all this years where a 2k point army of 3rd was more like 1,2k points in 7th we are gonna correct that! Battles with 30 infantry models and 2 vehicles in the 1,500-1850 point range without being full Terminators? yes please.
Vaktathi wrote: Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.
Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.
There was an age, where the Carnifex was the biggest thing out there, with his 10 strenght, killing things in droves. Now is 6 strenght, because compared with all the other new, bigger and maner Tyranids monsters, he has lost his site in the podium as the Big Bug out there. The same has happen to the Leman Russ.
I think the IG may be the exception to this, which may also be why the Battle Cannon ended up looking underwhelming.
Still though if any army deserves to be the tank spammers, it should be the IG. Just like how Nids are finally getting back the title of THE Monstrous Creature Army (even if Monstrous Creatures might no longer be a thing).
On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.
But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.
SeraphimXIX wrote: On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.
But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.
I always felt that tanks should come in squadrons of 3-5 tanks and deployed by the company.
There should be lots of tanks and even more foot soldiers supporting them.
When you have a 'Heavy Tank' that is barely more survivable than a Medium, or a 'Breakthrough Tank' that will struggle to shoot the skin off a rice pudding you have a problem too.
master of ordinance wrote: When you have a 'Heavy Tank' that is barely more survivable than a Medium, or a 'Breakthrough Tank' that will struggle to shoot the skin off a rice pudding you have a problem too.
I always thought of the Leman Russ as a medium tank and the Baneblade as a heavy/breakthrough tank.
Baneblades are extremely rare vehicles and are very much "Superheavy". Macharius tanks and stuff of that size, roughly in the neighborhood of a Knight, are "Heavy" tanks, but those are also rather rare. Leman Russ tanks have always been something of the "Heavy" tank as far as what one would expect to ser in most 40k games.
Funny enough, older fluff hints that the Baneblade was originally designed as a Light Tank. What constituted a Heavy Tank is probably something the size of the Leviathan.
SeraphimXIX wrote: On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.
But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.
I always felt that tanks should come in squadrons of 3-5 tanks and deployed by the company.
There should be lots of tanks and even more foot soldiers supporting them.
It's also definitely going to be a tricky thing to consider with infantry seeming to get slightly cheaper, heavy/special weapons getting more expensive, and lasguns being able to hurt anything.
A lasgun may not be very scary compared to a battle cannon, but if I can get 40+ of them for the price of one tank and then drop some major buffs on them like re-rolls to hit and/or wound...
Vaktathi wrote: Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.
Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.
Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.
To be fair, the Predator is an APC with a turret stuck to it, it was never designed from the ground up as a main battle tank, but rather as a logistically simple fire support option to back up power armored super soldiers. The AV11 made perfect sense from that perspective at least.
Maybe it's weaker in a relative sense, but it's stronger overall. No single shot grav shenanigans, and drop melta has been crumped hard. And no immobilization on a shrub.
One should not make a tank by putting a turret on an APC. Going to T7 W11 makes the pred far more playable than it ever has been before.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Funny enough, older fluff hints that the Baneblade was originally designed as a Light Tank. What constituted a Heavy Tank is probably something the size of the Leviathan.
I somehow don't think so. [Not that I don't think that such older fluff exists, I just can't see a Baneblade being by any means being able to perform the tasks expected of a light or medium tank].
Though, on Baneblades, I wonder what the chassis stats and the Volcano Cannon stats will look like.
Vaktathi wrote: Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.
Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.
Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.
Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.
To be fair, the Predator is an APC with a turret stuck to it, it was never designed from the ground up as a main battle tank, but rather as a logistically simple fire support option to back up power armored super soldiers. The AV11 made perfect sense from that perspective at least.
Maybe it's weaker in a relative sense, but it's stronger overall. No single shot grav shenanigans, and drop melta has been crumped hard. And no immobilization on a shrub.
Sort of. It's more resilient against Grav, but that was only an issue with loyalist SM's, and just about everything benefits from that. Drop melta will probably be just as effective if not moreso looking at total average number of shots needed to kill, though the one-off random shots wont have a chance to kill a healthy tank anymore Against weapons like Lascannons, these are much more deadly against units like the Russ now, the 7E Leman Russ requires 50% more Lascannon shots to kill on average than the 8E Russ will.
The immobilization thing will be nice, but given how little Russ tanks can and generally do move, it will be extremely minor.
One should not make a tank by putting a turret on an APC.
well, if you're looking to make an MBT, no, but if you're looking for a mobile heavy weapons platform that can be easily produced and supported by existing logistics, and the bulk of your fighting power is in power armored super soldiers, well, then that's fine. The problem was with casting the Predator as an MBT instead of a fire support vehicle.
Going to T7 W11 makes the pred far more playable than it ever has been before.
By the accounts I've seen so far, the Rhino will be T7 W10 so the Predator wont have much of a leg up there unless the Rhino has a worse save than 3+.
Vaktathi wrote: Sort of. It's more resilient against Grav, but that was only an issue with loyalist SM's, and just about everything benefits from that. Drop melta will probably be just as effective if not moreso looking at total average number of shots needed to kill, though the one-off random shots wont have a chance to kill a healthy tank anymore Against weapons like Lascannons, these are much more deadly against units like the Russ now, the 7E Leman Russ requires 50% more Lascannon shots to kill on average than the 8E Russ will.
The immobilization thing will be nice, but given how little Russ tanks can and generally do move, it will be extremely minor.
One should not make a tank by putting a turret on an APC.
well, if you're looking to make an MBT, no, but if you're looking for a mobile heavy weapons platform that can be easily produced and supported by existing logistics, and the bulk of your fighting power is in power armored super soldiers, well, then that's fine. The problem was with casting the Predator as an MBT instead of a fire support vehicle.
Going to T7 W11 makes the pred far more playable than it ever has been before.
By the accounts I've seen so far, the Rhino will be T7 W10 so the Predator wont have much of a leg up there unless the Rhino has a worse save than 3+.
Dominions versus Leman Russ Tank, 7e vs. 8e.
A Leman Russ is will be considerably more resilient against meltaguns.
Lascannons aren't particularly more effective in 8e either:
How are you measuring that? I dont have the meltagun stats in front of me, but looking at the average number of BS3 Lascannon shots required to kill a Russ in 7E through HP's you get 18, or 72 required to average 1 "Explodes" result (which is only relevant for the first two HP's as the third kills it either way), whereas in 8E you will only need an average of 12.43 BS3 Lascannons to chew through 12 T8 3+sv wounds. The average number of shots/resources that an opponent will have to allocate to neutralize the threat a Russ tank poses is going to be dramatically less than in 7E.
Vaktathi wrote: How are you measuring that? I dont have the meltagun stats in front of me, but looking at the average number of BS3 Lascannon shots required to kill a Russ in 7E through HP's you get 18, or 72 required to average 1 "Explodes" result (which is only relevant for the first two HP's as the third kills it either way), whereas in 8E you will only need an average of 12.43 BS3 Lascannons to chew through 12 T8 3+sv wounds.
I just wrote up a file that executes an attack by a Dominion squad and a Devastator squad against a Leman Russ Tank, then performed 2500 iterations, and then plotted the amount of wounds/HP inflicted on the tank.
Notably, Meltaguns are no longer drastically more effective at tank killing than Lascannons.
Powerfists are completely ineffective against Leman Russes
Powerfists are dramatically less effective, absolutely, but Lascannons should be dramatically more effective and I'm not sure how your math is coming to another conclusion.
Looking at the Lascannon (again because I dont have the melta stats in front of me) it's wounding on 3's instead of shooting for 5's (doubling damage output alone right there). The tank gets a save but only a 6+. 3HP vs 12 Wounds should be about identical againdt a weapon doing an average of 3.5 Wounds vs 1 HP.
As such, there should be no reason why a Lascannon is less effective in 8E aside from the Explodes result chance to plink the tank in one hit, which is 1/36 for any single Lascannon hit in 7E (and again, only relevant for the firet two HP's anyway) and too low to offset that average significantly.
Vaktathi wrote: Powerfists are dramatically less effective, absolutely, but Lascannons should be dramatically more effective and I'm not sure how your math is coming to another conclusion.
Looking at the Lascannon (again because I dont have the melta stats in front of me) it's wounding on 3's instead of shooting for 5's (doubling damage output alone right there). The tank gets a save but only a 6+. 3HP vs 12 Wounds should be about identical againdt a weapon doing an average of 3.5 Wounds vs 1 HP.
As such, there should be no reason why a Lascannon is less effective in 8E aside from the Explodes result chance to plink the tank in one hit, which is 1/36 for any single Lascannon hit in 7E (and again, only relevant for the firet two HP's anyway) and too low to offset that average significantly.
Because the average number of wounds inflicted tells you very little, actually.
It's not a bell curve, it's some weird stepped distribution, and a long "tail" skews the average.
And, if you look at the Devastator's graph I plotted, it looks like the average percent of the Leman Russ Destroyed per shooting attack is higher and chance of total failure is lower. Devastators may be marginally better, but not by a whole lot. The distribution is pretty much the same.
It definitely looks like the Russ' durability is going up against most weapons. Other than small arms, but then it's hard to go up from "infinite".
The small arms vulnerability is small enough that it should only be a problem against factions that can *really* throw masses of them at you though... so basically only when facing other Imperial Guard players.
Like I said, I definitely see the exterminator autocannon stealing the spotlight in 8th. It has a good, non-random rate of fire, and the autocannon statline is much stronger under 8e's wound/save system. The Punisher is looking at good times too, since being able to spam 29 S5 shots is going to be a strong trick in 8th. especially if you stick Pask in there for BS3+, re-rolling 1s, and Rending. The Demolisher might be able to get by as an AV weapon by sheer virtue of being S10.
The Battlecannon is in an awkward spot. It's definitely losing efficiency against massed infantry, but it's going to be putting out a lot more wounds than it used to against one-model multi-wound targets like vehicles and MCs. The catch is those targets are getting more wounds to spare, so its overall effectiveness is not necessarily gaining ground (though that does push it a bit more into a specific role).
The Vanquisher cannon is going to continue to be an oddball that almost seems strong on paper but isn't really. Sure, it's a 72" range melta shot. But on the other hand, you basically just have one melta gun as your main cannon and that's kind of underwhelming when you can stick one of those on a Guardsman for much cheaper.
The executioner plasma cannon is potentially great for the same reason the exterminator is looking good: it's going to be tossing lots of S7 shots around with good AP, and S7 is in a really good spot in 8th. The only catch with that is whether Gets Hot will come back to bite it. Like the Punisher though, Pask might be able to make it shine (rather than glow).
The biggest hang-up for Guard though, is going to be weighing it against the option of going Blob Guard. Blob Guard is looking really strong in 8th, their lasguns can wound anything, and universal price increases for vehicles mean that they will be incredibly cost-effective relatively speaking. The changes to AP means they'll be getting more and better saves, and their ability to eat multi-wound weapons with expendable models will make them very hard to sweep off the table. Commissars will also be more effective than ever when every Commissar is effectively a Lord Commissar, though watch out for snipers.
They can split-fire, they can move and fire heavy weapons, FRFSRF got a 33% buff in rapid-fire range, and if their Psyker can put re-rolls to hit, re-rolls to wound, and/or Rending on their lasguns they could become absolutely terrifying. That's going to be the big hang-up for Guard vehicles: can they compete with all the buffs their infantry are getting?
jaxor1983 wrote: I don't think anything has said orders can't be used on vehicles as well. So they will possibly be able to be multiplied just like guardsmen.
Except this
IG/Astra Militarum has regiment keyword and Orders are given automatically to same regiment kw unit within 6".
I bet you that vehicles won't have the 'regiment' keyword.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
ross-128 wrote: It definitely looks like the Russ' durability is going up against most weapons. Other than small arms, but then it's hard to go up from "infinite".
The small arms vulnerability is small enough that it should only be a problem against factions that can *really* throw masses of them at you though... so basically only when facing other Imperial Guard players.
Like I said, I definitely see the exterminator autocannon stealing the spotlight in 8th. It has a good, non-random rate of fire, and the autocannon statline is much stronger under 8e's wound/save system. The Punisher is looking at good times too, since being able to spam 29 S5 shots is going to be a strong trick in 8th. especially if you stick Pask in there for BS3+, re-rolling 1s, and Rending. The Demolisher might be able to get by as an AV weapon by sheer virtue of being S10.
The Battlecannon is in an awkward spot. It's definitely losing efficiency against massed infantry, but it's going to be putting out a lot more wounds than it used to against one-model multi-wound targets like vehicles and MCs. The catch is those targets are getting more wounds to spare, so its overall effectiveness is not necessarily gaining ground (though that does push it a bit more into a specific role).
The Vanquisher cannon is going to continue to be an oddball that almost seems strong on paper but isn't really. Sure, it's a 72" range melta shot. But on the other hand, you basically just have one melta gun as your main cannon and that's kind of underwhelming when you can stick one of those on a Guardsman for much cheaper.
The executioner plasma cannon is potentially great for the same reason the exterminator is looking good: it's going to be tossing lots of S7 shots around with good AP, and S7 is in a really good spot in 8th. The only catch with that is whether Gets Hot will come back to bite it. Like the Punisher though, Pask might be able to make it shine (rather than glow).
The biggest hang-up for Guard though, is going to be weighing it against the option of going Blob Guard. Blob Guard is looking really strong in 8th, their lasguns can wound anything, and universal price increases for vehicles mean that they will be incredibly cost-effective relatively speaking. The changes to AP means they'll be getting more and better saves, and their ability to eat multi-wound weapons with expendable models will make them very hard to sweep off the table. Commissars will also be more effective than ever when every Commissar is effectively a Lord Commissar, though watch out for snipers.
They can split-fire, they can move and fire heavy weapons, FRFSRF got a 33% buff in rapid-fire range, and if their Psyker can put re-rolls to hit, re-rolls to wound, and/or Rending on their lasguns they could become absolutely terrifying. That's going to be the big hang-up for Guard vehicles: can they compete with all the buffs their infantry are getting?
I was actually playing with the thought of having vehicles, since they are no so durable, screen the infantry, and not the other way around The infantry can be buffed and can take objectives. Gotta keep em protected!
No, they will have the regiment keyword. Because they're part of your regiment. That's just your colors, just like Chapters for space marines, Septs for Tau, or Fleets for Tyranids.
You can't give orders to differently-colored Guardsmen because they're not in your chain of command. But vehicles are fine.
Small arms are not what's wrong with the new Leman Russ.
Mid strenghts weapons are.
An example: a carnifex squad of 3, with twin linked devourers (is it the same name in English ?)couldn't even hurt a LRBT in 7th.
Now, they almost wreck it in a single row,.
Small arms, in deed, won't do much.
But things like autocannons, easy to spam, totally inefficient before, can hurt him on a 5, with an -1 apIIRC, doing 2 damages.
LRBT are now very vulnerable to this kind of weapons I think.
I need to do the maths to be sure, however
S5-7 weapons are definitely seeing huge indirect buffs with the change to how toughness works. Which is why I've predicted those will be favorite main guns for the Russ. Their threat range is absolutely massive now. As I mentioned in the sniper thread, I REALLY hope camo-netting still works in the open (camo-cloaks for infantry, sadly, have been changed to only work if you're already in cover). If they do, they're going to be a must-take at all times: 2+ saves on our tanks!
If they don't, well they won't be quite as awesome since a +1 from cover already puts them at 2+ assuming you manage to get them into cover. But at least the surplus from camo netting will probably mean that in cover they can get hit by an AP-1 weapon and still get a 2+ save.
ross-128 wrote:It definitely looks like the Russ' durability is going up against most weapons. Other than small arms, but then it's hard to go up from "infinite".
The small arms vulnerability is small enough that it should only be a problem against factions that can *really* throw masses of them at you though... so basically only when facing other Imperial Guard players.
Like I said, I definitely see the exterminator autocannon stealing the spotlight in 8th. It has a good, non-random rate of fire, and the autocannon statline is much stronger under 8e's wound/save system. The Punisher is looking at good times too, since being able to spam 29 S5 shots is going to be a strong trick in 8th. especially if you stick Pask in there for BS3+, re-rolling 1s, and Rending. The Demolisher might be able to get by as an AV weapon by sheer virtue of being S10.
Maybe.
Though the Demolisher definitely ain't going to be doing gak.
ross-128 wrote:The Battlecannon is in an awkward spot. It's definitely losing efficiency against massed infantry, but it's going to be putting out a lot more wounds than it used to against one-model multi-wound targets like vehicles and MCs. The catch is those targets are getting more wounds to spare, so its overall effectiveness is not necessarily gaining ground (though that does push it a bit more into a specific role).
Mathematically, it averages a whole .25 more wounds on a MC than it does now. That's a lot more wounds!
ross-128 wrote:The Vanquisher cannon is going to continue to be an oddball that almost seems strong on paper but isn't really. Sure, it's a 72" range melta shot. But on the other hand, you basically just have one melta gun as your main cannon and that's kind of underwhelming when you can stick one of those on a Guardsman for much cheaper.
The Vanquisher is only good because ABG lets it have Instant Death. We'll have to see what Beast Hunter shells do. Right now, Annihilator will be better than Vanquisher.
ross-128 wrote:The executioner plasma cannon is potentially great for the same reason the exterminator is looking good: it's going to be tossing lots of S7 shots around with good AP, and S7 is in a really good spot in 8th. The only catch with that is whether Gets Hot will come back to bite it. Like the Punisher though, Pask might be able to make it shine (rather than glow).
Maybe. I'm not a massive fan of either, but we'll have to see what get's hot does to the thing.
ross-128 wrote:The biggest hang-up for Guard though, is going to be weighing it against the option of going Blob Guard. Blob Guard is looking really strong in 8th, their lasguns can wound anything, and universal price increases for vehicles mean that they will be incredibly cost-effective relatively speaking. The changes to AP means they'll be getting more and better saves, and their ability to eat multi-wound weapons with expendable models will make them very hard to sweep off the table. Commissars will also be more effective than ever when every Commissar is effectively a Lord Commissar, though watch out for snipers.
They can split-fire, they can move and fire heavy weapons, FRFSRF got a 33% buff in rapid-fire range, and if their Psyker can put re-rolls to hit, re-rolls to wound, and/or Rending on their lasguns they could become absolutely terrifying. That's going to be the big hang-up for Guard vehicles: can they compete with all the buffs their infantry are getting?
ross-128 wrote: It sure would be nice if whoever leaked Sisters of Battle would go ahead and put Imperial Guard out there too. They're in the same book!
It was probably a Sisters player who got their hands on it for a limited time. Understandable that they would quickly snap the few pages most important to them, instead of getting the whole book.
Vaktathi wrote: Powerfists are dramatically less effective, absolutely, but Lascannons should be dramatically more effective and I'm not sure how your math is coming to another conclusion.
Looking at the Lascannon (again because I dont have the melta stats in front of me) it's wounding on 3's instead of shooting for 5's (doubling damage output alone right there). The tank gets a save but only a 6+. 3HP vs 12 Wounds should be about identical againdt a weapon doing an average of 3.5 Wounds vs 1 HP.
As such, there should be no reason why a Lascannon is less effective in 8E aside from the Explodes result chance to plink the tank in one hit, which is 1/36 for any single Lascannon hit in 7E (and again, only relevant for the firet two HP's anyway) and too low to offset that average significantly.
Because the average number of wounds inflicted tells you very little, actually.
It's not a bell curve, it's some weird stepped distribution, and a long "tail" skews the average.
And, if you look at the Devastator's graph I plotted, it looks like the average percent of the Leman Russ Destroyed per shooting attack is higher and chance of total failure is lower. Devastators may be marginally better, but not by a whole lot. The distribution is pretty much the same.
Apologies if I misread something there on the Lascannons, but they should be notably more effective, doubling the wound output (wounding on 3's instead of 5's), while keeping the "wounds" almost the same when compared with the average Damage (multiplying wounds vs HP by 4 and Damage vs HP lost by an average of 3.5) and only a 1/6 chance to save, which should fundamentally result in notably, not marginally, higher kill rates with that weapon.
Given the flat variability of D6 rolls (as opposed to something like 2d6 or 2d3) and the static number of HP's and Wounds in each example, the variance shouldn't be all *that* weird.
I'll see if I can try it once I'm home from work and not fiddling on a phone, I can look up the melta stats then too. Hrm...
It seems like it would be hard for the difference to be as little as 0.25 unless you're assuming 100% accuracy on the old BC.
Let's say we're looking at a 60mm MC base. GW lists base sizes in diameter, so that's a 30mm radius or 1.18". The large blast template is a 5" diameter, so 2.5" radius.
So, we need to scatter by less than 3.68" in order to hit. So 3" or less is a hit, 4" or more is a miss. Plus 33% for the two hit results on the scatter dice.
We are applying our BS to reduce the scatter, so on the 2d6 roll it's a hit on 7+. Conveniently, that's exactly 50% on a 2d6. 50% out of our 66% chance of getting a scatter result in the first place is 33%, so conveniently that's a 66% chance of hitting.
Though, of course, anything that scatters in the roughly 180 degrees facing your opponent's board edge will probably hit *something*, just not your original target. I'm definitely going to miss being able to do that.
Anyway, for now we're looking at about a 66% chance of hitting (your original target). Let's say they're T7. So you wound on 3+, then they don't get a save because most MCs are 3+ save. You have a 4/9 chance of doing just one wound, and a 5/9 chance of doing nothing at all.
Where as on the new BC, it looks like for whatever target you were using you only have a 45% chance of doing nothing, a ~12% chance of doing one wound, a ~14% chance of two wounds, a ~16% chance of three wounds, a 5% chance of four wounds, and then an increasingly trivial chance of more than four.
So you're going to be wounding at all more consistently, and on a successful wound your two most common results will be two or three wounds. It's no wunderwaffen, but that is a non-trivial improvement against an MC.
The catch, of course, is I'm expecting the extra wounds MCs and vehicles are getting will pretty much completely offset it.
SeraphimXIX wrote: If the basic Russ really is only 6 points cheaper then it is now I'm going to lose my mind.
If the base russ is any cheaper, at all, I would call that a victory. Have you seen the point changes to other vehicles?
Yeah, is not only about being cheaper, is about everything is being made more expensive, so even staying at the same point cost as today, in relation to other vehicles the difference is gonna be huge.
the sponson and hull mounted weapons no longer have to snapfire and can fire on different targets, they got overall better. playtested them a bit.
>>53521030 how about some orders aswell?
aim! reroll to hit rolls of 1 for the target unit
first row second row fire! all lasguns and high energy lasguns are rapidfire 2 for the target unit
destroy it! reroll to wound rolls of 1 for the target unit
onward for the emperor! the target unit may fire even if it advanced this turn
get a grip! the target unit may fire, even if it disengaged from combat
go go go! instead of firing, the target unit may move as if it is its movement phase. cant assault though
get the bajonett! may only issued to units within 1" of a enemy, the target unit may attack as if it is the close combat phase
guardsmen remained the same basically, can move 6" and are 4 points each.
baneblade variants are t 8 w 26 with 3+ each btw.
>>53521081 yarrik is 130 pts m6 ws 2+ bs 2+ s 3 t 4 w 4 a 3 ld 9 sv 4+ his claw is s x2 ap -3 dmg d3 and -1 on to hit rolls
astra militarum units within 6" may use his ld
each time yarrik loses his last wound roll a d6 on 3+ he wont lose the last wound
astra militarum units within 6" may never lose more than 1 model when doing leadship tests
6" reroll 1's to hit bubble against orks
4+ invul
rough riders are 10 points with gear (8 base lance is 2) can come from the side of the board at the end of any movement phase with 7" range up to 9" from the enemy. can assault of course. their lances are s5 ap -2 dmg d3
With the massive price hikes all the other faction's vehicles are getting, staying roughly the same seems like a nice win for the IG.
It doesn't matter what vehicles from other codices cost. If other vehicles are worse, all that means is that the BC Russ is king of the useless units pile.
With the massive price hikes all the other faction's vehicles are getting, staying roughly the same seems like a nice win for the IG.
It doesn't matter what vehicles from other codices cost. If other vehicles are worse, all that means is that the Russ is king of the useless units pile.
If other vehicles are worse... maybe the power level is changing, and thats makes by relation the Leman Russ more powerfull and optimal for its point cost?
Maybe the Leman Russ in 8th is a unusable pile of garbage. But being even cheaper than in 7th is a big deal in 8th with all the big price hikes everything is having.
ross-128 wrote:It seems like it would be hard for the difference to be as little as 0.25 unless you're assuming 100% accuracy on the old BC.
Let's say we're looking at a 60mm MC base. GW lists base sizes in diameter, so that's a 30mm radius or 1.18". The large blast template is a 5" diameter, so 2.5" radius.
So, we need to scatter by less than 3.68" in order to hit. So 3" or less is a hit, 4" or more is a miss. Plus 33% for the two hit results on the scatter dice.
We are applying our BS to reduce the scatter, so on the 2d6 roll it's a hit on 7+. Conveniently, that's exactly 50% on a 2d6. 50% out of our 66% chance of getting a scatter result in the first place is 33%, so conveniently that's a 66% chance of hitting.
Though, of course, anything that scatters in the roughly 180 degrees facing your opponent's board edge will probably hit *something*, just not your original target. I'm definitely going to miss being able to do that.
Anyway, for now we're looking at about a 66% chance of hitting (your original target). Let's say they're T7. So you wound on 3+, then they don't get a save because most MCs are 3+ save. You have a 4/9 chance of doing just one wound, and a 5/9 chance of doing nothing at all.
Where as on the new BC, it looks like for whatever target you were using you only have a 45% chance of doing nothing, a ~12% chance of doing one wound, a ~14% chance of two wounds, a ~16% chance of three wounds, a 5% chance of four wounds, and then an increasingly trivial chance of more than four.
So you're going to be wounding at all more consistently, and on a successful wound your two most common results will be two or three wounds. It's no wunderwaffen, but that is a non-trivial improvement against an MC.
The catch, of course, is I'm expecting the extra wounds MCs and vehicles are getting will pretty much completely offset it.
Current MC's are T6. Carnifex, Riptide, Trygon, Tervigon, etc. which the Battle Tank wounds on a two now and on a 3 next edition.
Save the Carnifex, all of those are on big oval bases.
Vaktathi wrote: Powerfists are dramatically less effective, absolutely, but Lascannons should be dramatically more effective and I'm not sure how your math is coming to another conclusion.
Looking at the Lascannon (again because I dont have the melta stats in front of me) it's wounding on 3's instead of shooting for 5's (doubling damage output alone right there). The tank gets a save but only a 6+. 3HP vs 12 Wounds should be about identical againdt a weapon doing an average of 3.5 Wounds vs 1 HP.
As such, there should be no reason why a Lascannon is less effective in 8E aside from the Explodes result chance to plink the tank in one hit, which is 1/36 for any single Lascannon hit in 7E (and again, only relevant for the firet two HP's anyway) and too low to offset that average significantly.
Because the average number of wounds inflicted tells you very little, actually.
It's not a bell curve, it's some weird stepped distribution, and a long "tail" skews the average.
And, if you look at the Devastator's graph I plotted, it looks like the average percent of the Leman Russ Destroyed per shooting attack is higher and chance of total failure is lower. Devastators may be marginally better, but not by a whole lot. The distribution is pretty much the same.
Apologies if I misread something there on the Lascannons, but they should be notably more effective, doubling the wound output (wounding on 3's instead of 5's), while keeping the "wounds" almost the same when compared with the average Damage (multiplying wounds vs HP by 4 and Damage vs HP lost by an average of 3.5) and only a 1/6 chance to save, which should fundamentally result in notably, not marginally, higher kill rates with that weapon.
Given the flat variability of D6 rolls (as opposed to something like 2d6 or 2d3) and the static number of HP's and Wounds in each example, the variance shouldn't be all *that* weird.
I'll see if I can try it once I'm home from work and not fiddling on a phone, I can look up the melta stats then too. Hrm...
I just set up excel files using random number generators.
Wow, just 4 points for Guardsmen? Those are also an amazing buff for Go! Go! Go!, from two re-rolls on their run to an entire extra movement phase! Practically don't even need Chimeras with an order like that.
It definitely looks like the biggest question for IG vehicles is not how they stack up to other vehicles... it's how will they stack up to IG infantry?
I mean... I remember when Conscripts were 4 points. 4 points for BS3 infantry? May the Emperor have mercy on my enemies, for I will not.
Galas wrote: If other vehicles are worse... maybe the power level is changing, and thats makes by relation the Leman Russ more powerfull and optimal for its point cost? Maybe the Leman Russ in 8th is a unusable pile of garbage. But being even cheaper than in 7th is a big deal in 8th with all the big price hikes everything is having.
The power level is changing for vehicles, maybe. But it isn't changing appreciably. Vehicles that aren't knights or some other crazy superheavy aren't worth taking over monstrous creatures and the various forms of infantry pre-8th, because the amount of damage they do isn't worth the points that they cost. Sooo how is that issue addressed if vehicles cost the same (or more) and their offensive capabilities is not significantly improved.
Your post is basically saying that it's okay for tanks to not be worth taking in your army because vehicles from other factions aren't worth taking either.
ross-128 wrote: Wow, just 4 points for Guardsmen? Those are also an amazing buff for Go! Go! Go!, from two re-rolls on their run to an entire extra movement phase! Practically don't even need Chimeras with an order like that.
It definitely looks like the biggest question for IG vehicles is not how they stack up to other vehicles... it's how will they stack up to IG infantry?
I mean... I remember when Conscripts were 4 points. 4 points for BS3 infantry? May the Emperor have mercy on my enemies, for I will not.
Yeah, and vets are only 6 points. The disparity in points-efficiency is staggering.
I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.
I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.
first row second row fire! all lasguns and high energy lasguns are rapidfire 2 for the target unit
destroy it! reroll to wound rolls of 1 for the target unit
onward for the emperor! the target unit may fire even if it advanced this turn
get a grip! the target unit may fire, even if it disengaged from combat
go go go! instead of firing, the target unit may move as if it is its movement phase. cant assault though
get the bajonett! may only issued to units within 1" of a enemy, the target unit may attack as if it is the close combat phase
Guessing there's translation issues on the names there. Onwards seems strictly better than Go Go Go, unless you *really* need those extra few inches. I'm not sure why you would want to use Bayonet over disengage/Get a Grip, unless there's something we're not seeing here.
rough riders are 10 points with gear (8 base lance is 2)
can come from the side of the board at the end of any movement phase with 7" range up to 9" from the enemy. can assault of course.
their lances are s5 ap -2 dmg d3
The wording there is confusing. What does the 7" range mean? It can't be their movement if they're appearing at the end of the phase.
I do think that we probably won't get many opportunities to use Fix Bayonets! though. If we charge someone we can win in melee with (so... Tau, pretty much), they're just going to fall back before we get to our next shooting phase to issue the order. If we're fighting someone who's good enough at melee that they actually want to stay, well then they'll probably shred those poor Guardsmen and we'll be the ones wanting to fall back.
The window where we have both the opportunity and desire to stay in melee for Fix Bayonets is... rather small. Though if those guardsmen are trapped by an ability like No Escape, or you are deliberately sacrificing them to tarpit a unit that is stronger than them, Fix Bayonets might be a good way for those guardsmen to give them the middle finger before they die.
Being able to fall back and then order that unit to shoot anyway is great though.
Galas wrote: I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.
I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.
I mean, it's a non sequitur man. Like the definition of one. If the context of the discussion is "Can I take Leman Russ in my army and not feel like I'm wasting points", the points costs of other vehicles from other factions really doesn't matter. "A drop-pod costs 800 points now" Okay, how does that make a Leman Russ with battlecannon worth taking?
The issue is that the tanks are not competing with other factions' vehicles, they're competing with other units in the Imperial Guard codex.
Formerly Wu wrote: = Guessing there's translation issues on the names there. Onwards seems strictly better than Go Go Go, unless you *really* need those extra few inches. I'm not sure why you would want to use Bayonet over disengage/Get a Grip, unless there's something we're not seeing here.
The wording there is confusing. What does the 7" range mean? It can't be their movement if they're appearing at the end of the phase.
I'm trying to see if I can get clarification but it's pretty chaotic over there. I don't know if he's even seen my inquiries.
The window where we have both the opportunity and desire to stay in melee for Fix Bayonets is... rather small. Though if those guardsmen are trapped by an ability like No Escape, or you are deliberately sacrificing them to tarpit a unit that is stronger than them, Fix Bayonets might be a good way for those guardsmen to give them the middle finger before they die.
Well, the other option here is if you have a priest nearby. Priests give them +1 A. If all you've got in melee are lasguns, then staying and using Fix Bayonets actually gives you more attacks than backing off and firing lasguns, especially since you get a second attack phase later in the turn.
The other point is that since you get to make the attacks before the Fight phase, if you're in a combat you think you can tip the scales of, it might be worth it just to deny the enemy that few more attacks.
Some units can stop units from disengaging by forcing a roll off to succeed. It would be better to give them a good kicking.
Another good point!
Something else I noticed from the Adeptus Ministorum leaks: shotguns are now Assault 2, 12", S3, AP -, with an ability that adds +1 to their strength when within half range. Finally shotgun vets have a niche.
Guard are also somewhat better in combat due to to-hit rolls being set. As far as we know, they're always hitting on a 4+ in combat. That makes them pretty deadly against units that relied on high WS to avoid attacks.
Some units can stop units from disengaging by forcing a roll off to succeed. It would be better to give them a good kicking.
Another good point!
Something else I noticed from the Adeptus Ministorum leaks: shotguns are now Assault 2, 12", S3, AP -, with an ability that adds +1 to their strength when within half range. Finally shotgun vets have a niche.
With how the detachments work I'm wondering if vet-spam might be worth it.
Depending on how cheap our HQ's are it shouldn't be too hard to get two battalion detachments in a single army. With how many heavy/special weapons vets can take now, and at only 6ppm, taking seven or eight squads seems really efficient.
And with how cover works now, they can be far more durable than their points are worth in shooting.
Galas wrote: I'm not saying that in any shape or form. I was comparing Leman Russes to other vehicles. If vehicles are bad in this edition compared with other type of units was a point I didn't adressed.
I'm saying that in a edition where other vehicles are going up in point costs, remaining the same for Leman Russes is a huge "buff" for IG. If that buff is enough to make them viable, I don't know. But is nonsensical to say that is something irrelevant.
I mean, it's a non sequitur man. Like the definition of one. If the context of the discussion is "Can I take Leman Russ in my army and not feel like I'm wasting points", the points costs of other vehicles from other factions really doesn't matter. "A drop-pod costs 800 points now" Okay, how does that make a Leman Russ with battlecannon worth taking?
The issue is that the tanks are not competing with other factions' vehicles, they're competing with other units in the Imperial Guard codex.
1) You can't ignore every other faction when judging what to take. When you pick and choose IG units from the codex, you are picking and choosing with the enemy in mind. It's no mean advantage to be able to outnumber the armour of almost any foe you'll face. Most other lists are going to have to really scrimp and save to fit in an extra heavy vehicle or two. IG players can (much like IG commanders) chuck a Russ or two in without it hurting their points allowance much.
2) The Leman Russ itself stands up pretty well just looking at the rest of the codex. It's no 4pt guardsmen, but it's a durable slugger that is guaranteed to survive a couple more turns than it would in previous editions. The change to Armour Values alone fixes that. Vehicles as a whole got more durable, but for most of them it cost them a fair chunk of points.
8th ed may be the "Infantry Edition" of 40k (And my Horde IG are fine with that), but it's not like the Leman Russ got kicked in the teeth compared to 7th.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Oooooh, I checked the profile and you're right. Also the battlecannon is pen 2 vs the vanquisher's pen 3!
edit- It doesn't change its performance much though. :(
It's statistically worse against both T7 4+sv targets and T8 3+sv targets then the battlecannon. I decided to see what its average would look like with +1 BS as well and it doesn't improve much.
BS is exactly the same. .5 hits per shot fired.
The battle cannon averages 3.5 shots per turn netting 1.75 hits vs t8, with an average d3 damage of 2, that is 1.75 damage to be saved at ap-2.
The vanguisher huts half the time, wounding 1/4 of the time vs t8. Average damage of 2d6 pick high is 4.47 damage if 1.1175 damage to be saved.
Against t7, both get the same # of hits, with 1.1666wounds doing 1.3333 damage on the battle cannon and .6666 wounds doing 1.48888 damage on the vanquisher.
T9 goes the opposite way with .744999 damage to be saved from the vanquisher and 1.1666 damage from the battle cannon
So, yes it is worse against t8, but it is better against t7 or lower. Well, single model multi-wound targets anyways. The battle cannon damages multiple-model units better that the vanquisher(but it is supposed to).
Also the current vanquisher is a single shot on a bs3 model with a better armor penetration rate. The new one can also hurt mcs and gmcs. It is an upgrade .
You roll for saves before rolling for damage- you only roll damage for unsaved wounds.
So in the case of T7, the battlecannon is averaging 1 unsaved wound (2 damage total) and the vanquisher is averaging .33 unsaved wounds (0 damage total).
Ah; I hadn't gotten a chance to really read the core rules just skimmed them and looked at the specific weapon rules and was remembering the weapons q&a where they said that weapons can do multiple damage and you save each.
So with saves to account for and aggregate averages: a t7 4+ save model targeted will take 12 damage from a battle cannon in 6 rounds(7 wounding hits and 1 of those saved) to the vanquisher's 8.94(no saves).
A 3+ nets the battle cannon 5 damage and the vanquisher 4.47 in 3 rounds
A 2+ nets the battle cannon 2.333 damage and the vanquisher 2.98 damage
The better th save the more damage the vanquisher does.
Humble Guardsman wrote: 1) You can't ignore every other faction when judging what to take. When you pick and choose IG units from the codex, you are picking and choosing with the enemy in mind. It's no mean advantage to be able to outnumber the armour of almost any foe you'll face. Most other lists are going to have to really scrimp and save to fit in an extra heavy vehicle or two. IG players can (much like IG commanders) chuck a Russ or two in without it hurting their points allowance much.
Outnumbering enemy armor is not inherently meaningful- the enemy can have 20 vehicles and I can have none, it doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not I can kill them, and you dont need armor to kill armor. To the contrary, everything weve seen so far is pointing to infantry being much more efficient at killing vehiclee then vehicles themselves.
2) The Leman Russ itself stands up pretty well just looking at the rest of the codex. It's no 4pt guardsmen, but it's a durable slugger that is guaranteed to survive a couple more turns than it would in previous editions. The change to Armour Values alone fixes that. Vehicles as a whole got more durable, but for most of them it cost them a fair chunk of points.
Durability is meaningless without the damage to back it up. Just like in 7th, a good player will recognize how little damage a Russ does and ignore it until theres nothing else better to attack.
8th ed may be the "Infantry Edition" of 40k (And my Horde IG are fine with that), but it's not like the Leman Russ got kicked in the teeth compared to 7th.
Unit viability is pass or fail, how good it is or isnt compared to previous editions doesnt mean anything if theyre still bad.
Very disappointed with the Leman Russ reveals thus far. Battle cannon/vanquisher are absolutely terrible. LR cost increased instead of decreased. I'll stick to running exterminator Leman Russes for the gauranteed 8 autocannon shots.
4ppm infantry? If this is true & infantry squads are 40 pts thank the emperor. I was hoping they would go down as far as 3ppm, but I'll take it. Veterans still 6ppm? Likely won't be taking many.
Ogryn are still terrible. I am really hoping the reveal is wrong, because otherwise they will once again be sitting out this edition. Ripper guns need to yield bonuses to melee, Ogryns need feel no pain. Its in the lore, make it happen GW.
All artillery will be sitting out this edition. Doesn't matter what their stats are. We have Dark Eldar, Genestealers, Tyranids, Eldar that will be in assault with your gunline turn 1. Not joking. Tyranids will be 1 inch away from you turn 1 gauranteed every single game. Trygon + genestealers pop up 9" away, then swarmlord moves them in the "shooting" phase another 8". So now they are 1" away & charge, no overwatch. GG.
Confirmed characters: Creed/Kell? GW have you been paying attention to anything you have been doing lately? Creed is in a pokeball, Kell is dead.
Orders look interesting.
Looks like rough riders will finally be worth taking.
over all 8th edition seems to be designed to be "Age of infantry" I think, we a few exceptions, we're going to see most armies fielding infantry backed by a handful of vehicles for special duties.
what those vehicle choices are I suspect will vary from army to army, but I suspect they'll be mostly to eaither crack other vehicles open, and or destroy small multi-wound squads (like inceptors, obliterators etc )
Any word on heavy weapons teams or sentinels? In the IG reveal they were supposedly going to be amazing. Heavy weapons teams were supposed to have some rule that actually allows them to provide cover fire or something. Hopefully that means it automatically pins enemy units or prevents them from moving the following turn or something.
Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face. Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".
- - -
I dont have my codex around right now, does anyone remember if scout sentinels could take lascannons?
SeraphimXIX wrote: Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face. Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".
It definitely is. If IG players thought bubble wrapping was bad in previous editions, 8th edition is going to be bubble wrap on steroids. We are finding out that almost every army will be able to assault turn 1. Now that vehicles can charge, we are going to see opponents just ram into our tanks to tie them up & prevent them from shooting. Worse yet, if your men are not spaced out properly, enemy infantry could potentially kill one squad, then move onto the next and the next & wipe out half your army in one turn.
8th edition is going to be all about infantry, especially if the rumors of 40 pt infantry squads are true.
Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.
Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.
This raises another question. is it 4 shots or 8 shots? All of the twin linked profiles I've seen have "twin" in the name. Right now we just have "Exterminator autocannon" Heavy 4. Is the "twin" implied in the name? Or are we down to 4 shots?
BrianDavion wrote: over all 8th edition seems to be designed to be "Age of infantry" I think, we a few exceptions, we're going to see most armies fielding infantry backed by a handful of vehicles for special duties.
what those vehicle choices are I suspect will vary from army to army, but I suspect they'll be mostly to eaither crack other vehicles open, and or destroy small multi-wound squads (like inceptors, obliterators etc )
Ex guard player here from 3rd edition.
If your intrested in seeing how your army will play look to AoS and how charcters interact with units. Most charcters have an aura type ability which improves all units within a given area. So a single charcter may be able to improve the ahooting of 3 tanks and 2 squads of infantry at the same time.
IG tanks will probably drop in price or stay the same. They are making the armies feel more like thier supposed to. SM vehicles are going up because thier supposed to be a Infantry focused army, Nid MCs are going down cause space bugs. If you think anything other than tanks when you think IG im not sure what game your playing but it aint 40k.
Also expect to have new upgrades for command squads for vehicles specifically, probably something like a repair kit which lets you heal vehicles. Oh hull down will also be an IG only thing +1 armor for tanks that dont move in the movement phase.
Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.
No, the exterminator only has two auto cannons meaning 4 shots. I will bet money that it loses the twin linked special rule. I don't know why it has it in the first place.
SeraphimXIX wrote: Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face. Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".
It definitely is. If IG players thought bubble wrapping was bad in previous editions, 8th edition is going to be bubble wrap on steroids. We are finding out that almost every army will be able to assault turn 1. Now that vehicles can charge, we are going to see opponents just ram into our tanks to tie them up & prevent them from shooting. Worse yet, if your men are not spaced out properly, enemy infantry could potentially kill one squad, then move onto the next and the next & wipe out half your army in one turn.
8th edition is going to be all about infantry, especially if the rumors of 40 pt infantry squads are true.
Yeah your not going to lose half your army in one turn. 8th is not "all about infantry" they are try to put the soul back into the armies. Infantry armies are going to be infantry armies again. Nids will be about big bugs, Tau will be suit mastas, IG is and has always been about tanks. Your infantry will do the job it was always supposed to do. Be a meat shield for your tanks.
SeraphimXIX wrote: The plasma cannon setup has a good chance of outright destroying your tank.
Na just use the reroll 1s to hit order
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay so with power level 11 that means any where from 210 to 230 points, but that includes 1/2 of the most expensive upgrades avaliable. So, the base cost for the LR will probably be 180 to 190 ish if i had to guess.
The re-roll 1s order is nice, but its on a per model basis.
I know that every big model hws to have incremental damage, but damn I wish they lost something other then bs when taking damage. Theyre already hitting on a 4+.
Thanks for putting that together. If this data is correct, its still not very impressive. An LR exterminator is going to be putting out more wounds per round guaranteed every time. 8 shots at -1, d3 wounds.
You're welcome.
Unfortunately, I can't say the Autocannon is that much better.
Also, that's weird, are the siege tanks now command tanks and the line tanks not options for TC's any more?
SeraphimXIX wrote: Its only age of infantry for factions with vehicles, which is why it is kind if a slap in the face. Almost every tyranid MC got a buff AND a price reduction. Freakin strength 12 t7 26" threat-range carnifex are only ~80 points a pop. You can bet that all the MC heavy factions are going to be spamming their "vehicles".
It definitely is. If IG players thought bubble wrapping was bad in previous editions, 8th edition is going to be bubble wrap on steroids. We are finding out that almost every army will be able to assault turn 1. Now that vehicles can charge, we are going to see opponents just ram into our tanks to tie them up & prevent them from shooting. Worse yet, if your men are not spaced out properly, enemy infantry could potentially kill one squad, then move onto the next and the next & wipe out half your army in one turn.
8th edition is going to be all about infantry, especially if the rumors of 40 pt infantry squads are true.
Yeah your not going to lose half your army in one turn. 8th is not "all about infantry" they are try to put the soul back into the armies. Infantry armies are going to be infantry armies again. Nids will be about big bugs, Tau will be suit mastas, IG is and has always been about tanks. Your infantry will do the job it was always supposed to do. Be a meat shield for your tanks.
to a dgeree, thats true but obviously points balance is also gonna be important,
WOW. So they removed the exterminator autocannon's twin linked weapon. Unbelievable. I wonder if they are also going to remove the Vulture gunships twin linked punisher gatling cannons...
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: Yeah your not going to lose half your army in one turn. 8th is not "all about infantry" they are try to put the soul back into the armies. Infantry armies are going to be infantry armies again. Nids will be about big bugs, Tau will be suit mastas, IG is and has always been about tanks. Your infantry will do the job it was always supposed to do. Be a meat shield for your tanks.
Unless you have heard otherwise, if you are not spaced out properly a unit that wipes out a squad in assault can then move onto assault another squad within 3" if I am not mistaken.
No, the Exterminator is just a turret with a pair of auto cannons. 4 shots total.
I hope tank commanders can be an upgrade to tanks as a way to give them bs3+. Other than that it's a bit disappointing. Tanks that take 6 wounds suddenly become next to harmless.
Formerly Wu wrote: Looks like you can finally run a Tank Commander without chaining him to a squadron. Nice.
I like the Grinding Advance rule- moderates the Heavy weapon rule without completely taking it away.
Plasma cannon sponsons went from an expensive "maybe" to "why would you even think about it."
Disagree, the super charge is very much a "Look, unless you're down to 1 wound left and really need to kill that big nasty bad, don't use this" but the standard non super charged shot'll be not a bad choice if you wanna rock a battle cannon and focus on mowing down armored infantry. iut's cost is gonna be the big question, but if it's reasonably costed, I could see it being a popular sponson choice in a MEQ heavy enviroment.
Canhammer on Instagram wrote:Vox-caster: If a friendly OFFICER is within 3" of a unit with a vox-caster when using the Voice of Command ability, you may extend the range of hte order to 18" if the target unit also contains a vox-caster.
This is awesome. Officers don't need to use the vox-caster in their command squad- as long as they can call over someone with a unit, they can get orders out.
Other tidbits: Baneblades can fire their sponsons even if enemy units are within 1", and can Fall Back, shoot, and then charge. Its WS is 5+ but its attacks are at AP -2 and do D3 damage.
Disagree, the super charge is very much a "Look, unless you're down to 1 wound left and really need to kill that big nasty bad, don't use this" but the standard non super charged shot'll be not a bad choice if you wanna rock a battle cannon and focus on mowing down armored infantry. iut's cost is gonna be the big question, but if it's reasonably costed, I could see it being a popular sponson choice in a MEQ heavy enviroment.
You're right, I forgot that you have the choice. Gonna take a while to get these old rules out of my head...
As a question related to tanks only by my stewing ire about Frag grenades having the same blast size as Battle Cannons now, will squads still be limited to throwing 1 grenade per squad? I hope not, and that would make having all the guardsmen throw frags a glorious thing.
Also, on the Baneblade, what's the stats on the Shadowsword Volcano Cannon?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As a question related to tanks only by my stewing ire about Frag grenades having the same blast size as Battle Cannons now, will squads still be limited to throwing 1 grenade per squad? I hope not, and that would make having all the guardsmen throw frags a glorious thing.
IIRC It's been confirmed somewhere that only 1 grenade per squad. which is proably a good thing, otherwise the "Kark grenade rush" would be a thing
Formerly Wu wrote: Veterans and Special Weapon Squads are Elites, and Heavy Weapons Squads are Heavy Support.
I wonder how platoon organization is supposed to work. As listed, filling out a Brigade is going to be easy work.
If that is true, I expect there to be no more single slot platoon choice. Let's just hope that you can still get 50 man infantry squads, although a few 10 mans could make nice road blocks and fill out a brigade.
Canhammer on Instagram wrote:Vox-caster: If a friendly OFFICER is within 3" of a unit with a vox-caster when using the Voice of Command ability, you may extend the range of hte order to 18" if the target unit also contains a vox-caster.
This is awesome. Officers don't need to use the vox-caster in their command squad- as long as they can call over someone with a unit, they can get orders out.
Disagree, the super charge is very much a "Look, unless you're down to 1 wound left and really need to kill that big nasty bad, don't use this" but the standard non super charged shot'll be not a bad choice if you wanna rock a battle cannon and focus on mowing down armored infantry. iut's cost is gonna be the big question, but if it's reasonably costed, I could see it being a popular sponson choice in a MEQ heavy enviroment.
You're right, I forgot that you have the choice. Gonna take a while to get these old rules out of my head...
Plasma overall seems to have done pretty well with the 1-fail now being a last resort option. If the Primaris example is any indicator the price of plasma has hiked to match this.
Humble Guardsman wrote: 1) You can't ignore every other faction when judging what to take. When you pick and choose IG units from the codex, you are picking and choosing with the enemy in mind. It's no mean advantage to be able to outnumber the armour of almost any foe you'll face. Most other lists are going to have to really scrimp and save to fit in an extra heavy vehicle or two. IG players can (much like IG commanders) chuck a Russ or two in without it hurting their points allowance much.
Outnumbering enemy armor is not inherently meaningful- the enemy can have 20 vehicles and I can have none, it doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not I can kill them, and you dont need armor to kill armor. To the contrary, everything weve seen so far is pointing to infantry being much more efficient at killing vehiclee then vehicles themselves.
Two mediocre-cheap tanks will generally do better against one good-expensive one, purely from weight of fire. We won't see Vehicles die quickly in this edition.
2) The Leman Russ itself stands up pretty well just looking at the rest of the codex. It's no 4pt guardsmen, but it's a durable slugger that is guaranteed to survive a couple more turns than it would in previous editions. The change to Armour Values alone fixes that. Vehicles as a whole got more durable, but for most of them it cost them a fair chunk of points.
Durability is meaningless without the damage to back it up. Just like in 7th, a good player will recognize how little damage a Russ does and ignore it until theres nothing else better to attack.
That's a fairly flimsy argument, banking on the opponents willingness to completely ignore you. The Leman Russ isn't that toothless. How many juicier targets are there in an IG army, the Vendetta?
8th ed may be the "Infantry Edition" of 40k (And my Horde IG are fine with that), but it's not like the Leman Russ got kicked in the teeth compared to 7th.
Unit viability is pass or fail, how good it is or isnt compared to previous editions doesnt mean anything if theyre still bad.
That's kind of shifting the goalposts. No one here is arguing that Leman Russ's are an auto-take (this edition so far seems pretty good at avoiding that to the best of its ability so far). I'm only saying that Leman Russes are better in 8th than they were in 7th.
of note, Vets are elites now (honestly it makes sense, every other armies vetern squads are elites) that said I think IG players may not have to build basic guard squads in platoons anymore so that could free things up considerably
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formerly Wu wrote: Veterans and Special Weapon Squads are Elites, and Heavy Weapons Squads are Heavy Support.
I wonder how platoon organization is supposed to work. As listed, filling out a Brigade is going to be easy work.
Am I missing something here? In the Astra Militarum reveal it specifically states heavy weapons teams were gaining the ability to provide cover fire for our army. They have no special rules that indicate such. They look almost identical to 7th edition.
I'm trying really hard not to get discouraged right now but nothing I have seen thus far is getting me excited for 8th except maybe rough riders...
Blacksails wrote: Hmmm, while I'm going to hold my full criticism until I have all the rules and point values, this certainly doesn't inspire confidence or enthusiasm.
If Vets can't be made a troops option, I'll be fairly sour.
Not only that but from what people are saying vets cost 60 points per squad whereas a basic infantry squad costs 40. That is an extra 20 points for essentially +1 to BS. That is terrible. That 20 points could be put towards 50% of another infantry squad.
I want to know what people think of the new heavy weapons teams. They look identical to 7th edition. I'm trying really hard not to lose my right now but in the reveal it literally says they were gaining the ability to provide cover fire for our army. GW starts by saying that they aren't represented on the tabletop as they are in the fluff, then say that they will by being able to provide cover fire on the tabletop. Then, when you look at the rules they are practically a copy/paste from 7th.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: IG is and has always been about tanks. Your infantry will do the job it was always supposed to do. Be a meat shield for your tanks.
For you. For other's they have always been about wave upon wave of IG troopers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commissar Benny wrote: Am I missing something here? In the Astra Militarum reveal it specifically states heavy weapons teams were gaining the ability to provide cover fire for our army. They have no special rules that indicate such. They look almost identical to 7th edition.
I'm trying really hard not to get discouraged right now but nothing I have seen thus far is getting me excited for 8th except maybe rough riders...
Covering fire means just that. They shoot while rest of army moves ahead. What special rule you were waiting?
Boost they get is from certain weapons getting boost and survivability boost they got.
tneva82 wrote: Covering fire means just that. They shoot while rest of army moves ahead. What special rule you were waiting? Boost they get is from certain weapons getting boost and survivability boost they got.
How is that any different from 7th edition? Like why would GW even bother mentioning it in the AM reveal & specifically say they would be getting the ability to provide cover fire for your army whereas they didn't previously. That isn't my words, that is coming from GW. Look:
How am I misinterpreting it? GW says the following units don't function the tabletop as they do in the fluff. Aka heavy weapons teams are supposed to provide cover fire for infantry in fluff. Then they go onto say how awesome would it be if they did on the tabletop. Then they say they will. Then you look at their rules and its copy/paste from 7th edition practically. Heavy weapons teams desperately needed a buff, it looked like they were finally going to do something only to ignore them... again.
tneva82 wrote: Covering fire means just that. They shoot while rest of army moves ahead. What special rule you were waiting? Boost they get is from certain weapons getting boost and survivability boost they got.
How is that any different from 7th edition? Like why would GW even bother mentioning it in the AM reveal & specifically say they would be getting the ability to provide cover fire for your army whereas they didn't previously. That isn't my words, that is coming from GW. Look at the image I posted above.
it could be a rule that was in when the play testing was going on and removed at the last minute?
Commissar Benny wrote: Am I missing something here? In the Astra Militarum reveal it specifically states heavy weapons teams were gaining the ability to provide cover fire for our army. They have no special rules that indicate such. They look almost identical to 7th edition.
I'm trying really hard not to get discouraged right now but nothing I have seen thus far is getting me excited for 8th except maybe rough riders...
Perhaps there will be orders, similar to pinning so HWT will acts as suppressors in that regard... perhaps... I wouldn't hold my breath though, the new leaks to IG looks terrible.
tneva82 wrote: Covering fire means just that. They shoot while rest of army moves ahead. What special rule you were waiting? Boost they get is from certain weapons getting boost and survivability boost they got.
How is that any different from 7th edition? Like why would GW even bother mentioning it in the AM reveal & specifically say they would be getting the ability to provide cover fire for your army whereas they didn't previously. That isn't my words, that is coming from GW. Look:
How am I misinterpreting it? GW says the following units don't function the tabletop as they do in the fluff. Aka heavy weapons teams are supposed to provide cover fire for infantry in fluff. Then they go onto say how awesome would it be if they did on the tabletop. Then they say they will. Then you look at their rules and its copy/paste from 7th edition practically. Heavy weapons teams desperately needed a buff, it looked like they were finally going to do something only to ignore them... again.
They will. Or do you think their shooting does not somehow work? Enemy has 1++ with no 1 fail against heavy weapon shooting?
Compared to before they can actually shoot once in a while rather than simply be taken out by random fire by autocannon or two.
They did get buff. Just not something as blindingly obvious as yet another stupid bespoken rule that are too many in the game as it is. Not every unit should have ultra special rules.
BrianDavion wrote: is there much differance between a 50 man squad firing at something, and 5 ten man squads?
Well there is when you can only give out limited orders. Also, the scaling on things like vox casters is much more prohibitive.
On the positive side, you can get 30 man conscript squads for some blobbing.
But OTOH less commisars you are probably going to need. Saves points and reduces danger of opponent killing commisars and then your blops just vanishesh.
tneva82 wrote: Covering fire means just that. They shoot while rest of army moves ahead. What special rule you were waiting? Boost they get is from certain weapons getting boost and survivability boost they got.
How is that any different from 7th edition? Like why would GW even bother mentioning it in the AM reveal & specifically say they would be getting the ability to provide cover fire for your army whereas they didn't previously. That isn't my words, that is coming from GW. Look:
How am I misinterpreting it? GW says the following units don't function the tabletop as they do in the fluff. Aka heavy weapons teams are supposed to provide cover fire for infantry in fluff. Then they go onto say how awesome would it be if they did on the tabletop. Then they say they will. Then you look at their rules and its copy/paste from 7th edition practically. Heavy weapons teams desperately needed a buff, it looked like they were finally going to do something only to ignore them... again.
They will. Or do you think their shooting does not somehow work? Enemy has 1++ with no 1 fail against heavy weapon shooting?
Compared to before they can actually shoot once in a while rather than simply be taken out by random fire by autocannon or two.
They did get buff. Just not something as blindingly obvious as yet another stupid bespoken rule that are too many in the game as it is. Not every unit should have ultra special rules.
I'm not following you. Why would GW specifically talk about heavy weapons squads in the new reveal & get the community excited about them if they are exactly as they were in the previous editions? That makes absolutely no sense. Why would they say they want them to function on the tabletop as they do in the fluff, acknowledge that they currently do not, say they will, then not follow through on it?
If the "buff" to heavy weapons squads is simply that heavy weapons no longer snapfire after moving & instead just suffer the -1 to BS, that is absolute garbage. No IG player was running around moving his heavy weapons squads in the first place.
Oh boys, how I'm bummed right now. I'm just lacking words...
Exterminator auto-cannons losing twin-linked. Vanquisher is as unreliable as ever. Executioner will lack number of shots.
Last hope will be if punisher remains cheap.
The new index rewinds our army to how it was in 4th edition codex.
Heavy weapons squads back to heavy support, competing with LRBT and artillery.
Veterans back into elites, not even an option for carapace armour.
Special weapons squads moved into elite (which were in HQ additional units in the 4th ed codex) !
From what I see, troop infantry squads losing the ability to form a blob.
Only remains from the good ideas of Robin Cruddace (Emperor's may bless him!) in V5 codex : the order system, albeit with a short shouting range if you don't have radios.
The point reduction for buying line squads just represents how ineffective they will be on the battlefield.
Ravajaxe wrote: Oh boys, how I'm bummed right now. I'm just lacking words...
Exterminator auto-cannons losing twin-linked. Vanquisher is as unreliable as ever. Executioner will lack number of shots.
Last hope will be if punisher remains cheap.
The new index rewinds our army to how it was in 4th edition codex.
Heavy weapons squads back to heavy support, competing with LRBT and artillery.
Veterans back into elites, not even an option for carapace armour.
Special weapons squads moved into elite (which were in HQ additional units in the 4th ed codex) !
From what I see, troop infantry squads losing the ability to form a blob.
Only remains from the good ideas of Robin Cruddace (Emperor's may bless him!) in V5 codex : the order system, albeit with a short shouting range if you don't have radios.
The point reduction for buying line squads just represents how ineffective they will be on the battlefield.
So sad...
We also lost munistorium priests
All baneblade variants are more expensive than Magnus
Ogryns & Bullgryns coming in at 30 & 35 ppm We only have 7 characters. 1 of which is dead, the other is in a pokeball
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm not following you. Why would GW specifically talk about heavy weapons squads in the new reveal & get the community excited about them if they are exactly as they were in the previous editions? That makes absolutely no sense. Why would they say they want them to function on the tabletop as they do in the fluff, acknowledge that they currently do not, say they will, then not follow through on it?
If the "buff" to heavy weapons squads is simply that heavy weapons no longer snapfire after moving & instead just suffer the -1 to BS, that is absolute garbage. No IG player was running around moving his heavy weapons squads in the first place.
They got several buffs. And you even mentioned one I had entirely forgotten.
No it's not same. It's just lacking snowflake special rule which game has too many as it is.
Ravajaxe wrote: Oh boys, how I'm bummed right now. I'm just lacking words...
Exterminator auto-cannons losing twin-linked. Vanquisher is as unreliable as ever. Executioner will lack number of shots.
Last hope will be if punisher remains cheap.
The new index rewinds our army to how it was in 4th edition codex.
Heavy weapons squads back to heavy support, competing with LRBT and artillery.
Veterans back into elites, not even an option for carapace armour.
Special weapons squads moved into elite (which were in HQ additional units in the 4th ed codex) !
From what I see, troop infantry squads losing the ability to form a blob.
Only remains from the good ideas of Robin Cruddace (Emperor's may bless him!) in V5 codex : the order system, albeit with a short shouting range if you don't have radios.
The point reduction for buying line squads just represents how ineffective they will be on the battlefield.
So sad...
keep in mind that competion for slots isn't a big deal given the detachments system the more you have the more CPs you get, so cramming a buncha cheap stuff into a detachment is benifical
Ravajaxe wrote: Oh boys, how I'm bummed right now. I'm just lacking words...
Exterminator auto-cannons losing twin-linked. Vanquisher is as unreliable as ever. Executioner will lack number of shots.
Last hope will be if punisher remains cheap.
Punisher cannon 2 pts cheaper than battlecannon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yeah seems blopping gone. No mention of faction specific rules, no mention in commanders, no mention in infantry squad rules.
Ravajaxe wrote: Last hope will be if punisher remains cheap.
Punisher with 3xhb = 176, I really hate this new points system. Probably fine on an app, but for pen and paper types it is annoying. Have to look at the unit entry, remember all the equipment, then turn to the back and look up all the points.
I think that a vanquisher pask may be worth it, as he is 2+ to hit now.
Another thing I saw: Scions are 2 specials per 5.
As to no blobs, I think that lots of ten mans could be good if you create a collapsible defense line. You would have to watch your spacing though.
Pask can give orders to other characters, as the only person. So he can give another tank commander re-roll to hit on 1's and give that tank commander an overcharging plasmacannon setup... Decent enough, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, were the hell is the Vendetta? I don't see it anywhere. Don't tell me that not only did piss on our face by not applying twin linked to the LR exterminator cannon, but also removed our option of getting a gunship monster hunter with 6 LC?
I cant make my mind up on weather to love or hate this new Guard stuff.
Pros: 1) Infantry got cheaper and I can finally live my dream of an all conscript army! 2) Bullgryns became not only good but amazing. 3) Chimeras are only 5pts more then a rhino! 4) deathstrike isnt useless, wyverns are still insane 5) We can spam some amazing snipers thanks to ratlings. 6) holy gak, the taurox gatling cannon puts out a lot of dakka
Cons: 1) I was looking forward to using my 10 Leman Russ tanks, but they seem so crap now. Really bummed out by the Extermintor nerf. 2) Hellhounds have gone the way of the dodo, useless 3) no more carapace veterans 4) NO MORE PLATOONS D: It made IG so unique and cool Also no more regular infantry blobs :(. 5) NO MORE COMMANDS SQUADS WITH OFFICERS. Both are separate units 6) No unique regiment rules or doctrines :( Hopefully these will come back in the main codex.
Not good or bad, just OK: 1) no junior or senior command squads, only 1 kind of command squad no 2) Hydra seems better, amazing vs Tau? 3) Autocannons are 15pts 4) Orders stayed the same 5) Creed and Kell are still alive, infact all special characters seem to be a decent points costs 6) Superheaviers are still expensive, but seem pretty powerful.
Zewrath wrote: Pask can give orders to other characters, as the only person. So he can give another tank commander re-roll to hit on 1's and give that tank commander an overcharging plasmacannon setup... Decent enough, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, were the hell is the Vendetta? I don't see it anywhere. Don't tell me that not only did piss on our face by not applying twin linked to the LR exterminator cannon, but also removed our option of getting a gunship monster hunter with 6 LC?
Guess vendetta went into way of no model, no rules. Probably comes in FW index since they sell upgrade kit.
Zewrath wrote: Pask can give orders to other characters, as the only person. So he can give another tank commander re-roll to hit on 1's and give that tank commander an overcharging plasmacannon setup... Decent enough, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, were the hell is the Vendetta? I don't see it anywhere. Don't tell me that not only did piss on our face by not applying twin linked to the LR exterminator cannon, but also removed our option of getting a gunship monster hunter with 6 LC?
Guess vendetta went into way of no model, no rules. Probably comes in FW index since they sell upgrade kit.
They sold it, but it is OOP now, so who knows ? Almost all events in my country disallow forgeworld, so my uprgade kit will no see much use now.
Are scions still in the elite section of Astra Militarum, or you need to take them as allies from tempestus scion faction ?
Zewrath wrote: Pask can give orders to other characters, as the only person. So he can give another tank commander re-roll to hit on 1's and give that tank commander an overcharging plasmacannon setup... Decent enough, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, were the hell is the Vendetta? I don't see it anywhere. Don't tell me that not only did piss on our face by not applying twin linked to the LR exterminator cannon, but also removed our option of getting a gunship monster hunter with 6 LC?
Guess vendetta went into way of no model, no rules. Probably comes in FW index since they sell upgrade kit.
They sold it, but it is OOP now, so who knows ? Almost all events in my country disallow forgeworld, so my uprgade kit will no see much use now.
Are scions still in the elite section of Astra Militarum, or you need to take them as allies from tempestus scion faction ?
What a backwards attitude to have towards FW models. Decourion, anything Eldar, Posterboy Marines with several hundred points of free transports and other stupid OTT formations are waaay more toxic to the game than FW.
Hum? Price went down. Kills 2 wound models fairly decently. Tougher than before. Melta gun variant is pretty nice now that melta doesn't get huge help from getting close so you can stay at 24" and bink away at enemy armour.
Or you can just drop Scions 9" away from the target with 2x plasma and plasma pistol per 5 men, backed up by tempestors throwing out 2 orders each. Deep strike is so powerful now that there is no scatter and you can just decide when to drop.
Astropath, primaris and the squad are all in the Astra Telepathica list. Still have AM keyword though, so can use them fine. Same with the enginseer.
That second power though. 2d6" line, for every model under it roll a die. 4+, that unit takes a mortal wound. It seems that there are still some attacks that punish clumped up units.
So they're directly nerfing the exterminator and executioner by taking twin-linked away from one, and reducing the other to a single blast instead of three. That's pretty lame.
Edit:
Alright, so I've had time to read through more of it.
CCS order ranged nerfed to 6"
No platoons
No blobs (super important, because orders only affect one unit!)
No Vendetta
MoO nerfed to once per battle (previously he was just an artillery piece with legs).
Medics can't revive, so only useful on characters
No Camo netting, period (NOOOOOOOOO!)
No Chimera fire ports
No Chimera lasgun batteries
Pask no longer provides special rules or Preferred Enemy, only BS4 and Tank Orders.
GW was swinging that nerf hammer like a bull in a china shop, and I'm scratching my head as to why. Imperial Guard was perhaps the most balanced codex previously, but they've received more nerfs than problem codices like Tau or Eldar.
On the bright side, it looks like Officer of the Fleet will be able to replace the Master of Ordinance as the "artillery with legs" pick. He does mortal wounds, and is restricted to once per turn instead of once per game. Also Hellstrike missiles don't seem to be once-per-game anymore, so those might be useful now.
Overall though... "They want to nerf me? Me, whom everyone loves?"--Imperial Guard players in 8th edition.
Did we really loose the vandetta or is that in another list aswell? I saw Ministorum Priests somewhere too, so semi-sure that we still can take them.
Some really cool stuff I think, and some not-so-cool-stuff.
I've never used Scions so I shouldn't comment too much, but aren't their guns kinda trash now? I remember them being MEQ killers with AP3, but now they just get -2 and still only S3.
Loving the whole Astra Auxiliary section, super cool that Bullgryns can take Slabshields and Maul now but they do clock in at 42 points pr head which might still be too expensive for what they can do. Cheap Sniper Hobbits.
The Punisher Russ variant was a beast last edition, it seems less so now when the Taurox can take a mini variant with one less strength. Too bad that model is so ugly, it seems like it got quite a boost
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: So they're directly nerfing the exterminator and executioner by taking twin-linked away from one, and reducing the other to a single blast instead of three. That's pretty lame.
Yeah I agree the executioner is just bad now, I think the exterminator didn't get Heavy 8 so it dosen't compete with the Hydra or outshines the other variants.
I think that a vanquisher pask may be worth it, as he is 2+ to hit now.
Nah battle cannon is still better vs tanks and obviously better vs infantry.
2+ is good but same helps battle cannon...Indeed BC gets bigger help from BS than it did before.
Already shown through the math. Battle cannon is only better on lower saves(4+,5+,and 6+) and lucky rolls. Vanquisher is better against heavy targets.
Both have a chance to fire 1 shot and miss. But if the vanquisher hits with a single shot that shot is more likely to do more damage than the battle cannon hitting with 2 shots. The battle cannon can, if the dice all go in your favor put 3x damage in a single turn. It is worth a try if you have no other anti-big'uns guns left or have already killed all the med-heavy infantry.
The Scions are really trashy when it comes to deep striking now, their guns don't have the range to rapid fire when they drop, and they'll be even less able to inflict damage to the enemy and hope to survive the returning fire. That said, the volley gun became great with the new heavy rule, so there might be something to do here.
Rough riders don't seem that good. You can outflank if you stay over 9" away from enemies. So if you want to charge you need to roll a 9 on 2d6, pretty difficult and if you fail then you still take overwatch and sit in the open for a turn. I think that scions are a much better reserve choice.
You can take 10 Scions, 4x P.Gun and a P.Pistol for 138. Take 2 of these and a Tempestor with the 2 order rod (40 + melee if wanted). So 316 for 18 plasma shots you can drop 9" away from something and give orders to.
Hmm, we only have three psychic powers to choose from now too. I guess barrier is kinda good, even if it does only work on one unit. Gee, it sure would be nice if we had a way to combine several units into one.
RIP Diviniation, you will be missed. At least the Astropath can still grant Ignores Cover, though that spell was way better as a buff on friendlies than a debuff on enemies.
Also the Astropath has to roll 5+ on 1d6 instead of 2d6 to Smite. At least he can't Perils that way, but good luck actually casting.
You're lacking huge amounts of context with regards to points; EVERY other army got a points increase to vehicles, not just guard.
When you face someone in this edition, the balance doesn't come just from your codex, but your opponent's codex as well. Please keep that in mind!
ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
Bobthehero wrote: The Scions are really trashy when it comes to deep striking now, their guns don't have the range to rapid fire when they drop, and they'll be even less able to inflict damage to the enemy and hope to survive the returning fire. That said, the volley gun became great with the new heavy rule, so there might be something to do here.
Someone here has no balls for the grav-chute insertions.. Jokes aside, yeah, overall is underwhelming. No specific orders for scion, am I right?
You're lacking huge amounts of context with regards to points; EVERY other army got a points increase to vehicles, not just guard.
When you face someone in this edition, the balance doesn't come just from your codex, but your opponent's codex as well. Please keep that in mind!
ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
I've been looking through some of the other codices. Tyranids MC's are like 80pts a pop, compared to our 130-150 LR variants. Tyranids are gauranteed to be in assault with your gunline turn 1 every match if they take Trygon + Swarmlord. Trygon comes up turn 1 9" away along with 20 genestealers. Then swarmlord uses ability to move genestealers an additional 8 inches in shooting phase. Putting them 1 inch away. Meaning no overwatch. GG its over.
Believe me, we need every advantage we will be able to get. The exterminator nerf is unnecessary. I have yet to see any other example of a twin-linked weapon losing its twin-linked from another army. I agree that you would never take a battlecannon over an exterminator, which speaks volumes about how absolutely terrible battle cannons will be this edition.
Why would you use grav chute, when Scions can be set up wherever they like with no scatter, at the end of any movement phase you decide? Deep striking is so much better now. Give yourself some reroll 1s with orders and blaze away!
I just noticed something else... the Chimera doesn't have Command Tank anymore. So we can't even stuff our Officers into a Chimera to hide them from sniper fire.
Commissar Benny wrote: I've been looking through some of the other codices. Tyranids MC's are like 80pts a pop, compared to our 130-150 LR variants. Tyranids are gauranteed to be in assault with your gunline turn 1 every match if they take Trygon + Swarmlord. Trygon comes up turn 1 9" away along with 20 genestealers. Then swarmlord uses ability to move genestealers an additional 8 inches in shooting phase. Putting them 1 inch away. Meaning no overwatch. GG its over.
Looks like conscript screens are going to be super useful. If they are going to eat things, why not the cheapest models in the game? Then just run them away and shoot the snot out of what charged them. Then charge them back!
You're lacking huge amounts of context with regards to points; EVERY other army got a points increase to vehicles, not just guard.
When you face someone in this edition, the balance doesn't come just from your codex, but your opponent's codex as well. Please keep that in mind!
ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
I've been looking through some of the other codices. Tyranids MC's are like 80pts a pop, compared to our 130-150 LR variants. Tyranids are gauranteed to be in assault with your gunline turn 1 every match if they take Trygon + Swarmlord. Trygon comes up turn 1 9" away along with 20 genestealers. Then swarmlord uses ability to move genestealers an additional 8 inches in shooting phase. Putting them 1 inch away. Meaning no overwatch. GG its over.
Believe me, we need every advantage we will be able to get. The exterminator nerf is unnecessary. I have yet to see any other example of a twin-linked weapon losing its twin-linked from another army. I agree that you would never take a battlecannon over an exterminator, which speaks volumes about how absolutely terrible battle cannons will be this edition.
God forbid Nids get a buff /s. Have you seen the other codices? Orks, Chaos, Marines, Tau; they're not all overpowered either. In fact, the one thing I've noticed is that everything is... tame. There's no clearcut absolute best option now, which is what we've been asking for since forever!
TauDar are still looking pretty ridiculous. The loss of formations does a lot to indirectly tone them down, but GW seems to have treated them with a really light touch and even buffed the Tau in several areas to compensate.
Chaos lost their infinite factory lists of course, which was much deserved.
But what's weird is why the Imperial Guard is getting nerfed so hard when they really didn't need it. The Imperial Guard didn't have anything broken or out of line except maybe Wyverns, and those were only causing problems by outclassing other artillery options within the codex. They weren't a big enough deal to make opponents rage.
So these nerfs are very unexpected and strike me as rather unnecessary. Especially since we seem to be the only faction to have a model get Squatted, unless Forge World rides to the rescue.
The only real silver lining seems to be that with Platoons getting scattered across every force org slot from HQ to Heavy Support, and with the CCS getting split into ten separate units, the Imperial Guard will typically have tons of command points because filling up a Brigade detachment or three will be trivial for them. We're definitely going to need all those extra HQ slots for all of the officers it'll take to wrangle 12+ non-blobbed squads.
So since we cant make platoons we can only issue orders to one squad per junior officer! That is BS! On top of that every squad will be taxed with a vox if you want a chance to give them an order more than 6" away.
Medic can now revive 1 model within 3" on a 4+. USLESS!
Why would I take a command squad now since a platoon leader cant attach to a squad?
ross-128 wrote: I just noticed something else... the Chimera doesn't have Command Tank anymore. So we can't even stuff our Officers into a Chimera to hide them from sniper fire.
Was this codex written by Matt Ward?
Hyperbolic nonsense. Matt Ward wrote terrible fluff, not rules... Well.. not compared to the rest. What you meant to say instead of Matt Ward was Phil Kelly. The evil Ward made the rules for chain of command, the order system and even fleet of foot for Eldar. Cruddace couldn't be creative if you pointed a gun to his head.
Furthermore, have you actually seen the Company Commander profile? 30 points for a dude that can dish out 2 orders that automatically succeeds. 3W and no instant death mechanics and literally cannot be targeted by anything but snipers, which aren't really that effective at dealing multiple wounds to begin with, especially not with a 5++. You can now take 2 of him for the exact same points of the former CCS, for twice the orders (which now auto passes, no less). Why would you then spend 75+ points on putting him inside a vehicle which makes the entire enemy force able to target him? He's been buffed mate.
Shadelkan wrote: ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
So they designed every single Russ tank around the nerfed battlecannon?
Well we can't have the exterminator be good... otherwise, why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the demolisher be good... otherwise why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the executioner be good...
rinse, repeat. Every single russ variant got nerfed, except the punisher I think? Eradicator is questionable, but nobody ran those anyway.
Here's an idea. DON'T HAVE THE BATTLECANNON BE GARBAGE
The special rule that basilisks get where you roll 2d6 and discard the lowest for the number of attacks? Why is that not the standard for all things that used to be large blasts? How does that even make sense on an earthshaker but not the battlecannon? How are indirect earthshakers more accurate than battlecannons? In what universe did guard deserve such heavy nerfs to so many units? Was guard top tier in 7th or something? Were they skewing the tourneys? Did I miss something?
ross-128 wrote: I just noticed something else... the Chimera doesn't have Command Tank anymore. So we can't even stuff our Officers into a Chimera to hide them from sniper fire.
Was this codex written by Matt Ward?
Hyperbolic nonsense. Matt Ward wrote terrible fluff, not rules... Well.. not compared to the rest. What you meant to say instead of Matt Ward was Phil Kelly. The evil Ward made the rules for chain of command, the order system and even fleet of foot for Eldar. Cruddace couldn't be creative if you pointed a gun to his head.
Furthermore, have you actually seen the Company Commander profile? 30 points for a dude that can dish out 2 orders that automatically succeeds. 3W and no instant death mechanics and literally cannot be targeted by anything but snipers, which aren't really that effective at dealing multiple wounds to begin with, especially not with a 5++. You can now take 2 of him for the exact same points of the former CCS, for twice the orders (which now auto passes, no less). Why would you then spend 75+ points on putting him inside a vehicle which makes the entire enemy force able to target him? He's been buffed mate.
If he was in the Chimera he'd have a boatload of ablative wounds, a slight range extension on his orders due to the Chimera's size, a 3+ save, and when the Chimera finally blows up the Commander would just hop out without a scratch on him. Wouldn't even have to spend extra points if you brought a Chimera for one of your infantry squads anyway, theirs would have two empty seats that he could use.
And considering mortal wounds ignore invuln saves, snipers are definitely a concern for something with only 3W. Have you not seen our own Ratlings?
Shadelkan wrote: ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
So they designed every single Russ tank around the nerfed battlecannon?
Well we can't have the exterminator be good... otherwise, why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the demolisher be good... otherwise why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the executioner be good...
rinse, repeat. Every single russ variant got nerfed, except the punisher I think? Eradicator is questionable, but nobody ran those anyway.
Here's an idea. DON'T HAVE THE BATTLECANNON BE GARBAGE
The special rule that basilisks get where you roll 2d6 and discard the lowest for the number of attacks? Why is that not the standard for all things that used to be large blasts? How does that even make sense on an earthshaker but not the battlecannon? How are indirect earthshakers more accurate than battlecannons? In what universe did guard deserve such heavy nerfs to so many units? Was guard top tier in 7th or something? Were they skewing the tourneys? Did I miss something?
Large amount of salt in this post..... but I can't help myself to agree wholeheartedly on all your points.
Shadelkan wrote: ALSO, the exterminator cannon being nerfed was necessary. Otherwise, why the feth would you ever tank a battlecannon over a Heavy 8 S7 AP -1 D2 weapon?
So they designed every single Russ tank around the nerfed battlecannon?
Well we can't have the exterminator be good... otherwise, why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the demolisher be good... otherwise why would anyone take the battlecannon?
Well we can't have the executioner be good...
rinse, repeat. Every single russ variant got nerfed, except the punisher I think? Eradicator is questionable, but nobody ran those anyway.
Here's an idea. DON'T HAVE THE BATTLECANNON BE GARBAGE
The special rule that basilisks get where you roll 2d6 and discard the lowest for the number of attacks? Why is that not the standard for all things that used to be large blasts? How does that even make sense on an earthshaker but not the battlecannon? How are indirect earthshakers more accurate than battlecannons? In what universe did guard deserve such heavy nerfs to so many units? Was guard top tier in 7th or something? Were they skewing the tourneys? Did I miss something?
Large amount of salt in this post..... but I can't help myself to agree wholeheartedly on all your points.
Yeah, I think that's the biggest thing that is causing the nerfs to be taken so poorly. It's not the nerfs per se, but the fact that they're so unnecessary. Guard hasn't been close to top-tier since 5th, but here comes GW swinging the nerf bat left and right.
So we're standing here in confusion going "They want to nerf me? Me, whom everyone loves?"
ross-128 wrote: I just noticed something else... the Chimera doesn't have Command Tank anymore. So we can't even stuff our Officers into a Chimera to hide them from sniper fire.
Was this codex written by Matt Ward?
Hyperbolic nonsense. Matt Ward wrote terrible fluff, not rules... Well.. not compared to the rest. What you meant to say instead of Matt Ward was Phil Kelly. The evil Ward made the rules for chain of command, the order system and even fleet of foot for Eldar. Cruddace couldn't be creative if you pointed a gun to his head.
Furthermore, have you actually seen the Company Commander profile? 30 points for a dude that can dish out 2 orders that automatically succeeds. 3W and no instant death mechanics and literally cannot be targeted by anything but snipers, which aren't really that effective at dealing multiple wounds to begin with, especially not with a 5++. You can now take 2 of him for the exact same points of the former CCS, for twice the orders (which now auto passes, no less). Why would you then spend 75+ points on putting him inside a vehicle which makes the entire enemy force able to target him? He's been buffed mate.
If he was in the Chimera he'd have a boatload of ablative wounds, a slight range extension on his orders due to the Chimera's size, a 3+ save, and when the Chimera finally blows up the Commander would just hop out without a scratch on him. Wouldn't even have to spend extra points if you brought a Chimera for one of your infantry squads anyway, theirs would have two empty seats that he could use.
And considering mortal wounds ignore invuln saves, snipers are definitely a concern for something with only 3W. Have you not seen our own Ratlings?
I have. Have you? Why don't you tell me how many shots it would take to even kill one character?
Also, consider how danger close you are to the units you are buffing via orders. Remember that the suffer mortal wounds if they get caught.
You make a good point about the passenger size on a chimera, which is why this a better buff. Consider the stander mech list. Bring a Vanguard detachment with your normal army and you can now give bring a order buffers for 20-30 points with every veteran squad. 20 points for a platoon commander will automatically give re-rolls of 1's to your plasma vets. Not bad.
ross-128 wrote: So we're standing here in confusion going "They want to nerf me? Me, whom everyone loves?"
You can't really call anything a buff/nerf without taking into account all of the other changes in the game. If a units goes up 5 pts but everything else in the game goes up 10, then what looks like a nerf is really a buff. People need to stop comparing 8th to 7th, and start comparing things internally within 8th. At least now the whole thing is leaked, we can start doing that.
ross-128 wrote: I just noticed something else... the Chimera doesn't have Command Tank anymore. So we can't even stuff our Officers into a Chimera to hide them from sniper fire.
Was this codex written by Matt Ward?
Hyperbolic nonsense. Matt Ward wrote terrible fluff, not rules... Well.. not compared to the rest. What you meant to say instead of Matt Ward was Phil Kelly. The evil Ward made the rules for chain of command, the order system and even fleet of foot for Eldar. Cruddace couldn't be creative if you pointed a gun to his head.
Furthermore, have you actually seen the Company Commander profile? 30 points for a dude that can dish out 2 orders that automatically succeeds. 3W and no instant death mechanics and literally cannot be targeted by anything but snipers, which aren't really that effective at dealing multiple wounds to begin with, especially not with a 5++. You can now take 2 of him for the exact same points of the former CCS, for twice the orders (which now auto passes, no less). Why would you then spend 75+ points on putting him inside a vehicle which makes the entire enemy force able to target him? He's been buffed mate.
If he was in the Chimera he'd have a boatload of ablative wounds, a slight range extension on his orders due to the Chimera's size, a 3+ save, and when the Chimera finally blows up the Commander would just hop out without a scratch on him. Wouldn't even have to spend extra points if you brought a Chimera for one of your infantry squads anyway, theirs would have two empty seats that he could use.
And considering mortal wounds ignore invuln saves, snipers are definitely a concern for something with only 3W. Have you not seen our own Ratlings?
I have. Have you? Why don't you tell me how many shots it would take to even kill one character?
Also, consider how danger close you are to the units you are buffing via orders. Remember that the suffer mortal wounds if they get caught.
You make a good point about the passenger size on a chimera, which is why this a better buff. Consider the stander mech list. Bring a Vanguard detachment with your normal army and you can now give bring a order buffers for 20-30 points with every veteran squad. 20 points for a platoon commander will automatically give re-rolls of 1's to your plasma vets. Not bad.
In an average round of shooting a squad of 10 Ratlings would inflict 2 unsaved standard wounds and 1 mortal wound against a T3 model with a 5++. Which would handily delete a 3 wound model every turn.
If there are snipers on the field, you better be blocking line of sight unless you want your officers dropping like flies.
ross-128 wrote: So we're standing here in confusion going "They want to nerf me? Me, whom everyone loves?"
You can't really call anything a buff/nerf without taking into account all of the other changes in the game. If a units goes up 5 pts but everything else in the game goes up 10, then what looks like a nerf is really a buff. People need to stop comparing 8th to 7th, and start comparing things internally within 8th. At least now the whole thing is leaked, we can start doing that.
+1
It's not a nerf, it's an overhaul. It's only a nerf in the context of 7th ed. We're past that now. At least try it out before you doom-say.
In an average round of shooting a squad of 10 Ratlings would inflict 2 unsaved standard wounds and 1 mortal wound against a T3 model with a 5++. Which would handily delete a 3 wound model every turn.
If there are snipers on the field, you better be blocking line of sight unless you want your officers dropping like flies.
I don't see the problem then. 10 Ratlings with snipers is 70 points and they can, on avergage, drop 1 dude that costs 30 points. Snipers are not really common enough to be killing 2-4 characters every single turn. Again, you now have 2 order givers for the same price as 1 of the former. With alternating deployment, I really don't see how it's hard to make sure he's out of LOF, either behind a fortification, vehicle, building or just about anything. 1 Squad, sure, but problematic to hide 1 single model? I would postulate then, that the problem is with your table.
In an average round of shooting a squad of 10 Ratlings would inflict 2 unsaved standard wounds and 1 mortal wound against a T3 model with a 5++. Which would handily delete a 3 wound model every turn.
If there are snipers on the field, you better be blocking line of sight unless you want your officers dropping like flies.
I don't see the problem then. 10 Ratlings with snipers is 70 points and they can, on avergage, drop 1 dude that costs 30 points. Snipers are not really common enough to be killing 2-4 characters every single turn. Again, you now have 2 order givers for the same price as 1 of the former. With alternating deployment, I really don't see how it's hard to make sure he's out of LOF, either behind a fortification, vehicle, building or just about anything. 1 Squad, sure, but problematic to hide 1 single model? I would postulate then, that the problem is with your table.
That's per turn, so over the course of the game they can kill 5 of them (even if in practical terms it's more likely to be 2 Company commanders and 3 Platoon commanders).
And keeping the commanders out of LoS sure would be easier if they had more than 6" of command range, and my infantry weren't split into dozens of different units that will all need vox-casters if I want to go that route. 3 wounds at T3 and 5+/5++ is quite fragile as characters go.
Now, sure, I'm likely to have more than one officer. Honestly between company commanders, platoon commanders, and Commissars, I'm probably going to have 10 or more officers in total. But the problem is that they're not there for redundancy, they're there because my blobs have been broken up into MSU and each officer only has enough range to oversee two or three squads at most.
I am a big critic of Ward but this is unfair. This is exactly the kind of thing that he would not do. Ward or Vetok would underprice models or put mary sue-ish rules, but they are quite thorough. Overlooking stuff is more Kelly or Cruddace.
I'm not seeing anything saying that officers can't issue Orders while embarked upon a Chimera...that was kind of a holdover from the core rules for 40k not a book specific thing.
In any regards:
Why the feth can't I give my Sergeants lasguns or hellguns?
Tau can take the same weapon as the rest of their squad, Marines of Loyalist and Traitor can take boltguns(or combi-bolters), Skitarii can take Galvanic Rifles or Radium Carbines, Eldar retain their basic weapons, etc.
So why the hell can my Guard Sergeants not take Lasguns or Hellguns?!
I am a big critic of Ward but this is unfair. This is exactly the kind of thing that he would not do.
Ward or Vetok would underprice models or put mary sue-ish rules, but they are quite thorough.
Overlooking stuff is more Kelly or Cruddace.
It's not "overlooking stuff" with Kelly or Cruddace. It's choosing not to do it because they don't think it "fits" the army.
See Cruddace's asinine logic from back in the day as to why Sergeants can't take lasguns("They'd want the pistol and CCW to show they're in charge!").
That is one thing that has always been a headscratcher. For some weird reason sergeants can take boltguns, but not lasguns. Nobody knows why, but it's been like that at least as far back as 5th edition.
One small thing that is nice: mortars didn't get a price increase on the weapon, so mortar HWTs only cost 9 points per model now. And they did end up being d6, so a handful of mortar teams are a rather cheap way to make it rain.
Edit: Regarding the Chimera, one of the universal rules for transports in 8th (and in previous editions as well) is "Unless otherwise noted, a model cannot do anything or be affected by anything while embarked in a transport."
Examples of "otherwise noted" would be fire ports, or the Chimera's former Command Tank rule. That rule is also why we've never been able to issue orders *to* a unit embarked in any transport.
Less and less enthused about 8E the more I see here. Terrible Russ tanks and main guns, critical unit or weapon overhauls did not occur for units like Ogryns and Hellguns/Hotshots, weird vehicle stat values and edition translations (T6 IG tanks...really? Armored Sentinels just get a 3+ over a 4+ and thats it?) Weird FoC allocations, etc.
Hopefully these end up working out, but a lot of this increasingly looks like typical GW "two steps forward, three back, two diagonal and one step to the side" of edition change shennanigans.
The Wyvern profile amused me, gets 4D6 shots...but a Battlecannon only gets D6 for what was a Large Blast weapon.
Some positive things to note:
Mortars still being 5 points is quite good, especially with them being changed to d6 blasts. Mortar spam is going to be great.
Grenade launchers are also still only 5 points, so they didn't get the points hike that missile launchers did. Once again being d6 is a step up for them, and their s6 krak is a lot more threatening than it used to be.
The missile launcher point hike was only 5 points from 15 to 20. With the change to frag missiles and s8 krak having a much wider threat range than before, overall I'd say missile launchers came out ahead. Also they pair great with grenade launchers.
Heavy Bolters have gotten slightly cheaper, really breaking the trend for heavy weapons (from 10 points to 8). HBHWTs will only be 12 points per model now, a great way to get some dakka.
On the tank side, that change to heavy bolters means that a dakka Russ (Punisher with all the HBs and a Stubber) is looking good. The loss of rear armor also means the Punisher's 24" range is not as much of a liability.
The Officer of the Fleet can cause mortal wounds on a 4+. He's pretty much going to replace the Master of Ordinance as "boottillery", while the Master of Ordinance seems to have turned into more of a back-line buff unit.
Just noticed that the original demolisher cannon leak (which was meh to start with) showed better stats than it actually got. You need 10 models in the target unit to go from D3 to D6 instead of 5
I know a lot of this stuff dosen't exactly look good, but I think we need to keep in mind the absolutely staggering amount of Command Points we can get from the detachments. Immediately when I saw the Regiment detachment i thought that guard was probably one of the few armies that would be able to field it in a normal game.
We're definitely going to be better at filling out detachments than any other faction. Like I mentioned in the tactics thread, we're probably going to have to turn our approach to FoC slots upside-down: units don't *compete* for slots anymore, they *pad* slots so we can take more detachments!
A determined Guard player can probably run two Brigade detachments in an 1850 point game for a staggering 18 command points.
A not-so-determined Guard player who isn't fond of his fast-attack options could easily run 4 or 5 Battalion detachments for 12-15 command points, and more FoC slots than he can shake a power-fist at.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that they didn't come up with some kind of "Fast Vehicle" or "Hit and Run" keyword to let fast vehicles be, well, fast. Also kind of disappointed that the LRBT's exemption only applies to its main gun.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm not seeing anything saying that officers can't issue Orders while embarked upon a Chimera...that was kind of a holdover from the core rules for 40k not a book specific thing.
IIRC it's in the transport rule, something in the line of "embarked cannot do anything inside a transport unless specifically stated otherwise" or something like that. Neither the chimera nor the voice of command rule have anything to circumvent that.
Chris521 wrote: Just noticed that the original demolisher cannon leak (which was meh to start with) showed better stats than it actually got. You need 10 models in the target unit to go from D3 to D6 instead of 5
It's 5 in the unit entry. Oh, it's 10 in the back. So which is it? I would say that the datasheet takes precedence, as all the rules are supposed to be there. The summary is just supposed to be quick reference.
Not to be condescending, but I can't believe some of you guys, you really need to calm down, take a deep breath and consider these unit / weapon changes in light of not only the entire army list but the 8th edition rules as a whole. I am not seeing nerfs here at all, but many changes and many improvements. There are also a wealth of tactical options we never had before as well as a ton of interesting potential synergies.
One example among many, but consider if you will how easy it is going to be for the Guard to field a full Brigade detachment for 9 command points. We will be able to do this for a relatively tiny amount of points if you want to skimp on it. Now consider Creed for another 2 Command points. You are sitting at 11 command points already. Now consider you can turn those into, among other things, 11 re-rolls of anything you want. Now consider you are already re-rolling all your 1s to hit, or wound, due to orders. Want that Pask vanquisher to really drop a ton of bricks on something? You basically auto hit and re-roll your ones. Now you use your command points to reroll you lascannon / vanq cannon damage to put a pretty reliable 10-12 AP - 3 Damage on something and follow up with your overcharged plasma sponsons for even more pain with no risk of an overheat. Maybe you would prefer the 7th edition incarnation where you would be lucky to put 1 wound on anything.
Seriously, calm down, think about the overall context of these changes, and then judge them.
Chris521 wrote: Just noticed that the original demolisher cannon leak (which was meh to start with) showed better stats than it actually got. You need 10 models in the target unit to go from D3 to D6 instead of 5
It's 5 in the unit entry. Oh, it's 10 in the back. So which is it? I would say that the datasheet takes precedence, as all the rules are supposed to be there. The summary is just supposed to be quick reference.
5 for the Baneblade entry, and in Imperium 1 it's 5 for the Vindicator and 5 in the Space Marine Wargear list.
The 10 is almost certainly a typo. (Or rather than a typo, a rule change that didn't get fully propagated before print.)
ross-128 wrote: Yeah, it's unfortunate that they didn't come up with some kind of "Fast Vehicle" or "Hit and Run" keyword to let fast vehicles be, well, fast. Also kind of disappointed that the LRBT's exemption only applies to its main gun.
That 10" movement value is pretty sweet though...
That's kind of what I see here.
I'm looking at the LRBT and I'm seeing it moving up 1 turn to get into position then sitting and shooting for the rest of the game.
Also, tank commanders are pretty darn good. 35 points to increase the damage output by 33%. and then increase the damage output of another russ by 8.33% -- though by far the best thing they do is let the plasma cannons supercharge with much less risk. 1/36 chance of explosion instead of 1/6.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Not to be condescending, but I can't believe some of you guys, you really need to calm down, take a deep breath and consider these unit / weapon changes in light of not only the entire army list but the 8th edition rules as a whole. I am not seeing nerfs here at all, but many changes and many improvements. There are also a wealth of tactical options we never had before as well as a ton of interesting potential synergies.
One example among many, but consider if you will how easy it is going to be for the Guard to field a full Brigade detachment for 9 command points. We will be able to do this for a relatively tiny amount of points if you want to skimp on it. Now consider Creed for another 2 Command points. You are sitting at 11 command points already. Now consider you can turn those into, among other things, 11 re-rolls of anything you want. Now consider you are already re-rolling all your 1s to hit, or wound, due to orders. Want that Pask vanquisher to really drop a ton of bricks on something? You basically auto hit and re-roll your ones. Now you use your command points to reroll you lascannon / vanq cannon damage to put a pretty reliable 10-12 AP - 3 Damage on something and follow up with your overcharged plasma sponsons for even more pain with no risk of an overheat. Maybe you would prefer the 7th edition incarnation where you would be lucky to put 1 wound on anything.
you're assuming some rather specific builds and that everything is in range for things like orders all the time here. Yeah, some armies built certain ways around specific mechanics will probably do just fine. Many others however will not however, and there's a lot that command points and orders arent going to fix because the problems arent stuff they address, and many longstanding internal balance issues remain apparently untouched, while other items appear to have simply been lazily translated (e.g. armored sentinels just being 3+ over 4+sv normal sentinels coming from Closed Topped AV12 vs Open top AV10).
This also isnt the first edition changeover for many people either
The biggest hurt by far in my opinion is the loss of blob squads. We're going to have to buy a lot more officers and commissars, because what was once 1 unit is now 5. Even with commissars being changed into a bubble, it's hard to get 5 squads in range of a 6" bubble without some serious conga-lines.
Fortunately, 4-point infantry will free up a few points for all those extra officers.
Also, reading the Valkyrie's rules again, grav-chute insertion is no ordinary deep strike. It happens during the Valkyrie's move instead of "at the end of your movement phase". So your movement phase is still going. The transport rule says units can move and shoot normally after getting out of a transport, and there's nothing in grav-chute insertion to contradict that.
So grav-chute insertion does, indirectly, ignore the 9" rule for deep strikes. Sure, you drop 9" away. Then you can move 6" before you attack. Flamethrower Valkyrie drops actually do work.
Vaktathi wrote: you're assuming some rather specific builds and that everything is in range for things like orders all the time here. Yeah, some armies built certain ways around specific mechanics will probably do just fine. Many others however will not however, and there's a lot that command points and orders arent going to fix because the problems arent stuff they address, and many longstanding internal balance issues remain apparently untouched, while other items appear to have simply been lazily translated (e.g. armored sentinels just being 3+ over 4+sv normal sentinels coming from Closed Topped AV12 vs Open top AV10).
This also isnt the first edition changeover for many people either
It isn't my first edition changeover, as I remember enjoying my regimental doctrines back in the day, but that doesn't really affect anything either way. I gave you one example of a powerful build that is extremely easy to use and play. The Pask example is basically foolproof and involves nothing more than Pask himself if you want to get right down to it. What "long standing internal balance issues" remain untouched after every single unit has been altered in some way? Why is giving an Armored Sentinel a 3+ save to represent it's improved armor "lazy"?
Edit: I don't want to get into an argument over something that boils down to our own perception of these changes, but I would encourage you to have a bit more of an open mind when considering these changes. I think you might be pleasantly surprised with how your army is going to play now.
We also lost munistorium priests
All baneblade variants are more expensive than Magnus
Ogryns & Bullgryns coming in at 30 & 35 ppm We only have 7 characters. 1 of which is dead, the other is in a pokeball
Wonderful...
Ministorium Priests are still around. They affect all units with the Ministorium and Astra Militarum keywords. They don't have an Order or a Regiment.
It's nice that we can take lone infantry squads to get the Brigade Detachment bonuses, considering it requires 6 troops. That would have cost a fortune under the old format.
ross-128 wrote: The biggest hurt by far in my opinion is the loss of blob squads. We're going to have to buy a lot more officers and commissars, because what was once 1 unit is now 5. Even with commissars being changed into a bubble, it's hard to get 5 squads in range of a 6" bubble without some serious conga-lines.
Fortunately, 4-point infantry will free up a few points for all those extra officers.
Also, reading the Valkyrie's rules again, grav-chute insertion is no ordinary deep strike. It happens during the Valkyrie's move instead of "at the end of your movement phase". So your movement phase is still going. The transport rule says units can move and shoot normally after getting out of a transport, and there's nothing in grav-chute insertion to contradict that.
So grav-chute insertion does, indirectly, ignore the 9" rule for deep strikes. Sure, you drop 9" away. Then you can move 6" before you attack. Flamethrower Valkyrie drops actually do work.
A buddy of mine was upset that the DS rules put his Scions less than an inch outside of rapid fire range. Looks like Valks are going to be useful here.
rabidguineapig wrote: It's nice that we can take lone infantry squads to get the Brigade Detachment bonuses, considering it requires 6 troops. That would have cost a fortune under the old format.
Exactly. Those saying "but you could just take a cheap platoon and split the squads" seem to think that 130pts x 6 to field a Brigade would somehow be reasonable. Of course when you try and force 8th edition units into your 7th edition paradigm you end up with all sorts of questionable reasoning.
rabidguineapig wrote: It's nice that we can take lone infantry squads to get the Brigade Detachment bonuses, considering it requires 6 troops. That would have cost a fortune under the old format.
Exactly. Those saying "but you could just take a cheap platoon and split the squads" seem to think that 130pts x 6 to field a Brigade would somehow be reasonable. Of course when you try and force 8th edition units into your 7th edition paradigm you end up with all sorts of questionable reasoning.
I still wouldn't mind something like a general "up to 5 Infantry Squads can choose to deploy together as one Combined Squad". Then I could use a 50-man blob to occupy 5 Troops slots.
rabidguineapig wrote: It's nice that we can take lone infantry squads to get the Brigade Detachment bonuses, considering it requires 6 troops. That would have cost a fortune under the old format.
Exactly. Those saying "but you could just take a cheap platoon and split the squads" seem to think that 130pts x 6 to field a Brigade would somehow be reasonable. Of course when you try and force 8th edition units into your 7th edition paradigm you end up with all sorts of questionable reasoning.
I still wouldn't mind something like a general "up to 5 Infantry Squads can choose to deploy together as one Combined Squad". Then I could use a 50-man blob to occupy 5 Troops slots.
I agree it certainly wouldn't have harmed anything to leave the option open for those who really wanted it. However it is possible that this could be a regiment specific option in the Codex when that comes along. Some kind of Chenkovish/Valhallan doctrine or soemthing.
Vaktathi wrote: you're assuming some rather specific builds and that everything is in range for things like orders all the time here. Yeah, some armies built certain ways around specific mechanics will probably do just fine. Many others however will not however, and there's a lot that command points and orders arent going to fix because the problems arent stuff they address, and many longstanding internal balance issues remain apparently untouched, while other items appear to have simply been lazily translated (e.g. armored sentinels just being 3+ over 4+sv normal sentinels coming from Closed Topped AV12 vs Open top AV10).
This also isnt the first edition changeover for many people either
It isn't my first edition changeover, as I remember enjoying my regimental doctrines back in the day, but that doesn't really affect anything either way. I gave you one example of a powerful build that is extremely easy to use and play. The Pask example is basically foolproof and involves nothing more than Pask himself if you want to get right down to it.
which is fine if you want to run Pask, and I don't doubt it may prove quite effective, but running a Pask centered list isnt everyone's thing, and relies on lots of mechanics coming together around one relatively easily focus fired big target too.
What "long standing internal balance issues" remain untouched after every single unit has been altered in some way?
Scion/Stormtrooper weapons being unreasonably short ranged to be anything but a suicide unit (and now competing with Veterans for the same slots), Vanquisher cannons still being notably ineffective for a single shot BS3 main turret weapon on an expensive tank (particularly next to something like the Predator Annihilator that niw gets two S9 Damage D6 shots at BS4 vs 1 BS3 S8 shot with 2d6 drop lowest Damage), the Deathstrike still being a highly variable and easily neutered crapshoot, etc.
Why is giving an Armored Sentinel a 3+ save to represent it's improved armor "lazy"?
Because it's not a meaningful change for the unit. A slightly better save does not represent the difference in resiliency and role the armored sentinel had relative to the scout sentinel, AV12 closed topped vs AV10 open topped w/Outflank was a lot more meaningful than just a 3+ vs a 4+ save, one could tarpit and face heavy weapons fire while the other could not, but could at least enter from an advantageous and unexpected position, and those distinctions are diminished to the point of largely being irrelevant now.
Edit: I don't want to get into an argument over something that boils down to our own perception of these changes, but I would encourage you to have a bit more of an open mind when considering these changes. I think you might be pleasantly surprised with how your army is going to play now.
I'm trying doing exactly that, I'm just not terribly impressed with what we've seen of the IG army list thus far. I'm absolutely willing to admit I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but there looks to be a good deal of awkwardness with a lot of these units.
ross-128 wrote: The biggest hurt by far in my opinion is the loss of blob squads. We're going to have to buy a lot more officers and commissars, because what was once 1 unit is now 5. Even with commissars being changed into a bubble, it's hard to get 5 squads in range of a 6" bubble without some serious conga-lines.
With the new rules on blast templates, you don't need to make conga lines.
Here are 3 squads that can easily be placed within 6" of a commissar. You can fit one more behind the commissar. I would put a heavy weapons team behind the commissar as you might lose range quickly otherwise.
ross-128 wrote: The biggest hurt by far in my opinion is the loss of blob squads. We're going to have to buy a lot more officers and commissars, because what was once 1 unit is now 5. Even with commissars being changed into a bubble, it's hard to get 5 squads in range of a 6" bubble without some serious conga-lines.
With the new rules on blast templates, you don't need to make conga lines.
Here are 3 squads that can easily be placed within 6" of a commissar. You can fit one more behind the commissar. I would put a heavy weapons team behind the commissar as you might lose range quickly otherwise.
Vaktathi wrote: you're assuming some rather specific builds and that everything is in range for things like orders all the time here. Yeah, some armies built certain ways around specific mechanics will probably do just fine. Many others however will not however, and there's a lot that command points and orders arent going to fix because the problems arent stuff they address, and many longstanding internal balance issues remain apparently untouched, while other items appear to have simply been lazily translated (e.g. armored sentinels just being 3+ over 4+sv normal sentinels coming from Closed Topped AV12 vs Open top AV10).
This also isnt the first edition changeover for many people either
It isn't my first edition changeover, as I remember enjoying my regimental doctrines back in the day, but that doesn't really affect anything either way. I gave you one example of a powerful build that is extremely easy to use and play. The Pask example is basically foolproof and involves nothing more than Pask himself if you want to get right down to it.
which is fine if you want to run Pask, and I don't doubt it may prove quite effective, but running a Pask centered list isnt everyone's thing, and relies on lots of mechanics coming together around one relatively easily focus fired big target too.
What "long standing internal balance issues" remain untouched after every single unit has been altered in some way?
Scion/Stormtrooper weapons being unreasonably short ranged to be anything but a suicide unit (and now competing with Veterans for the same slots), Vanquisher cannons still being notably ineffective for a single shot BS3 main turret weapon on an expensive tank (particularly next to something like the Predator Annihilator that niw gets two S9 Damage D6 shots at BS4 vs 1 BS3 S8 shot with 2d6 drop lowest Damage), the Deathstrike still being a highly variable and easily neutered crapshoot, etc.
Why is giving an Armored Sentinel a 3+ save to represent it's improved armor "lazy"?
Because it's not a meaningful change for the unit. A slightly better save does not represent the difference in resiliency and role the armored sentinel had relative to the scout sentinel, AV12 closed topped vs AV10 open topped w/Outflank was a lot more meaningful than just a 3+ vs a 4+ save, one could tarpit and face heavy weapons fire while the other could not, but could at least enter from an advantageous and unexpected position, and those distinctions are diminished to the point of largely being irrelevant now.
Edit: I don't want to get into an argument over something that boils down to our own perception of these changes, but I would encourage you to have a bit more of an open mind when considering these changes. I think you might be pleasantly surprised with how your army is going to play now.
I'm trying doing exactly that, I'm just not terribly impressed with what we've seen of the IG army list thus far. I'm absolutely willing to admit I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but there looks to be a good deal of awkwardness with a lot of these units.
Like I said we definitely have a different perception of these changes. If you don't think for example that an improved 3+armor save and the loss of what is effectively a scout move sufficiently differentiates an Armored Sent from a Scout Sent, well I can't argue with that. I personally think that in a simplified 8th edition world that such differences are sufficient. Scions are now a troop choice, which means they don't compete with veteran elites, and the ability to deep strike reliably within 9 inches and have access to 2 guaranteed orders from the Tempestor Prime with Rod seems pretty good to me, especially since those -2AP Hellguns will be re rolling 1s to wound with Bring it Down. Likely still a suicide unit, but certainly much better at their job than in 7th. In fact 5 man squads with 2 volleyguns each as a Troop choice sounds pretty interesting. I don't disagree that the Vanquisher Cannon is still lackluster at BS3+. I think it still has a place on Tank Commanders, which is fluff appropriate at least. I think the only builds which were totally destroyed were ones centered around 50 man blobs. I don't think that is a bad thing myself, but I do understand how those who ran such armies would feel about that.
So am I missing something or do all of these vehicles move and hit on a 5+, with the exception of the turret on a leman russ? This is going to be a miserable edition if that's the case.
What "long standing internal balance issues" remain untouched after every single unit has been altered in some way?
Scion/Stormtrooper weapons being unreasonably short ranged to be anything but a suicide unit (and now competing with Veterans for the same slots), Vanquisher cannons still being notably ineffective for a single shot BS3 main turret weapon on an expensive tank (particularly next to something like the Predator Annihilator that niw gets two S9 Damage D6 shots at BS4 vs 1 BS3 S8 shot with 2d6 drop lowest Damage), the Deathstrike still being a highly variable and easily neutered crapshoot, etc.
jaxor1983 wrote: So am I missing something or do all of these vehicles move and hit on a 5+, with the exception of the turret on a leman russ? This is going to be a miserable edition if that's the case.
Yeah, pretty much. I think that is one reason that flamers got a bump in points, they are going to be much more useful now. Actually, with the changes to how vehicles and gun arcs work, an eight flamer baneblade could be quite interesting...
9 track attacks on the charge, ap-2 with d3 damage. It's 5+ to hit I suppose, but still not bad.
jaxor1983 wrote: So am I missing something or do all of these vehicles move and hit on a 5+, with the exception of the turret on a leman russ? This is going to be a miserable edition if that's the case.
Yeah, pretty much. I think that is one reason that flamers got a bump in points, they are going to be much more useful now. Actually, with the changes to how vehicles and gun arcs work, an eight flamer baneblade could be quite interesting...
9 track attacks on the charge, ap-2 with d3 damage. It's 5+ to hit I suppose, but still not bad.
Hellhounds with heavy flamers sound pretty nice as well.
I'm tempted to say banewolves are better, due to the better synergy of ranges. If you have no targets you can advance and pop smoke, which keeps you alive longer.
One thing is fore sure, stormbolters beat stubbers if you plan to move around at all.
You can drop your Stormtroopers 9" away from an enemy unit. You drop, say, 2 units of 10 and a scion commander (with his boss stick) there. He gives them both first rank, second rank.
Being 9" away means they're at half range, so they'd get 4 shots each with hotshot lasguns.
How effective would this be? I'm not good at math but that sounds pretty devastating
You can drop your Stormtroopers 9" away from an enemy unit. You drop, say, 2 units of 10 and a scion commander (with his boss stick) there. He gives them both first rank, second rank.
Being 9" away means they're at half range, so they'd get 4 shots each with hotshot lasguns.
How effective would this be? I'm not good at math but that sounds pretty devastating
They are not in half range, because you have to be over 9", as in 9.000000001". Also, you need a 9 on 2d6 to charge.
You can drop your Stormtroopers 9" away from an enemy unit. You drop, say, 2 units of 10 and a scion commander (with his boss stick) there. He gives them both first rank, second rank.
Being 9" away means they're at half range, so they'd get 4 shots each with hotshot lasguns.
How effective would this be? I'm not good at math but that sounds pretty devastating
Unfortunately, due to how the Deep Strike rule is worded they'd be just *outside* 9", so they wouldn't be able to double-tap if you use their built-in deep strike.
However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
ross-128 wrote: However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
I probably wouldn't end up using Scions in Valkyries. Sure, they are really effective, but you are paying for the deep strike rule and not using it. I would rather have vets in a valk.
Ah I missed that ST's are Troops now instead of Elites, good catch. Odd that they're Troops instead of Elites while Veterans got bumped, but I guess thats how theyre gonna fold the MT book in, which is fine.
You can drop your Stormtroopers 9" away from an enemy unit. You drop, say, 2 units of 10 and a scion commander (with his boss stick) there. He gives them both first rank, second rank.
Being 9" away means they're at half range, so they'd get 4 shots each with hotshot lasguns.
How effective would this be? I'm not good at math but that sounds pretty devastating
Unfortunately, due to how the Deep Strike rule is worded they'd be just *outside* 9", so they wouldn't be able to double-tap if you use their built-in deep strike.
However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
Ah that's true. Still, that's 24 hot-shot attacks if you jump a squad from a Valkyrie, and 16 volley-gun shots (or 4 other special weapon's worth of attacks), and whatever the Valkyrie shoots. Still seems pretty devastating
ross-128 wrote: However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
I probably wouldn't end up using Scions in Valkyries. Sure, they are really effective, but you are paying for the deep strike rule and not using it. I would rather have vets in a valk.
Yeah, the best use of the Valk most of the time (other than just being a sky-tank) is going to be giving a sort-of deep strike to units that don't have it. So either veterans, or suicidal special weapons teams with flamethrowers.
jaxor1983 wrote: So am I missing something or do all of these vehicles move and hit on a 5+, with the exception of the turret on a leman russ? This is going to be a miserable edition if that's the case.
Yeah, pretty much. I think that is one reason that flamers got a bump in points, they are going to be much more useful now. Actually, with the changes to how vehicles and gun arcs work, an eight flamer baneblade could be quite interesting...
9 track attacks on the charge, ap-2 with d3 damage. It's 5+ to hit I suppose, but still not bad.
ross-128 wrote: However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
I probably wouldn't end up using Scions in Valkyries. Sure, they are really effective, but you are paying for the deep strike rule and not using it. I would rather have vets in a valk.
Yeah, the best use of the Valk most of the time (other than just being a sky-tank) is going to be giving a sort-of deep strike to units that don't have it. So either veterans, or suicidal special weapons teams with flamethrowers.
Still, the Valk is better in this edition, am I wrong? And no-scatter DS in general with a double-order HQ can give space to a decent insertion strategy. Assuming good planning (equip included) and good placement.
One problem with all of the brigade talk, the side with the most units will probably be going second. It is alternating deployment, with whoever finishes first getting to chose when to go. Just something to keep in mind.
jaxor1983 wrote: So am I missing something or do all of these vehicles move and hit on a 5+, with the exception of the turret on a leman russ? This is going to be a miserable edition if that's the case.
Yeah, pretty much. I think that is one reason that flamers got a bump in points, they are going to be much more useful now. Actually, with the changes to how vehicles and gun arcs work, an eight flamer baneblade could be quite interesting...
9 track attacks on the charge, ap-2 with d3 damage. It's 5+ to hit I suppose, but still not bad.
ross-128 wrote: However, if you drop them out of a couple Valkyries instead, you could move after dropping in order to get inside of 9". Though if you want to use just one Valkyrie, you'd be limited to one squad plus the commander.
I probably wouldn't end up using Scions in Valkyries. Sure, they are really effective, but you are paying for the deep strike rule and not using it. I would rather have vets in a valk.
Yeah, the best use of the Valk most of the time (other than just being a sky-tank) is going to be giving a sort-of deep strike to units that don't have it. So either veterans, or suicidal special weapons teams with flamethrowers.
Still, the Valk is better in this edition, am I wrong? And no-scatter DS in general with a double-order HQ can give space to a decent insertion strategy.
Assuming good planning (equip included) and good placement.
The Valk is definitely better this edition, those 14 wounds will easily make up for Hard to Hit going from 6+ flat to -1 modifier. Also, its anti-tank missiles are no longer one-shot, so you can keep using them all game. Though I might go with frag missile pods just because they're cheaper. Due to the change to the wound chart though, the multi-laser can pair equally well with either one.
And despite its high price, the Valkyrie is arguably the best transport in the game right now because grav-chute insertion is just that awesome. As an amazing transport and fairly decent sky-tank, it's definitely worth the points.
Edit:
As far as going second goes, that's probably going to just be the case for Imperial Guard lists in general outside of parking lots. Unless we end up getting blob squads back when the codex drops. A standard or infantry-heavy list is just going to be so littered with single-model character units, they're always going to need more turns to deploy.
So it's less a thing to consider when list building, and more a fact of life that you're going to have to plan for on the table. If you're playing Imperial Guard, you're getting second turn more often than not.
I was pretty annoyed about my russ changes and my jetbikes till I really pondered what I'm unhappy about. If the russ could move fire everything, hit on a 3+ and had little downside the switch to wounds from hullpoints would be really OP. Some weapons got worse some got better imo the ( demolisher is pretty sweet )
tanks are very good in this edition especially if I have 12 or 15 of them. Also everyone complaining about lack of fast attack the hellhound is absurd for 75pts
I think, that even with our tank guns being crap, I'm going to stick with armoured battlegroup, because they're also hard to kill, and can still manage to take and hold positions
Rolling around with a parking lot full of tanks looks like it will be nearly impossible to dislodge, especially considering the price of the tanks versus the price of antitank units.
gainsay wrote: tanks are very good in this edition especially if I have 12 or 15 of them. Also everyone complaining about lack of fast attack the hellhound is absurd for 75pts
That's before you put weapons on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I think, that even with our tank guns being crap, I'm going to stick with armoured battlegroup, because they're also hard to kill, and can still manage to take and hold positions.
The rules for objectives read "If you have more models than your opponent". Tanks will have a hard time holding objectives.
gainsay wrote: tanks are very good in this edition especially if I have 12 or 15 of them. Also everyone complaining about lack of fast attack the hellhound is absurd for 75pts
That's before you put weapons on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I think, that even with our tank guns being crap, I'm going to stick with armoured battlegroup, because they're also hard to kill, and can still manage to take and hold positions.
The rules for objectives read "If you have more models than your opponent". Tanks will have a hard time holding objectives.
Capture radius is 3" right? If I sit my tank directly on top of the point, the enemy basically can't get to it. The Leman Russ Tank is about 3" wide and 5" long. A pair of tanks parked side-by-side locks an objective sitting in the open down completely, and if the objective is against a wall or something as most are on my battlefields, then the tank basically just has to sit there and not die. If I bring a bunch of tanks, the enemy will be hard pressed to dislodge me from the objectives, since CQC isn't a death sentence for the tank either.
Capture radius is 3" right? If I sit my tank directly on top of the point, the enemy basically can't get to it. The Leman Russ Tank is about 3" wide and 5" long. A pair of tanks parked side-by-side locks an objective sitting in the open down completely, and if the objective is against a wall or something as most are on my battlefields, then the tank basically just has to sit there and not die. If I bring a bunch of tanks, the enemy will be hard pressed to dislodge me from the objectives, since CQC isn't a death sentence for the tank either.
You can assault the tank and wrap withing range of the objective. A super-heavy or Land Raider can pull this off, but a LRBT is just not big enough.
Don't get me wrong. In the list I'm going to playtest a few times, I am bringing lots of tanks. I just realize their limitations.
Formerly Wu wrote: Has anyone seen the Master of the Fleet yet? Do we know what role he has?
He helps coordinate fire for friendly aeronautica units giving them a bonus to hit and once a game can call in an airstrike on a +4 that can deal mortal wounds.
So his role has changed a bit to where he actually works with the air support in your army instead of just manipulating reserve rolls. For 25pts he's not bad if you're bringing a bunch of air units.
Formerly Wu wrote: Has anyone seen the Master of the Fleet yet? Do we know what role he has?
Officer of the fleet, 3 wounds.
Gets a one use "on a 4+ unit takes d3 mortal wounds, on 6 takes 3" strafing run ability.
Also gets "choose ground unit. aeronautica units reroll 1s to hit against it that turn" can use every turn ability.
25 pts.
I mean, he is cheap and pretty nice if you bring Valks (which are Aeronautica Imperialis faction). Not really a knock out though.
Well, having seen all the rules, I can now officially state that for every thing in the IG list I like, there's about 3 things I dislike.
We're still missing a bunch of characters from 5th, but I'm hoping the later codex release will be more fleshed out. The Russes are seem decidedly meh at first glance, but I'll have to do a thorough go over and compare to all other MBT/Heavy Support style tanks and see where they stand. That being said, the Exterminator Autocannon is pretty pathetic, and the Executioner seems pretty masochistic. My Russes will likely end up as whatever variant FW decides to make reasonable, like the Annihilator or a proper Vanq with the BH shells. Arty looks...okay I guess. MoO at least has a role now as a support model than as a pocket sized Basilisk.
I don't want to be sour, but feth, Vets didn't deserve that nerf. I know I can run the Elites heavy detachment, but having them as troops would be infinitely more flexible for list building. Losing carapace is frankly just idiotic. Plus, being 20pts more for a squad for a point of BS and the option for more specials (at the loss of being troops) is another kick.
Hydras didn't quite their old tracking rule back, but at least now they aren't totally gimped if your opponent didn't bring any Fly units. Sentinels and Rough Riders got better, so there's that I suppose.
All in all, the Guard still feel fairly flavourless lacking any true regimental differentiation and with several older options/abilities still missing. I'll be anxiously looking forward to what FW rolls out for their pet regiments and other lists.
Until then, it looks like I'll be assembling my arty battery and building lots of troops. I suppose Chimeras are relatively stronger than other faction transports, so maybe I'll do a mech platoon. Would still rather a mechanized grenadier force, but them's the breaks.
Looking forward to the analysis of several posters on this forum though, the IG players here generally have a good head.
Formerly Wu wrote: Thanks, but I actually meant battlefield role. Elite or HQ?
Sound like he got some nice support buffs.
Elite.
Has anyone thought of a use for command squads? They just seem really bad. No ablative wounds and most of the special equipment is pointless. Maybe as transported suicide units? I would just rather have more characters and squads to be honest.
I'm also going to add that I absolutely loathe the vast amount of D3/D6 weapons. Just fething commit to a value. Save me the roll, let me have one shred of control and predictability.
I've been fairly positive about this edition, and there's still quite a few things I like, but man, its like they go out of their way sometimes to adhere to the "one step forwards, two steps back" policy they've rocked for a long time.
Blacksails wrote: I'm also going to add that I absolutely loathe the vast amount of D3/D6 weapons. Just fething commit to a value. Save me the roll, let me have one shred of control and predictability.
I've been fairly positive about this edition, and there's still quite a few things I like, but man, its like they go out of their way sometimes to adhere to the "one step forwards, two steps back" policy they've rocked for a long time.
I agree. Random number of shots can be extremely annoying.
My Aeronautica Imperialis army has been invalidated!
I figured, but thought I'd check. The 2-HQ requirement for a Battalion is kind of grating to my OCD sense of organization.
Has anyone thought of a use for command squads? They just seem really bad. No ablative wounds and most of the special equipment is pointless. Maybe as transported suicide units? I would just rather have more characters and squads to be honest.
They're the same cost and slot as a SWS, but can carry an extra special or some minor support buffs instead of a demo charge. More bodies on the field to block off your characters, I suppose.
All in all, the Guard still feel fairly flavourless lacking any true regimental differentiation and with several older options/abilities still missing. I'll be anxiously looking forward to what FW rolls out for their pet regiments and other lists.
That's been a common complaint with the Index armies, and one which I expect to be fixed with the codex release.
Huh, now that you mention it, you could just load some command squads up with four special weapons and Valkyrie drop three of them...
It would be quite an expensive suicide unit at 6 per plus weapons, but it would also be hitting with something like twelve melta/plasma guns at BS3+. If only there was also an equivalent for the PCS that was just four Guardsmen at 4/model and BS4+, it'd be 44 points for four flamers (with the CCS it's 52). I guess them being vets only adds 8 points to it though, so they'd be 4 points cheaper than a SWT before you add the fourth weapon.
ross-128 wrote: Huh, now that you mention it, you could just load some command squads up with four special weapons and Valkyrie drop three of them...
It would be quite an expensive suicide unit at 6 per plus weapons, but it would also be hitting with something like twelve melta/plasma guns at BS3+. If only there was also an equivalent for the PCS that was just four Guardsmen at 4/model and BS4+, it'd be 44 points for four flamers (with the CCS it's 52). I guess them being vets only adds 8 points to it though, so they'd be 4 points cheaper than a SWT before you add the fourth weapon.
How much does it costs to load 2 command squads with 4 plasma +pistol in a Valkyrie, add a Prime with double order and give the order to reroll the "1" results while they overcharge ALL the plasma weapons? Plasma is cheap for the guard now, am I wrong?
ross-128 wrote: Huh, now that you mention it, you could just load some command squads up with four special weapons and Valkyrie drop three of them...
It would be quite an expensive suicide unit at 6 per plus weapons, but it would also be hitting with something like twelve melta/plasma guns at BS3+. If only there was also an equivalent for the PCS that was just four Guardsmen at 4/model and BS4+, it'd be 44 points for four flamers (with the CCS it's 52). I guess them being vets only adds 8 points to it though, so they'd be 4 points cheaper than a SWT before you add the fourth weapon.
How much does it costs to load 2 command squads with 4 plasma +pistol in a Valkyrie, add a Prime with double order and give the order to reroll the "1" results while they overcharge ALL the plasma weapons?
Plasma is cheap for the guard now, am I wrong?
Plasma is amusingly 7 points per model just like the flamer, so 52 points for each command squad. There'd be no pistols though, the command squad is just four Veteran models with no commander now (he's an IC). So you're looking at 104 points for two of them, then probably 30 points for a company commander to give orders to both of them since he's a lot cheaper than a Tempestor Prime.
You are not gaining that much from the Valkyrie. You could do exactly the same thing without it, you just can't move and charge after dropping. Saves you a lot of points too. I'm doing a similar thing but with tempestor and basic scions for extra bodies, which costs 296. If you used command squads, it would be 168 pts. That is pretty cheap but I like the idea of more bodies, gives them some staying power. With command squads, you are removing plasma with any casualties. Also, you are using elite slots and not troops, and elite slots are pretty bloated already.
Only if you supersize the shots. You can also use a tank commander to greatly mitigate the risk. 1/6 down to 1/36.
Blacksails wrote: I don't want to be sour, but feth, Vets didn't deserve that nerf. I know I can run the Elites heavy detachment, but having them as troops would be infinitely more flexible for list building. Losing carapace is frankly just idiotic. Plus, being 20pts more for a squad for a point of BS and the option for more specials (at the loss of being troops) is another kick.
Are vets the go-to they were in previous editions. No. But they are not totally useless either. If I'm looking for a melta-squad to drop out of a valk to suicide into a tough target, they are still a solid choice.
Valks are fantastic transports. They are the only transport that lets units move after disembarking from them.
Hydras didn't quite their old tracking rule back, but at least now they aren't totally gimped if your opponent didn't bring any Fly units. Sentinels and Rough Riders got better, so there's that I suppose.
Worth noting that Fly units inlcude pretty much all Skimmers and Jump pack units - Assault Marines, Seraphim etc
Trickstick wrote: You are not gaining that much from the Valkyrie. You could do exactly the same thing without it, you just can't move and charge after dropping. Saves you a lot of points too. I'm doing a similar thing but with tempestor and basic scions for extra bodies, which costs 296. If you used command squads, it would be 168 pts. That is pretty cheap but I like the idea of more bodies, gives them some staying power. With command squads, you are removing plasma with any casualties. Also, you are using elite slots and not troops, and elite slots are pretty bloated already.
Yeah, part of the reason I kind of wish I had the option to get a BS4+ "junior command squad" for 4/model. 132 points for a 12-flamer surprise barbecue would be hilarious, 156 points to do the same thing is a bit on the pricey side especially when the flamer is getting zero benefit from BS3+. (well, it would also require a nearly 200 point transport, but that transport can then proceed to be a nearly 200 point sky-tank after making the drop so it's not a complete loss)
A little frustrating that camo and carapace aren't around anymore, but I gotta say; at 40 points (min) for a troop choice, we will DOMINATE command points. Stratagems for days folks!
right now but in the reveal it literally says they were gaining the ability to provide cover fire for our army. 
