I am curious what other peoples opinions are on the cost of an earthshaker basilisk.
For a little over 100 points, you get a powerful cannon you can hide behind a building and shoot all day. And its tough enough to require some sustained firepower to bring down.
In my local group, they seem super effective, even when only bringing 3. They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn. How do people counter / deal with them? Is there some weak spot we are missing? Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
I say this as a guy who runs the occasional Scorpius and Nightspinner --- indirect fire in general needs some nerfing in general. The Basilisk is incredibly cheap for what it does, I'd argue too cheap.
I'd like to an across-the-board -1 to hit when firing indirect, or at the very least a 12" minium range (meaning no Overwatch as well, etc.). I enjoy indirect fire. I think it's an asset, but it seems to be hugely varied in its cost and has too few negatives.
Cultiststeve wrote: I am curious what other peoples opinions are on the cost of an earthshaker basilisk.
For a little over 100 points, you get a powerful cannon you can hide behind a building and shoot all day. And its tough enough to require some sustained firepower to bring down.
In my local group, they seem super effective, even when only bringing 3. They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn. How do people counter / deal with them? Is there some weak spot we are missing? Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Maybe?
Indirect fire is really strong, and generally undervalued, until you have too many to hide. However, I think the direct fire main battle tanks are all kind of overpriced, and if we brought down the price of Predators and such the heavy artillery guns would probably feel more appropriately priced. While IF is undervalued, it's not too far off from where I think it should be.
Like the IF artillery pieces are definitely underpriced compared to their direct fire main-line counterparts. A Leman Russ out of the box is almost 10 points more than a Manticore, for reasons I still don't understand. It's not like S9 lascannons cost more than S8 missile launchers. So should the Manticore be more expensive or the Russ be cheaper? Probably both, though at it's current cost the Manticore doesn't feel particularly egregious.
Elbows wrote: I say this as a guy who runs the occasional Scorpius and Nightspinner --- indirect fire in general needs some nerfing in general. The Basilisk is incredibly cheap for what it does, I'd argue too cheap.
I'd like to an across-the-board -1 to hit when firing indirect, or at the very least a 12" minium range (meaning no Overwatch as well, etc.). I enjoy indirect fire. I think it's an asset, but it seems to be hugely varied in its cost and has too few negatives.
The negatives to indirect fire went out the window when templates went away.
Elbows wrote: If you feel Russes are too expensive, how do you view Predators?
-can't ignore moving/shooting heavy weapons
-can't fire their turrets twice
-less toughness, fewer wounds
-can't take orders
The only advantage being a 3+ basic ballistic skill. It's really tough to balance Space Marine tanks vs. IG tanks.
-IG tanks can't ignore moving and shooting heavy weapons either unless they are Tallarn. If they move more then half their distance they lose half of their damage output. So they can move a max of 5" and still get -1 on all of their other non turret weapons.
-IG tanks firing twice on their turn is the only reason why their damage output is anywhere near acceptable.
-You are correct on your third point.
-A LRBT can only be ordered by a ~200 point tank commander, so that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
I agree with you that a predator doesn't stack up with a LRBT. But, all the predator really needs is to get access to chapter tactics and maybe a ~10 point price reduction. I have no idea why space marine vehicles don't get chapter tactics, it is utterly stupid and I think a big misstep on GW's part.
The LRBT is pretty balanced though if you compare it with other vehicles from other codices.
Elbows wrote: If you feel Russes are too expensive, how do you view Predators?
-can't ignore moving/shooting heavy weapons
-can't fire their turrets twice
-less toughness, fewer wounds
-can't take orders
The only advantage being a 3+ basic ballistic skill. It's really tough to balance Space Marine tanks vs. IG tanks.
-IG tanks can't ignore moving and shooting heavy weapons either unless they are Tallarn. If they move more then half their distance they lose half of their damage output. So they can move a max of 5" and still get -1 on all of their other non turret weapons.
-IG tanks firing twice on their turn is the only reason why their damage output is anywhere near acceptable.
-You are correct on your third point.
-A LRBT can only be ordered by a ~200 point tank commander, so that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
I agree with you that a predator doesn't stack up with a LRBT. But, all the predator really needs is to get access to chapter tactics and maybe a ~10 point price reduction. I have no idea why space marine vehicles don't get chapter tactics, it is utterly stupid and I think a big misstep on GW's part.
The LRBT is pretty balanced though if you compare it with other vehicles from other codices.
1. The range on the good weapons in the first place means you don't really have to move though.
2. I mean, you pay only a few more points for the extra BS and I'm PRETTY sure it was errata'd they can give orders to themselves so it isn't like you lose much taking the Tank Commander. You won't get OS on them like you would with Russes in a Spearhead but how important IS that dumb rule anyway?
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
I will say this is partially right. One of the things that is supposed to counter these indirect firing units and the pesky -1 To Hit outside 12" is supposed to be melee, but people either don't want to use melee, or they're stuck with bad melee units for the most part. We get some exceptions here and there, but not a lot.
We have to make a big distinction here. Are we talking about ITC or canon?
In canon 40K hiding a basilisk is really hard, you can hide one or maybe 2 and that's it. Even then, it is such a borderline LoS negation that when things start moving on the table you will get to shoot at some parts of it, at that point the fact that it is T6 11W starts being a big problem.
In ITC you have a lot of more freedom in how to put it out of LoS and they are bad news for your opponent.
In general i feel that all indirect fire weapons are not that good. Having the chance to indirect fire isn't such a good bonus, if i could take it as an upgrade i wouldn't pay it more than 8-10 points on a 100-150 point model. They just happen to be the biggest winners in the ITC house ruling, and since many players play ITC you end up with the common opinion that indirect fire is undercosted. The reality is that with standard rules, those models are failry costed.
That said, the basilisk is surely better than the manticore, since it has an additional point of AP, which is an absolute necessity to counteract the cover that you will ALWAYS grant to enemy non-infantry models when you shoot at them out of los (100% obscured by definition, they just need a toe in cover).
Leman Russ tanks are absolutely amazing for their current price. I don't really see how anyone can think they need a reduction. Also no one should be worrying about the cost of a Tank Commander when really they should be running Pask. BS 2+ and an extra order makes him a contender for best vehicle in the game.
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
But isn't the problem with IG, that if you try to melee them you get first hit by counter charging jebikers, and sometimes that is followed by ogryns? Although this maybe different for other armies, my expiriance is that that IG armies are almost as deadly in melee as eldar.
That really depends on the gunline and your units. Granted if the IG player is smart he will bubblewrap his Basilisks and block the way for melee units with cheap guardsmen. If the player plays catachan might aswell bait you to come to him with the Basilisks and then charges you with the s4 dudes after shooting at you.
Ogryins are surprsingly good this time around.
Additionally Custodes are Custodes not IG. What you described Karol is the 08/15 IG Custard competitive list /gunline. Not a fun match in a hobby store.
Best bet would be fighterbomber models that have enough mmph to destroy one or two basilisks at once.
Or you stretch his line to get an oppurtunity for shocktroops with the right equipment at the right time.
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
Tau would like to know when they are getting a CC option. Also get close, why so the dawn eagle dbag triplets can charge me no thanks.
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
Tau would like to know when they are getting a CC option. Also get close, why so the dawn eagle dbag triplets can charge me no thanks.
Tau have the more annoying gunline tho. Markerlights give me PTSD. Additionally i still fear taucommanders.
Cultiststeve wrote: I am curious what other peoples opinions are on the cost of an earthshaker basilisk.
For a little over 100 points, you get a powerful cannon you can hide behind a building and shoot all day. And its tough enough to require some sustained firepower to bring down.
In my local group, they seem super effective, even when only bringing 3. They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn. How do people counter / deal with them? Is there some weak spot we are missing? Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Maybe?
Indirect fire is really strong, and generally undervalued, until you have too many to hide. However, I think the direct fire main battle tanks are all kind of overpriced, and if we brought down the price of Predators and such the heavy artillery guns would probably feel more appropriately priced. While IF is undervalued, it's not too far off from where I think it should be.
Like the IF artillery pieces are definitely underpriced compared to their direct fire main-line counterparts. A Leman Russ out of the box is almost 10 points more than a Manticore, for reasons I still don't understand. It's not like S9 lascannons cost more than S8 missile launchers. So should the Manticore be more expensive or the Russ be cheaper? Probably both, though at it's current cost the Manticore doesn't feel particularly egregious.
A BCLR is the most hilariously undercosted unit that everyone says is terrible.
A Battlecannon, LC 2HB LR out shoots a quad las predator against t7 3+
Outshoots a autocannon HB predator against infantry
Outshoos Hammerheads
The reason everything else looks bad in comparison because its rediculous undercosted.
Not Online!!! wrote: That really depends on the gunline and your units. Granted if the IG player is smart he will bubblewrap his Basilisks and block the way for melee units with cheap guardsmen. If the player plays catachan might aswell bait you to come to him with the Basilisks and then charges you with the s4 dudes after shooting at you.
Ogryins are surprsingly good this time around.
Additionally Custodes are Custodes not IG. What you described Karol is the 08/15 IG Custard competitive list /gunline. Not a fun match in a hobby store.
Best bet would be fighterbomber models that have enough mmph to destroy one or two basilisks at once.
Or you stretch his line to get an oppurtunity for shocktroops with the right equipment at the right time.
yeah well I think that banking your own armies efficiency on an idea that your opponent will not take the best, and probablly will take the worse options, makes this whole thread a moot argument. If the IG player decides to take bad stuff, he is not going to be running those 2 basilisks. or he is running some fring list like a ton of mortars and multiple deathstars of ogryns, and now it is the IG player that is going for you. Although he still probablly runs custodes bikers.
Spoletta wrote: We have to make a big distinction here. Are we talking about ITC or canon?
In canon 40K hiding a basilisk is really hard, you can hide one or maybe 2 and that's it. Even then, it is such a borderline LoS negation that when things start moving on the table you will get to shoot at some parts of it, at that point the fact that it is T6 11W starts being a big problem.
In ITC you have a lot of more freedom in how to put it out of LoS and they are bad news for your opponent.
In general i feel that all indirect fire weapons are not that good. Having the chance to indirect fire isn't such a good bonus, if i could take it as an upgrade i wouldn't pay it more than 8-10 points on a 100-150 point model.
They just happen to be the biggest winners in the ITC house ruling, and since many players play ITC you end up with the common opinion that indirect fire is undercosted.
The reality is that with standard rules, those models are failry costed.
That said, the basilisk is surely better than the manticore, since it has an additional point of AP, which is an absolute necessity to counteract the cover that you will ALWAYS grant to enemy non-infantry models when you shoot at them out of los (100% obscured by definition, they just need a toe in cover).
Cannon or vanilla 40K has such poor cover rules they may aswell not exsist, hence why most people are using ITC terrain or something similar otherwise 90% of GW terrain might aswell not be there.
Cannon or vanilla 40K has such poor cover rules they may aswell not exsist, hence why most people are using ITC terrain or something similar otherwise 90% of GW terrain might aswell not be there.
Unless it is the GW exclusive Styrofoam terrain Then the rules work.
Not Online!!! wrote: That really depends on the gunline and your units. Granted if the IG player is smart he will bubblewrap his Basilisks and block the way for melee units with cheap guardsmen. If the player plays catachan might aswell bait you to come to him with the Basilisks and then charges you with the s4 dudes after shooting at you.
Ogryins are surprsingly good this time around.
Additionally Custodes are Custodes not IG. What you described Karol is the 08/15 IG Custard competitive list /gunline. Not a fun match in a hobby store.
Best bet would be fighterbomber models that have enough mmph to destroy one or two basilisks at once.
Or you stretch his line to get an oppurtunity for shocktroops with the right equipment at the right time.
yeah well I think that banking your own armies efficiency on an idea that your opponent will not take the best, and probablly will take the worse options, makes this whole thread a moot argument. If the IG player decides to take bad stuff, he is not going to be running those 2 basilisks. or he is running some fring list like a ton of mortars and multiple deathstars of ogryns, and now it is the IG player that is going for you. Although he still probablly runs custodes bikers.
Have you ever tried to get a match with just fun units? Fluff units? or non cancerous players?
Maybee then you would have more fun with your grey knights because from your other posts it is obvious to me that your whole FLGS is cancer incarnate. From the wanton destruction of models to modeling to advantage, etc.
Elbows wrote: If you feel Russes are too expensive, how do you view Predators?
-can't ignore moving/shooting heavy weapons
-can't fire their turrets twice
-less toughness, fewer wounds
-can't take orders
The only advantage being a 3+ basic ballistic skill. It's really tough to balance Space Marine tanks vs. IG tanks.
-IG tanks can't ignore moving and shooting heavy weapons either unless they are Tallarn. If they move more then half their distance they lose half of their damage output. So they can move a max of 5" and still get -1 on all of their other non turret weapons.
-IG tanks firing twice on their turn is the only reason why their damage output is anywhere near acceptable.
-You are correct on your third point.
-A LRBT can only be ordered by a ~200 point tank commander, so that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
I agree with you that a predator doesn't stack up with a LRBT. But, all the predator really needs is to get access to chapter tactics and maybe a ~10 point price reduction. I have no idea why space marine vehicles don't get chapter tactics, it is utterly stupid and I think a big misstep on GW's part.
The LRBT is pretty balanced though if you compare it with other vehicles from other codices.
My main issue with Predator vs Leman Russ is that the Predator is usually stuck where you deployed it. They should be more mobile than a LR, and they aren't. Just feels wrong.
Spoletta wrote: We have to make a big distinction here. Are we talking about ITC or canon?
In canon 40K hiding a basilisk is really hard, you can hide one or maybe 2 and that's it. Even then, it is such a borderline LoS negation that when things start moving on the table you will get to shoot at some parts of it, at that point the fact that it is T6 11W starts being a big problem.
In ITC you have a lot of more freedom in how to put it out of LoS and they are bad news for your opponent.
In general i feel that all indirect fire weapons are not that good. Having the chance to indirect fire isn't such a good bonus, if i could take it as an upgrade i wouldn't pay it more than 8-10 points on a 100-150 point model.
They just happen to be the biggest winners in the ITC house ruling, and since many players play ITC you end up with the common opinion that indirect fire is undercosted.
The reality is that with standard rules, those models are failry costed.
That said, the basilisk is surely better than the manticore, since it has an additional point of AP, which is an absolute necessity to counteract the cover that you will ALWAYS grant to enemy non-infantry models when you shoot at them out of los (100% obscured by definition, they just need a toe in cover).
Cannon or vanilla 40K has such poor cover rules they may aswell not exsist, hence why most people are using ITC terrain or something similar otherwise 90% of GW terrain might aswell not be there.
I get a lot out of cover in all my games of canon 40K, my carnefici wouldn't last as much as they do without it. That said, 90% of the players i talked too didn't know how cover works correctly and were under the assumption that you need your vehicle to somehow be wholly withing a terrain element and be 50% obscured by that element alone, so obviously they never get to claim it.
In any case, you cannot say "This model is undercosted" when you are playing with modded rules that drastically improve that model without altering it's cost. Basilisk are 100% fair in 40K, the problem is only with ITC, it's not a GW problem so you can't expect it to get fixed in a CA or something like that.
Can say lots about how you can't directly compare costed units across different armies because the context of the rest of the army makes them quite different buuuttt...
On this it is fairly straight forward. They get D6 shots a turn. If they are hidden that means it is unlikely they are using the heavy bolter so that is vs toughness 5-8 and on average that is...
Normal basilisk - 1.49 wounding hits
Catachan Bassie - 1.65 wounding hits
Cadian Bassie - 1.74 wounding hits
At -3 and doing D3 damage...
I can't see how they would be dominating - but hidden fire you have problems killing will definitively annoy you over the game...
Cultiststeve wrote: They are run as catachan for the reroll, which usually means they are getting 5+ shots a turn.
Ok, that's 5 shots per turn. 2.5 will hit, no more than 2.08 of that will wound, and then you probably get a save. So we'll be generous and call it two models per turn dead. How many turns is it going to take to kill 100 points worth of models? At least 3 turns if you're shooting at elite infantry, longer than an entire game if it's a horde of cannon fodder on the other side of the table. Most of the time the Basilisk's firepower just isn't all that impressive.
Especially if you are running a slower / gunline army that cannot tag them in melee combat, and get the second turn...
Stop trying to out-gunline an IG gunline. Of course you're going to lose when you do something that foolish. Take faster units that can engage the gunline, and accept the Basilisk's firepower as acceptable losses for a couple of turns while you slaughter their other stuff.
But isn't the problem with IG, that if you try to melee them you get first hit by counter charging jebikers, and sometimes that is followed by ogryns? Although this maybe different for other armies, my expiriance is that that IG armies are almost as deadly in melee as eldar.
Ig has no jetbikes. Are we talking about ig or imperium soap? Pure ig isn't dominating tournaments. And frankly soap means 40k will be mess anyway
I frequently take 3 Basilisks when I play with my Imperial Guard, and I do not find the Basilisks to be over-powered. They tend to be extremely variable in their effect; some turns they kill a unit apiece, while some turns they do nothing. They're a good unit, mostly because they are inexpensive and can reach anywhere on the game board. But they don't do enough, on average, to be considered unfair.
Saber wrote: I frequently take 3 Basilisks when I play with my Imperial Guard, and I do not find the Basilisks to be over-powered. They tend to be extremely variable in their effect; some turns they kill a unit apiece, while some turns they do nothing. They're a good unit, mostly because they are inexpensive and can reach anywhere on the game board. But they don't do enough, on average, to be considered unfair.
Stux wrote: Leman Russ tanks are absolutely amazing for their current price. I don't really see how anyone can think they need a reduction. Also no one should be worrying about the cost of a Tank Commander when really they should be running Pask. BS 2+ and an extra order makes him a contender for best vehicle in the game.
Yeah, most people run Pask with 2 or more tank commanders. For little points, you have bs 3+. Add a Primaris Psyker for the -1 to hit power and use smoke launchers with the order to protec your pascual man with a -2 to hit on turn 1. Oh he was rerrolling 1s too.
Yeah too much. In my friends play group we have banned spam in general, and that includes tank commanders and pask.
Saber wrote: I frequently take 3 Basilisks when I play with my Imperial Guard, and I do not find the Basilisks to be over-powered. They tend to be extremely variable in their effect; some turns they kill a unit apiece, while some turns they do nothing. They're a good unit, mostly because they are inexpensive and can reach anywhere on the game board. But they don't do enough, on average, to be considered unfair.
So you spam one unit in the "defining" slot of one of the better Codices to the limit and don't consider it OP? Are you lying or are you making fun of players with worse codices?
I mean, you can even cheap out on the disadvantage of likely starting 2nd for buying several 108 points models by placing them all at once. Range and LoS don't matter anyway, so you can even cheap out on the disadvantage of the vehicle squadron rule.
Trollbert wrote: Right, I forgot about the vehicle squadron rule.
Does that making it better?
I mean, you can even cheap out on the disadvantage of likely starting 2nd for buying several 108 points models by placing them all at once. Range and LoS don't matter anyway, so you can even cheap out on the disadvantage of the vehicle squadron rule.
There's a difference between good and broken/OP. They're good.
Trollbert wrote: Are Russes op then? I mean, you say that they are better than Basilisk, which are good. Or are they only good as well?
Russes are way OP. You can tell by how many tournament armies are spamming them to achieve victo-
Oh wait, they're not.
Pause.
Imperial Guard are still a top tier army, their problem is that Eldar and Dark Eldar have just become so strong (unsurprisingly) that they can't hang with that army. Example, Hemlock Wraithfighters are going to fly over at -2 to hit, drop 2D3 auto-hit AP-4 2 damage shots into a Russ, throwing in a smite for good measure. They get a free 20" advance, so on turn 1 they're hitting you no matter what. And if you go first your Basilisks / Manticores are hitting on 6s. Then they deep strike in reapers to finish the job, with a 2+ in cover and a -1 to hit for good measure, paired nicely with guide and fortune.
Eldar have fundamentally changed what is viable in the high meta. Without Eldar, Guard would be #1. A pure guard list took the Boise GT recently.
Marmatag is right. Imperial Guard are the Tau of 7th. They aren't strong enough to win tournaments left and right (Because thats what Eldar are doing), but they are strong enough to bully into submision all other codexes that aren't at the top.
They are gatekeepers. Any good Eldar/Dark Eldar/Imperial Soup list will destroy Imperial Guard without a problem. But then trying to win agaisnt Imperial Guard with all other factions is very hard. Talking about Imperial Guard as a mono faction here, of course, they are obviously very strong in the classic Imperial Guard+BA+Jetbike Captains imperial soup list and they can with with that kind of list agaisnt Eldar, etc...
But many posts are like "Imperial Guard are like SO weak! They are only good in IMperial Soup!" and thats just isn't true.
Speaking here about the most competitive lists, of course. You can have "fluffy" IG lists that are much less powerfull.
TL;DR: Basilisk and Leman Russes are very, very powerfull. They aren't OP, because they have counterplay, and aren't like Dark Reapers or Conscripts at the beginning of 8th.
Galas wrote: Marmatag is right. Imperial Guard are the Tau of 7th. They aren't strong enough to win tournaments left and right (Because thats what Eldar are doing), but they are strong enough to bully into submision all other codexes that aren't at the top.
They are gatekeepers. Any good Eldar/Dark Eldar/Imperial Soup list will destroy Imperial Guard without a problem. But then trying to win agaisnt Imperial Guard with all other factions is very hard. Talking about Imperial Guard as a mono faction here, of course, they are obviously very strong in the classic Imperial Guard+BA+Jetbike Captains imperial soup list and they can with with that kind of list agaisnt Eldar, etc...
But many posts are like "Imperial Guard are like SO weak! They are only good in IMperial Soup!" and thats just isn't true.
Speaking here about the most competitive lists, of course. You can have "fluffy" IG lists that are much less powerfull.
TL;DR: Basilisk and Leman Russes are very, very powerfull. They aren't OP, because they have counterplay, and aren't like Dark Reapers or Conscripts at the beginning of 8th.
I'd add Chaos Soup to your list of things doing well at tournaments.
And, yes, mono-faction non-soup lists struggle vs Guard. But that's like saying that an army entirely made up of 3 Elites choices taken in Auxiliary Support Detachments for -1 CP each struggle vs Guard. If an army doesn't use all the tools available, then it's deliberately handicapping itself and shouldn't worry about losing. This goes for everyone, Guard included. For example, I recently de-souped my Slaanesh Daemons list, removing all the other Chaos elements and keeping only units with Slaanesh Daemons faction keywords. I recognize that this is making the army worse, and therefore have no real right to complain when it gets roflstomped, because I'm not using all the tools available to me to make my list not get roflstomped.
Whether or not this is a good thing is up for debate; some people love soup, others hate it.
It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
Galas wrote: Marmatag is right. Imperial Guard are the Tau of 7th. They aren't strong enough to win tournaments left and right (Because thats what Eldar are doing), but they are strong enough to bully into submision all other codexes that aren't at the top.
They are gatekeepers. Any good Eldar/Dark Eldar/Imperial Soup list will destroy Imperial Guard without a problem. But then trying to win agaisnt Imperial Guard with all other factions is very hard. Talking about Imperial Guard as a mono faction here, of course, they are obviously very strong in the classic Imperial Guard+BA+Jetbike Captains imperial soup list and they can with with that kind of list agaisnt Eldar, etc...
But many posts are like "Imperial Guard are like SO weak! They are only good in IMperial Soup!" and thats just isn't true.
Speaking here about the most competitive lists, of course. You can have "fluffy" IG lists that are much less powerfull.
TL;DR: Basilisk and Leman Russes are very, very powerfull. They aren't OP, because they have counterplay, and aren't like Dark Reapers or Conscripts at the beginning of 8th.
I'd add Chaos Soup to your list of things doing well at tournaments.
And, yes, mono-faction non-soup lists struggle vs Guard. But that's like saying that an army entirely made up of 3 Elites choices taken in Auxiliary Support Detachments for -1 CP each struggle vs Guard. If an army doesn't use all the tools available, then it's deliberately handicapping itself and shouldn't worry about losing. This goes for everyone, Guard included. For example, I recently de-souped my Slaanesh Daemons list, removing all the other Chaos elements and keeping only units with Slaanesh Daemons faction keywords. I recognize that this is making the army worse, and therefore have no real right to complain when it gets roflstomped, because I'm not using all the tools available to me to make my list not get roflstomped.
Whether or not this is a good thing is up for debate; some people love soup, others hate it.
But we are talking here about Non-soup mono-factions vs a non-soup mono faction Imperial Guard list. Imperial Guard does not need to use all the tools availible (Basically becoming a Imperial Soup with BA and Shield Captains on Jetbikes) to be better than most other mono-factions. So your comparison, in my opinion, isn't good. Imperial Guard should be balanced, as a mono-faction, agaisnt other mono factions. And it isn't.
That does not mean is the most OP stuff out there. But as I said, is solidly the gatekeeper of the competitive meta.
And about "X being very good in the fluff, so it is ok to have it be OP in the game" ... no. A model can be powerfull and balanced if it cost the points it should cost. Like most non Shield Captain on Jetbikes Adeptus Custodes stuff. The Adeptus Custodes Codex is very balanced, and you can notice it because it isn't used in tournaments all that much.
Just watched a poor Necron guy march into the IG guns trying to get gak done. After the two doomsday arks got dusted in one turn, it was downhill all the way.
Advocating that all mono-faction armies should be fairly balanced against eachother is the same thing as advocating that Adeptus Astra Telepathica be fairly balanced with Space Marines...
I know a guy who runs an Astra Telepathica army at 500 points made up of Vanguard detachments with a Primaris Psyker and Sisters of Silence in Null-Maiden Rhinos. I don't play him, because I don't really like small point games, but for all the naysayers who say "that's not a real faction neugh"... well, there you have it.
To:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt a Imperial Guard soup with BA and Custodes"
The answer is
"The competitive reality of 8th is that you need to have a very powerfull codex or use all the tools at your disposal to compete, so souping is most of the time the best option"
But to:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt mono-faction Dark Eldar/Imperial Guard/ Craftworld Eldar"
Then the answer becomes:
"Those armies are very powerfull"(Most of the time) or
"Your army, sadly, is very weak" (To Grey Knights)
Unit1126PLL wrote: Advocating that all mono-faction armies should be fairly balanced against eachother is the same thing as advocating that Adeptus Astra Telepathica be fairly balanced with Space Marines...
I know a guy who runs an Astra Telepathica army at 500 points made up of Vanguard detachments with a Primaris Psyker and Sisters of Silence in Null-Maiden Rhinos. I don't play him, because I don't really like small point games, but for all the naysayers who say "that's not a real faction neugh"... well, there you have it.
Now thats just disigenuous and you know it.
And I say this as one of the 3 guys on the planet with a 2k point Sisters of Silence 40k army.
To:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt a Imperial Guard soup with BA and Custodes"
The answer is
"The competitive reality of 8th is that you need to have a very powerfull codex or use all the tools at your disposal to compete, so souping is most of the time the best option"
But to:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt mono-faction Dark Eldar/Imperial Guard/ Craftworld Eldar"
Then the answer becomes:
"Those armies are very powerfull"(Most of the time) or
"Your army, sadly, is very weak" (To Grey Knights)
Yes, and I think that's fine.
Because my Mono-Faction Slaanesh Daemons can't compete with mono-faction ...well damn near anything. So does that mean I should call for the nerfing of everyone else?
Should a mono-faction Inquisition player ask for mono-GK to be nerfed so he has a chance?
Martel732 wrote: IG has the extra benefit that they are thoroughly miserable to play against, too!
This I agree with, and is why I abhor the Cadian doctrine. An army that's already gunline and annoying to fight against shouldn't have further incentive to double down on castling.
Martel732 wrote: IG has the extra benefit that they are thoroughly miserable to play against, too!
This I agree with, and is why I abhor the Cadian doctrine. An army that's already gunline and annoying to fight against shouldn't have further incentive to double down on castling.
Disagree.
That said, it could be tweaked to only apply while the units are in cover.
To:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt a Imperial Guard soup with BA and Custodes"
The answer is
"The competitive reality of 8th is that you need to have a very powerfull codex or use all the tools at your disposal to compete, so souping is most of the time the best option"
But to:
"My mono-faction army can't compete agaisnt mono-faction Dark Eldar/Imperial Guard/ Craftworld Eldar"
Then the answer becomes:
"Those armies are very powerfull"(Most of the time) or
"Your army, sadly, is very weak" (To Grey Knights)
Yes, and I think that's fine.
Because my Mono-Faction Slaanesh Daemons can't compete with mono-faction ...well damn near anything. So does that mean I should call for the nerfing of everyone else?
Should a mono-faction Inquisition player ask for mono-GK to be nerfed so he has a chance?
Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
Marmatag wrote: It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only
a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
I don’t think the Tau matchup is that hopeless. I’d rather play against Guard than Alaitoc Eldar no question.
Galas wrote: Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
We're moving into the realm of theory here, but:
Do you believe it is possible to simultaneously balance mono-faction and soup lists against each other? Because I believe that balancing around mono-faction vs. mono-faction is going to throw the soup-vs-soup balance out of whack, while balancing around soup-vs-soup will essentially ensure that some factions will be powerful or less powerful as mono-factions, depending on what component of the soup they make up.
Furthermore, if you accept that premise, then I'd argue that between the two, GW should work to balance soup-vs-soup, even at the expense of mono-faction vs. mono-faction, because it is clearly their design intent that soup lists be encouraged by 8th Edition's rules.
This conclusion does, therefore, require the acceptance that mono-faction vs. mono-faction will be inherently imbalanced, since GW is balancing around soups.
Marmatag wrote: It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only
a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
I don’t think the Tau matchup is that hopeless. I’d rather play against Guard than Alaitoc Eldar no question.
Marmatag wrote: It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only
a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
I don’t think the Tau matchup is that hopeless. I’d rather play against Guard than Alaitoc Eldar no question.
In general, or as Tau?
As Tau. Alaitic’s hit penalties and strong psykers make it a pretty tough matchup.
Marmatag wrote: It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only
a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
I don’t think the Tau matchup is that hopeless. I’d rather play against Guard than Alaitoc Eldar no question.
It's not hopeless but it's not in your favor either. Regardless, i think everyone would rather not play a good tuned Eldar soup list right now.
Galas wrote: Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
We're moving into the realm of theory here, but:
Do you believe it is possible to simultaneously balance mono-faction and soup lists against each other?
(...)
This conclusion does, therefore, require the acceptance that mono-faction vs. mono-faction will be inherently imbalanced, since GW is balancing around soups.
Yes, I believe it is possible. To balance mono faction and soup, I believe you need to do it in two ways:
First of all, define what mono-factions you want to be standalone competitive armies (So no Sisters of Silence, Astra Telephatica, blablabla). Balance Mono-Factions agaisnt themselves to have them be balanced as close as possible.
After you have done that, put restrictions to Soup Armies to balance the strenght between a mono faction army and a soup army. Things like not using the Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword in the same detachment are a small first step for this. And I'm a very pro-soup player. Literally all of my armies are soup, only my Tau arent.
We have seen that mono-factions are more than capable of fighting soup lists if they are OP enough. But that isn't good, thats failing in the first aspect, to balance mono-factions agaisnt each other.
All IG tanks could probably do with a 10-15 point increase. Maybe as much as 20-30 on the basilisk. Not including chimera - that should drop 15 points.
Company commanders should only get 1 order. With the special HQ's possibly giving 2.
Infantry to 5 points.
Just fixed guard in 2 minutes. Wow. This is hard GW.
Galas wrote: Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
We're moving into the realm of theory here, but:
Do you believe it is possible to simultaneously balance mono-faction and soup lists against each other?
(...)
This conclusion does, therefore, require the acceptance that mono-faction vs. mono-faction will be inherently imbalanced, since GW is balancing around soups.
Yes, I believe it is possible. To balance mono faction and soup, I believe you need to do it in two ways:
First of all, define what mono-factions you want to be standalone competitive armies (So no Sisters of Silence, Astra Telephatica, blablabla). Balance Mono-Factions agaisnt themselves to have them be balanced as close as possible.
After you have done that, put restrictions to Soup Armies to balance the strenght between a mono faction army and a soup army. Things like not using the Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword in the same detachment are a small first step for this. And I'm a very pro-soup player. Literally all of my armies are soup, only my Tau arent.
We have seen that mono-factions are more than capable of fighting soup lists if they are OP enough. But that isn't good, thats failing in the first aspect, to balance mono-factions agaisnt each other.
So you've chosen the "balance mono-factions by throwing soup out-of-whack, then kneecap soup with some sort of vague 'restrictions'" path. Alright.
I don't think the design intent of 8th was to have heavily restricted soup, and I'm not sure what sort of restrictions you're talking about, but that's for another thread, which we've rehashed time and again here on Dakkadakka.
I don't think it's possible to simultaneously have unrestricted soup while also balancing mono-faction vs. mono-faction engagements. I do agree that you can balance mono-faction vs. mono-faction but soup then has to be restricted, probably quite heavily.
Marmatag wrote: And units should not be able to issue orders to themselves.
Units can't issue Orders, period. Officers can--and there really aren't any good Orders to issue to themselves. Last edition you'd have Officers issuing Orders to their Command Squad, since CS pulled double duty as special weapons. Since those two things are different units now? It doesn't matter.
Or are you wanting to pine about Tank Commanders? Because in that case: NOPE! It actually makes a hell of a lot of sense for that to be done, since it can be the Tank Commander ordering his crew.
But hey, if you want to remove that ability? Let's remove Auras affecting the model emanating them, let's remove Psykers being able to buff themselves with non-"cast this on the Psyker" spells, etc.
At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Marmatag wrote: It's pretty gross to sit there and say your ridiculously powerful army is a "noob stomper" when in reality quite a few armies simply cannot defeat Guard, regardless of their options.
I guess Necrons, Tyranids, Orks, and Tau should just soup more? Or maybe all the flavors of SM should stop being so lame and add Guard to fight Guard.
Bottom line, Guard are a fantastic army, behind only
a combination of themselves + Custodes, Eldar + Dark Eldar, and *maybe* some Chaos but that's not even a given.
I was talking about Russes, not guard as a whole. New players struggle to deal with Russes because of the T8 mostly, which takes a lot of new players by surprise with how much of a difference it can make.
The real strength of guard as an army is Guardsmen.
Galas wrote: Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
We're moving into the realm of theory here, but:
Do you believe it is possible to simultaneously balance mono-faction and soup lists against each other?
(...)
This conclusion does, therefore, require the acceptance that mono-faction vs. mono-faction will be inherently imbalanced, since GW is balancing around soups.
Yes, I believe it is possible. To balance mono faction and soup, I believe you need to do it in two ways:
First of all, define what mono-factions you want to be standalone competitive armies (So no Sisters of Silence, Astra Telephatica, blablabla). Balance Mono-Factions agaisnt themselves to have them be balanced as close as possible.
After you have done that, put restrictions to Soup Armies to balance the strenght between a mono faction army and a soup army. Things like not using the Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword in the same detachment are a small first step for this. And I'm a very pro-soup player. Literally all of my armies are soup, only my Tau arent.
We have seen that mono-factions are more than capable of fighting soup lists if they are OP enough. But that isn't good, thats failing in the first aspect, to balance mono-factions agaisnt each other.
So you've chosen the "balance mono-factions by throwing soup out-of-whack, then kneecap soup with some sort of vague 'restrictions'" path. Alright.
I don't think the design intent of 8th was to have heavily restricted soup, and I'm not sure what sort of restrictions you're talking about, but that's for another thread, which we've rehashed time and again here on Dakkadakka.
I don't think it's possible to simultaneously have unrestricted soup while also balancing mono-faction vs. mono-faction engagements. I do agree that you can balance mono-faction vs. mono-faction but soup then has to be restricted, probably quite heavily.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one. And that difference in power can be achieved with small restrictions to soup. I agree that the intention of 8th wasn't to have soup be restricted but intentions change, just look at AoS. But as I said I don't believe, as Peregrine or others, that you need to make Soup basically unplayable to balance the game, at least more balanced that it is now. And it is allready pretty balanced!
But now, tangentially but in relation with this: You should stop oppening your posts with a strawman of the previous posters argument. Because then you follow up with a reasonable answer, but that first phrase puts the reader in a hostile and negative mood to read the rest of your post.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
They should probably do something different - like extend the range of orders or something
The base chasis need to go up on all russes. T8 12 wounds - is huge - you should have to pay for that resilience - not to mention their grinding advance rule. Gaurd shoot better on the move than eldar? Does that make any sense?
Some things you mentioned don't need to go up - some of them do though. How can you seriously say the manticore doesn't need to go up in cost?
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Galas wrote: Ehmm... no? You should ask for balance? That means buffing the weaker factions and nerfing the ones that are over the power curve/middle ground GW believes is the best way to play the game?
We're moving into the realm of theory here, but:
Do you believe it is possible to simultaneously balance mono-faction and soup lists against each other?
(...)
This conclusion does, therefore, require the acceptance that mono-faction vs. mono-faction will be inherently imbalanced, since GW is balancing around soups.
Yes, I believe it is possible. To balance mono faction and soup, I believe you need to do it in two ways:
First of all, define what mono-factions you want to be standalone competitive armies (So no Sisters of Silence, Astra Telephatica, blablabla). Balance Mono-Factions agaisnt themselves to have them be balanced as close as possible.
After you have done that, put restrictions to Soup Armies to balance the strenght between a mono faction army and a soup army. Things like not using the Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari keyword in the same detachment are a small first step for this. And I'm a very pro-soup player. Literally all of my armies are soup, only my Tau arent.
We have seen that mono-factions are more than capable of fighting soup lists if they are OP enough. But that isn't good, thats failing in the first aspect, to balance mono-factions agaisnt each other.
So you've chosen the "balance mono-factions by throwing soup out-of-whack, then kneecap soup with some sort of vague 'restrictions'" path. Alright.
I don't think the design intent of 8th was to have heavily restricted soup, and I'm not sure what sort of restrictions you're talking about, but that's for another thread, which we've rehashed time and again here on Dakkadakka.
I don't think it's possible to simultaneously have unrestricted soup while also balancing mono-faction vs. mono-faction engagements. I do agree that you can balance mono-faction vs. mono-faction but soup then has to be restricted, probably quite heavily.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one. And that difference in power can be achieved with small restrictions to soup. I agree that the intention of 8th wasn't to have soup be restricted but intentions change, just look at AoS. But as I said I don't believe, as Peregrine or others, that you need to make Soup basically unplayable to balance the game, at least more balanced that it is now. And it is allready pretty balanced!
But now, tangentially but in relation with this: You should stop oppening your posts with a strawman of the previous posters argument. Because then you follow up with a reasonable answer, but that first phrase puts the reader in a hostile and negative mood to read the rest of your post.
Alright, I can agree. Let's hit the OP units first, then we can take another look at the game. Let's see what Imperial Guard does for imperial soup; that should clue us in on what units are OP.
1) Be a CP battery.
Oh.
As for how I structure my posts: I'm not building a strawman, I'm retreading the same argument in my own words, in an effort to see if my interpretation is correct. If my words are wrong about what your argument is, then my interpretation is wrong, and I need to be corrected about what your argument actually is in order to have a productive discussion, because that means I didn't understand something you wished to express. So please, if something I said is wrong, tell me, because I need to understand your argument to address it.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
Lets compare the cadian take aim order to the eldar psychic power guide...
Oh look. They have the exact same effect except 1 can only target infantry squads (dark reapers are also infantry) and guide is a 7 to cast power (suggesting that is is a very powerful spell) most spells go off on 6's.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
To be fair, they're actually replacements for the lack of auras, than they are psychic powers. So it may be better to think of them as aura bonuses, but they can only be given to 1 (or 2, for HQs) units instead of all of them within 6", so they're more powerful.
On the larger subject of game balance, I think GW should be focussing on balancing mono-build armies and allow the community to look at the ways inter-faction soup building upsets the balance and react accordingly.
It's much easier to balance the game around individual mono-faction armies and allow TOs to selectively or blankedly ban soup combinations than it is to balance Tau around mono-build, but guard around soup, trying to also make guard good on their own just makes it even harder.
As for the basilisk in particular, I don't think it's overcosted relative to other entries in the same book, if you were to up its points it would see less play, and the manticore would see much more. In general the guard codex is a good book with a lot of viable options which has been pointed out before, but I don't believe this is a bad thing. I think the guard codex achieves something very close to the lofty goal every codex is aspired to be, with many viable options, many ways of play, and ways to be competitive in each of them. The T'au codex fails to deliver on that promise because they pushed many traditionally outstanding units below the waterline, legitimate OP books fail to deliver on that promise because they present something so shiny its players can't bring themselves to take anything else.
I propose then that it's not in the interest of the game to punish the guard for being different, but to improve the other faction books until they measure up to that standard. Before the codex guard passed over the Leman Russ just like SM pass over predators, don't up the points cost for russes due to Grinding Advance, give every MBT on the game a comparable rule.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
To be fair, they're actually replacements for the lack of auras, than they are psychic powers. So it may be better to think of them as aura bonuses, but they can only be given to 1 (or 2, for HQs) units instead of all of them within 6", so they're more powerful.
But you have auras. You have haker / MOA / ect. Not to mention everything can shoot better just by being Cadian. 90 points for 3 CC and you can spread you army out and don't have to death-ball. Space marine captain can reroll all hits for 3 command points for like 90ish points but his range is limited - having him affect more than 2 units means he has to not use his CC abilities (he is a cc character) and your other units have to gather around him (which sucks for objective play) orders are better than auras all day because they come on cheap bodies (unless we are talking about guilliman).
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again: People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff) Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one). NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff. A Junior Officer with the same deal. NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
To be fair, they're actually replacements for the lack of auras, than they are psychic powers. So it may be better to think of them as aura bonuses, but they can only be given to 1 (or 2, for HQs) units instead of all of them within 6", so they're more powerful.
But you have auras. You have haker / MOA / ect. Not to mention everything can shoot better just by being Cadian. 90 points for 3 CC and you can spread you army out and don't have to death-ball. Space marine captain can reroll all hits for 3 command points for like 90ish points but his range is limited - having him affect more than 2 units means he has to not use his CC abilities (he is a cc character) and your other units have to gather around him (which sucks for objective play) orders are better than auras all day because they come on cheap bodies (unless we are talking about guilliman).
Harker is a special character, and MOA (assuming you meant MOO) works only on Artillery, who can't otherwise receive orders (and explicitly is forbidden from benefiting the artillery that can receive orders - Gun Carriages). We also have an aura on Yarrick, just for a complete listing, but he is also a special character. And yes, we do have army traits, I hope that's unsurprising.
So yes, they're replacements for Auras, save on special characters or units that do have auras, but lack orders (wow, a pattern!). As for how the army functions: well, yes, guard spread out on the table, and marines concentrate. Concentrating 2000 points into a smaller area is a good thing because it improves force concentration, although if you can't bring it to bear correctly then it's a hinderance. But that's neither here nor there.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
There's 7 Orders base, with one single Order for each Regiment, with 2 Regiments getting Tank Orders instead.
4 of those Orders are conditional.
FRFSRF requires the unit to have Lasguns or Hotshot Lasguns--HWS receive no benefits from it, nor do Vets armed with Shotguns or Autoguns or anyone in a squad armed with a Pistol or Special.
Forwards for the Emperor requires the unit to have Advanced; it allows for you to shoot normally.
Get Back in the Fight allows for a unit to shoot this phase if they Fell Back.
Fix Bayonet requires you to be within 1" of an enemy unit and allows for them to fight as though it's the Fight phase.
Lets compare the cadian take aim order to the eldar psychic power guide...
Oh look. They have the exact same effect except 1 can only target infantry squads (dark reapers are also infantry) and guide is a 7 to cast power (suggesting that is is a very powerful spell) most spells go off on 6's.
Since I don't know exactly what Guide does off the top of my head, nor is what you're trying to say(do you think Cadian Officers can issue "Take Aim" to vehicles? Is that what you're implying here?) actually reasonably spelled out here...
"Take Aim!" is a basic Order for the Imperial Guard. It allows for an Infantry Squad with the same <Regiment>(meaning it does not apply to Scions taken outside of an all Scions detachment) as the user to reroll hit rolls of 1 for all the models in the ordered unit.
Now, Cadians have their Doctrine "Born Soldiers" that makes it so that an Infantry unit with this doctrine that gets issued "Take Aim" and if the unit had not moved in the previous Movement phase? They go from rerolling hit rolls of 1 to rerolling all Hit rolls.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Its funny how upset that you have an officer giving orders to 1-2 squads which is seen as "crazy" but people have no issues with a DP buffing itself and every unit around it. I must just be missing all those mono guard lists running around just crushing tournaments.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
They should probably do something different - like extend the range of orders or something
The base chasis need to go up on all russes. T8 12 wounds - is huge - you should have to pay for that resilience - not to mention their grinding advance rule. Gaurd shoot better on the move than eldar? Does that make any sense?
Little about the Russ tank actually makes any sense
However, as to the Eldar comparison, only if we're insisting on the concept that everything Space Elf must be superior just because. Eldar were not, until relatively recently at least, an army where everything was an expert marksman with eldritch targeting systems, they were a majority BS3 army for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the games existence.
Ultimately, we can look at it this way, a heavy, generally slow moving ground vehicle (if it wants to make use of all those rules) with multiple dedicated gun crew that serves as the premier armored unit of *the* tank faction should probably have some things to make it stand out. I dont have a conceptual problem with that being a more stable firing platform than a wibbly-wobbly hovertank zipping around at high speed thats getting tossed around by every near miss blast with two weekend warrior crewmen.
In real life, when looking at such platforms, say Attack helicopter vs Tank, the groundbound tank can run around at highway speeds and hit a similar sized target also moving at highway speeds at several kilometers distant with a single shot 90%+ of the time, while a the helicopter has to rely on guided munitions to accomplish the same feat.
As is, many of the Russ variants never see use, of the Codex versions, we basically only see 3 of 7 turrets see routine use (BC, Executioner, Punisher) the others might as well not exist even though they have radically different roles than those that do see use, its hard to argue that theres a fundamental platform issue with the Russ hull as a result.
As for the T8, relative to something like a Predator (since its the only , they're already paying 35% more for the base hull (122pts vs 90) with a lower base Ballistic skill, it would seem they're paying more already, that resiliency isnt coming for free.
Some things you mentioned don't need to go up - some of them do though. How can you seriously say the manticore doesn't need to go up in cost?
Given how rarely it makes an appearance in army lists these days, it doesnt appear to be a particular issue. Their popularity has plummeted since the first few months of 8E, and the value of that indirect fire is highly variable depending on table and opponent. They just dont appear to be a major issue, in the thread about what units need a CA points adjustment from last week, I think only one post even mentioned them over 5 pages.
Its funny how upset that you have an officer giving orders to 1-2 squads which is seen as "crazy" but people have no issues with a DP buffing itself and every unit around it. I must just be missing all those mono guard lists running around just crushing tournaments.
The argument that always gets used is that "it's easy to kill the aura characters!" but somehow you can't kill the Officers...
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
Said it before, saying it again:
People hate Orders. I don't know why but they think it's "unfair" and give anecdotes of a single Officer buffing huge swathes of an army.
I think we'd be better off if the whole system was overhauled from the ground up and adding another 'level' of Officer.
Senior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' with his Order(shooting buff, CC buff, or a survival buff)
Junior Officer puts on an 'armywide aura' that has to tie in with the Senior Officer's Order(so a shooting buff, CC buff, or survival buff has to have a similar one).
NCO has an aura that he grants to Infantry Squads near him.
Tank Commander becomes 'Armoured Element Senior Officer', does the same deal but no CC buff--instead it becomes a ROF buff.
A Junior Officer with the same deal.
NCO as a Heavy Support choice with the same deal.
Could even go so far as to add in a Sentinel equivalent.
Okay I'll tell you why it's unfair. They are uncounterable psychic powers that can be used more than once in a turn. Their cost is very small. Just the fact that you are filling an HQ slot for 30 points is already a little wonky but you are also getting 2 uncounterable psychic powers (this is basically what they are) that have 3-4 different effects? How many orders are there really? man that is beyond a bargain - it's NUTs! How and there are some regimental orders too! Are you serious?
Lets compare the cadian take aim order to the eldar psychic power guide...
Oh look. They have the exact same effect except 1 can only target infantry squads (dark reapers are also infantry) and guide is a 7 to cast power (suggesting that is is a very powerful spell) most spells go off on 6's.
Guide can be cast on a wraithknight, the best squad take aim can be cast on is either a 3-lascannon HWT or a 50% chance for a conscript blob. Guide also increases eldar shooting by 66% while Cadian take aim increases guard shooting by 50%. Cadian Take Aim also requires the unit to not move in the movement phase, otherwise it is reroll 1s.
Its funny how upset that you have an officer giving orders to 1-2 squads which is seen as "crazy" but people have no issues with a DP buffing itself and every unit around it. I must just be missing all those mono guard lists running around just crushing tournaments.
The argument that always gets used is that "it's easy to kill the aura characters!" but somehow you can't kill the Officers...
I know its crazy to me that people can't see that guard commanders orders are simply our version of aura abilities then just affect fewer squads for slightly more versatility.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
They should probably do something different - like extend the range of orders or something
The base chasis need to go up on all russes. T8 12 wounds - is huge - you should have to pay for that resilience - not to mention their grinding advance rule. Gaurd shoot better on the move than eldar? Does that make any sense?
Little about the Russ tank actually makes any sense
However, as to the Eldar comparison, only if we're insisting on the concept that everything Space Elf must be superior just because. Eldar were not, until relatively recently at least, an army where everything was an expert marksman with eldritch targeting systems, they were a majority BS3 army for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the games existence.
Ultimately, we can look at it this way, a heavy, generally slow moving ground vehicle (if it wants to make use of all those rules) with multiple dedicated gun crew that serves as the premier armored unit of *the* tank faction should probably have some things to make it stand out. I dont have a conceptual problem with that being a more stable firing platform than a wibbly-wobbly hovertank zipping around at high speed thats getting tossed around by every near miss blast with two weekend warrior crewmen.
In real life, when looking at such platforms, say Attack helicopter vs Tank, the groundbound tank can run around at highway speeds and hit a similar sized target also moving at highway speeds at several kilometers distant with a single shot 90%+ of the time, while a the helicopter has to rely on guided munitions to accomplish the same feat.
As is, many of the Russ variants never see use, of the Codex versions, we basically only see 3 of 7 turrets see routine use (BC, Executioner, Punisher) the others might as well not exist even though they have radically different roles than those that do see use, its hard to argue that theres a fundamental platform issue with the Russ hull as a result.
As for the T8, relative to something like a Predator (since its the only , they're already paying 35% more for the base hull (122pts vs 90) with a lower base Ballistic skill, it would seem they're paying more already, that resiliency isnt coming for free.
Some things you mentioned don't need to go up - some of them do though. How can you seriously say the manticore doesn't need to go up in cost?
Given how rarely it makes an appearance in army lists these days, it doesnt appear to be a particular issue. Their popularity has plummeted since the first few months of 8E, and the value of that indirect fire is highly variable depending on table and opponent. They just dont appear to be a major issue, in the thread about what units need a CA points adjustment from last week, I think only one post even mentioned them over 5 pages.
How in anyway can you remotely defend that a LR with BC is remotely balanced. It out shoots a quad lascannon predator, hammerhead, a vanquisher against T7 3+Sv and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies.
I find many players, GW included, mistake this idea that a faction should have units that are mathematically more powerfull instead of thematically more powerfull.
One example. Imperial Guard should have the best tanks in the game. Should that means Leman Russes need to be mathematically better (Undercosted) than Space Marines tanks, Ork tanks, etc...? NO! That means Imperial Guard should be the ones with heavy tanks as baseline "troops" (Leman Russes), or ultra heavy tanks. But a Predator and a Leman Russ should be mathematically balanced, each one costed appropiately for what they can do.
The same with Tau. You balance Tau as a shooting army not giving them meele trops. But if you want them to have meele troops they should be balanced with other meele troops in the game, because if they pay a "Tau" tax, then they will be useless and people wouldn't use them, instead using just more shooting Tau units.
So with this, you don't end up with "Khorne has OP meele units because of course they are only meele and don't have magic, and Tzeentch has OP magic because they suck at meele, so lets mix both to have OP meele units and OP magic users", but with "Khorne has access to more meele units than anyone, with elite meele units as basic troops, so I can use some of those because they fit my strategy, not because they are mathematically just more efficient"
I hope I have explained myself good enough.
Ice_can wrote: Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Presumably because the Russ's battlecannon isn't actually double shooting. We can drop the Knight battlecannon to 22 points as soon as it hits on a 4+, drops the Knight's movement to 5" max, and only fires 1d6 in overwatch.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies. I find many players, GW included, mistake this idea that a faction should have units that are mathematically more powerfull instead of thematically more powerfull.
One example. Imperial Guard should have the best tanks in the game. Should that means Leman Russes need to be mathematically better (Undercosted) than Space Marines tanks, Ork tanks, etc...? NO! That means Imperial Guard should be the ones with heavy tanks as baseline "troops" (Leman Russes), or ultra heavy tanks. But a Predator and a Leman Russ should be mathematically balanced, each one costed appropiately for what they can do.
The same with Tau. You balance Tau as a shooting army not giving them meele trops. But if you want them to have meele troops they should be balanced with other meele troops in the game, because if they pay a "Tau" tax, then they will be useless and people wouldn't use them, instead using just more shooting Tau units.
So with this, you don't end up with "Khorne has OP meele units because of course they are only meele and don't have magic, and Tzeentch has OP magic because they suck at meele, so lets mix both to have OP meele units and OP magic users", but with "Khorne has access to more meele units than anyone, with elite meele units as basic troops, so I can use some of those because they fit my strategy, not because they are mathematically just more efficient" I hope I have explained myself good enough.
You have, but I disagree. If the answer to "who has the best tanks?" is "meh, whomever, they're all essentially the same once you take points costs into account" then you've made faction choice fairly irrelevant. "Who has the best Melee?" "Meh, who cares, World Eaters and Tau have equivalent melee capabilities for the points."
That was what Auticus said when he designed his point system for AoS. People don't like for units to be balanced because people like to encounter the most mathematically powerfull stuff and use them, if not they find all of them the same
It wouldn't end up in "who cares". Because Tau wouldn't have the amount of meele units to have a proper meele force, just like Imperial Guard would be the faction with most tanks, that can face the most amount of enemy tipes, more versatiles, etc... So to the question "Who has the best tanks?" the answer would be "Most factions have functional tanks, but most of them can only be used as a support element, Imperial Guard has a great array of tanks, the heavier ones, and the ones with the bigger guns, that can face any kind of target"
What I'm saying is to make a Predator balanced agaisnt a Leman Russ. That means, for them to have an appropiate cost to the average damage, resilience, and sinergies with their own book, agaisnt their normal targets.
Is the same as saying that an Anti-infantry unit and an Anti-tank unit should be mathematically balanced, each one agaisnt his intended target. That does not means they need to be literally the same, or the choice between one and the other becomes irrelevant.
If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
Ice_can wrote: Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Presumably because the Russ's battlecannon isn't actually double shooting. We can drop the Knight battlecannon to 22 points as soon as it hits on a 4+, drops the Knight's movement to 5" max, and only fires 1d6 in overwatch.
So when are C9mmand tabks going to start paying 50pts a battlecannon then as they are BS3+ also what does the movement speed of the hull have to do with how much a weapon should cost? If thats the case why don't marines on foot get discount heavy weapons instead of paying the same price as a predator?
LRBC is undercosted stop hiding from the fact and then start your balance arguments based in reality.
Not really. Theres a reason why Soup armies just spam the most OP part of every mono-faction. You don't see Blood Angels Tanks and Dante with Sanguinary Guard + Rough Riders and Veterans on Chimeras winning tournaments, because the problem isn't with soup but with X units being OP. And we see it with Mono Dark Eldar armies or Mono-Craftworld Eldar ones (Yeah, a Craftworld army with one Ynnari character is still a CWE Army) winning agaisnt soup without a problem.
If mono factions are balanced... the difference in power from souping would be marginal, because it woul become more of a strategic choice than a power one.
To be fair, there are issues beyond just certain units being overpowered with Soup, there is a fair amount of unintended synergy. As an example, Guard being a strong gunline is one thing. Guard serving as a strong gunline anvil and CP generator for swift and resilient Custodes Jetbike captains is a different thing even if all units in question were balanced within their own books. Custodes, as an army, are intended to be small in numbers with a few powerful strategems to reinforce a couple key units as particular points in the battle, when they can use another faction to offset that numbers issue and have all the bodies they want and get extra CP generation to use their power abilities whenever they want, thats not an issue you can fix just by fixing powerful units, thats an inherent army concept issue.
Vaktathi wrote: At 138pts, we'd see the Basilisk fly right back onto the same shelf it spent the preceding 5 editions.
Not sure why Hydras, Manticores, Tauroxes, Exterminators, Bane Wolfs, Wyverns, Hellhounds, Deathstrikes, Vanquishers, Demolishers, Devil Dogs, etc all need to cost more
If HQ officers only get one order, whats the point of the Elites slot junior officer?
They should probably do something different - like extend the range of orders or something
The base chasis need to go up on all russes. T8 12 wounds - is huge - you should have to pay for that resilience - not to mention their grinding advance rule. Gaurd shoot better on the move than eldar? Does that make any sense?
Little about the Russ tank actually makes any sense
However, as to the Eldar comparison, only if we're insisting on the concept that everything Space Elf must be superior just because. Eldar were not, until relatively recently at least, an army where everything was an expert marksman with eldritch targeting systems, they were a majority BS3 army for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the games existence.
Ultimately, we can look at it this way, a heavy, generally slow moving ground vehicle (if it wants to make use of all those rules) with multiple dedicated gun crew that serves as the premier armored unit of *the* tank faction should probably have some things to make it stand out. I dont have a conceptual problem with that being a more stable firing platform than a wibbly-wobbly hovertank zipping around at high speed thats getting tossed around by every near miss blast with two weekend warrior crewmen.
In real life, when looking at such platforms, say Attack helicopter vs Tank, the groundbound tank can run around at highway speeds and hit a similar sized target also moving at highway speeds at several kilometers distant with a single shot 90%+ of the time, while a the helicopter has to rely on guided munitions to accomplish the same feat.
As is, many of the Russ variants never see use, of the Codex versions, we basically only see 3 of 7 turrets see routine use (BC, Executioner, Punisher) the others might as well not exist even though they have radically different roles than those that do see use, its hard to argue that theres a fundamental platform issue with the Russ hull as a result.
As for the T8, relative to something like a Predator (since its the only , they're already paying 35% more for the base hull (122pts vs 90) with a lower base Ballistic skill, it would seem they're paying more already, that resiliency isnt coming for free.
Some things you mentioned don't need to go up - some of them do though. How can you seriously say the manticore doesn't need to go up in cost?
Given how rarely it makes an appearance in army lists these days, it doesnt appear to be a particular issue. Their popularity has plummeted since the first few months of 8E, and the value of that indirect fire is highly variable depending on table and opponent. They just dont appear to be a major issue, in the thread about what units need a CA points adjustment from last week, I think only one post even mentioned them over 5 pages.
How in anyway can you remotely defend that a LR with BC is remotely balanced. It out shoots a quad lascannon predator, hammerhead, a vanquisher against T7 3+Sv and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
You are looking at units in too much of a vacuum. for instance, a knight can move more thanfurther and still shoot its BC, has a ward save and isn't useless the second something touches it in CC. People keep compairing apples to organges in this thread and its probably why you never see LR spam lists dominating tournaments despite people in this thread claiming they are broken over and over
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
it would make a tactical difference but it wouldn't need to be a power difference if the units are balanced, because you are changing how the army plays, but thats no different from a pure meele marine force vs a pure shooting marine force.
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
You'd also loose a lot of your alpha strike ability, as Custodes bikes are actually super expensive. Melee is a lot less essential in an army where most of the heavy lifting units can fly.
Ice_can wrote: How in anyway can you remotely defend that a LR with BC is remotely balanced. It out shoots a quad lascannon predator, hammerhead, a vanquisher against T7 3+Sv
I don't have the Hammerhead stats and costs directly in front of me, but IIRC it has the same problem as the Vanquisher, being reliant on a single-shot D6 damage weapon. These are issues of poor execution of concept, particularly in the Vanquisher's case, a single watered down long range BS4+ melta shot as the main gun on a (bare minimum) 150pt battle tank is pretty garbage, even with double shooting main guns.
As for the Quadlas Predator, the only Battlecannon Russ that's going to outshoot one against a tank target is one loaded to the gills with expensive sponsons (and at ranges under that which the Predator can engage out to full effectiveness), which it will either have to engage at risk of harming itself to employ (overloaded plasma cannon sponsons) or get absurdly close to really use well (multimeltas). At 48", a Lascannon equipped battlecannon Russ is going to average 4.08 wounds against a T7 3+sv target, the Quadlas predator is going to average 5.19 wounds, and do just as well against a T8 target while the Russ will drop to 3.31 wounds. Meanwhile, a lascannon equiped Vanquisher is going to average....3.46 wounds against a T7 target and a mere 2.84 against a T8 target.
and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
That's probably because the Predator Autocannon is overcosted. That's an issue with that particular piece of wargear. Autocannons in general feel really expensive, at least to me, in this edition. Whether it be Predators, Sentinels, Hydras, Havocs, etc.
As another comparison, the Armiger Knight, while having a much higher base cost, pays a mere 5pts for the same weapon with a longer range and no movement penalty.
Also you say a predator hull is 90 points but a russ is 122 so why does a russ pay 22points for a double shooting battlecannon but a knight pays 100points foe the same?
Two things.
First, stuff costs different points in different armies, same way a Lascannon is 20pts for BS4+ Guardsmen and 25pts for BS3+ Space Marines. Knights are rolling with BS3+, not IG's predominantly BS4+
Second, in the Knights case, the weapon itself has 2d6 shots, the double shots are tied to the weapon, in the case of the Russ, the platform pays for that ability, not the weapon. One will notice it is the same cost in the CSM codex where it resides on the BS4+ Defiler and it's the same cost and has no double-shot ability.
More to the point however, I think the Knight Double shot Battlecannon is simply absurdly overpriced and has no business being 100pts. I think that class of Knight is a wee bit expensive personally for what you get.
So when are C9mmand tabks going to start paying 50pts a battlecannon then as they are BS3+
Because predominantly most armies don't have different BS levels within an army where units with different levels of that stat can have the same weapons and GW doesn't want to micromanage costs to that level (with the exception of plasma and melta guns primarily in the case of Stormtroopers), and have instead chosen to increase the price of the Tank Commander's base profile to account for its increased BS and Orders abilities. Same reason a Powerfist costs more for Space Marines than for Guard, but doesn't cost more for a Chapter Master who can wield it far more effectively than a Sergeant, they only take the granularity so far.
I don't see it that way, because if an army is balanced with the idea of facing all the other armies, then it should be able to fight that Imperial Guard+Custodes.
If my pure shooting Tau army can face a Space Marine army with artillery+bikers it should be able to face a Imperial Guard+Custodes Jetbikes armies.
In that sense, sure yeah I'm with you there, I guess I was thinking more in the sense that, while many armies may be able to deal with the artillery gunline *or* the bikers (either kind), having the ability to combine both in an army can present a threat many opponents cannot deal with.
meleti wrote: If Tau had even one non-UC melee unit in par with Custodes jetbikes, Tau would be a totally different faction to play. They don’t want a melee force so much as a countercharging, skirmishing sort of unit. Having a good one would make a big difference tactically.
You'd also loose a lot of your alpha strike ability, as Custodes bikes are actually super expensive. Melee is a lot less essential in an army where most of the heavy lifting units can fly.
You end up losing your worst ~300 points of guns, in an army that has 1700 other points of guns. It's not really a big deal.
I actually think the basic russ is mediocre at best.
Possibly below mediocre.
And only because of random shots and damage.
You can't rely on it to be OP if your rolling 1 or 2 shots consistently which you still need to roll to hit and wound.
At least Exterminators are guaranteed 4 shots and guaranteed 2 damage each shot
These people going on about good great and op russ tanks are deluded fools
and outshoots a autocannon heavybolters predator against GEU and MEU as tau don't exactly have a anti infantry hammerhead.
That's probably because the Predator Autocannon is overcosted. That's an issue with that particular piece of wargear. Autocannons in general feel really expensive, at least to me, in this edition. Whether it be Predators, Sentinels, Hydras, Havocs, etc.
As another comparison, the Armiger Knight, while having a much higher base cost, pays a mere 5pts for the same weapon with a longer range and no movement penalty.
Why are you firing an autocannon predator at single wounded models? That thing is made to make Dark Eldar cry, compare the damage of a BCLR to a Raider compared to a stock AC predator. That is true for all the targets with a good invul save, which aren't exactly rare in the competitive environment, especially if there are hit penalties attached to it.
T7 3+ is not a good benchmark anymore for fire practice.
ValentineGames wrote:I actually think the basic russ is mediocre at best.
Possibly below mediocre.
And only because of random shots and damage.
You can't rely on it to be OP if your rolling 1 or 2 shots consistently which you still need to roll to hit and wound.
At least Exterminators are guaranteed 4 shots and guaranteed 2 damage each shot
These people going on about good great and op russ tanks are deluded fools
Russes are cheap enough to not be negatively affected by randomness, and Catachans still exist.
Most people are running them Cadian or Catachans, and therefore able to re-roll number of shots.
Exterminator isn't even as good as the Battlecannon at killing Primaris I'm afraid. Even if you count 1 in 3 shots as doing nothing to represent it rolling a 1 for damage, the Battlecannon still kills more 2W models on average.
Getting hung up on random shots and damage is missing the point. It'll cost you in the long run.
Catachan takes the avarage number of battle cannon shots from 7 to 9 shots per turn it's pretty good buff and makes a LR better than anything most non Space elfs can field
I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
If the predator was 170 points and had 4d3 predator autocannon shots it might be worth it. But this is fantasy land, there is no way the predator gets that kind of buff.
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony.
And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
If the predator was 170 points and had 4d3 predator autocannon shots it might be worth it. But this is fantasy land, there is no way the predator gets that kind of buff.
Why is 170 with ~4 extra Str 7 AP -1 D3 shots so much better than 120 with 6 extra Str 5 AP -1 D1 shots? Is the damage stat really that important that you'd trade 2 shots and 50 points for it?
Trollbert wrote: I guess the predator without weapons should be 70 pts and the auto cannon should be 30 rather than 40.
The full lascannon outload would be 170 points, which I think is fair compared to lascannnon havocs, which are a bit more glass cannony. And the HB Autocannon would be 120, which I think is fair in comparison to the armiger which is more durable and mobile.
No one is paying 120 points for that predator gun and 6 heavy bolter shots and no POTMS. The offense it brings is inconsequential.
And yet people pay 170 points for two of that predator gun, but zero heavy bolter shots...
If the predator was 170 points and had 4d3 predator autocannon shots it might be worth it. But this is fantasy land, there is no way the predator gets that kind of buff.
Why is 170 with ~4 extra Str 7 AP -1 D3 shots so much better than 120 with 6 extra Str 5 AP -1 D1 shots? Is the damage stat really that important that you'd trade 2 shots and 50 points for it?
Just so we're on the same page here, strength 7, AP-1, 3 flat damage is a solid meta-buster right now. Many big targets have a 4+ invuln or a 3+ invuln, making -1 AP the efficient choice.
Also, yes it's 6 shots, but they're:
36" instead of 48" Strength 5 instead of 7 - big deal 1 damage, instead of 3 damage - big big deal
And it's a fictitious trade; the predator doesn't cost 120 points. When the space wolves codex drops, a 3 damage weapon with limited AP is going to be *the* choice for clearing out TWC.
I've been consistently playing tournaments since 8th dropped and Mono-Guard being broken ended around when CA dropped.
If Guard vehicles were half as good as you guys are whinging about, they'd be seeing a lot more play competitively, but they're not There's many more factors that go into whether something is actually good or not than its points cost and theoretical damage output compared to some other similar unit in a vacuum. But I think that's the thing a lot of you who are calling Guard vehicles OP will disagree with at the core level. To you, that's how the game should be balanced because it's the obvious way to go about balancing units. The problem is that it doesn't factor in those intangibles that show up on the table. Terrain, LOS, mission objectives, stratagems, and most importantly, how that unit interacts with the rest of the army as a whole. An army can have mathematically 'broken' units, but still put out a pretty mediocre performance as an army on the table due to all these confounding factors.
In the two Mono Guard armies that placed top 3 in a Major during March and April (BoK doesn't have anything past April for some reason), there is a single Basilisk and zero Leman Russ tanks. There is a third Guard army, but it uses the old Celestine HQ/Cyberwolves to fill a BDE trick so it's not even a legal list any more and even that one didn't use Basilisks or LR's. I'm not seeing anything coming from the data at the higher levels of play, or even from personal experience at numerous local tournaments to indicate these units are actually a problem.
If you're getting spanked by Guard at your local store, then all I can say is I'm crushing at mine with Deathwatch, so anecdotes are pretty worthless regarding balance.
With the release of knights, there is absolutely no reason to ever run predators anymore, the Auto cannon knights are all around better.
same toughness, same armor save, invuln, better movement, no penalty to moving and shooting, can split its guns, can hold its own in melee with kicking and only costs a few points more then a dakka pred.
Backspacehacker wrote: With the release of knights, there is absolutely no reason to ever run predators anymore, the Auto cannon knights are all around better.
same toughness, same armor save, invuln, better movement, no penalty to moving and shooting, can split its guns, can hold its own in melee with kicking and only costs a few points more then a dakka pred.
I categorize basilisks as "Good". They are not OP in any way or "super" because it's hard to hide them using normal rules, they're T6 (meaning even autocannons wound them on 3+), and at the end of the day they only have BS4+. I don't care if it can be buffed, because every army has strategies for buffing their to hit rolls.
Want to kill them? hit them with anything long ranged Str 7 or above, or get them into melee. I bring 3 of them pretty often, and people don't complain about them much, it's the other stuff in my armies they're worried about.
As for the whole "IG are too powerful in general" argument. They good, probably around the 75th percentile as far as performance (make sure you actually look up what percentile means). I could easily see an IK list giving IG a lot of trouble since their codex came out.
chrispy1991 wrote: I categorize basilisks as "Good". They are not OP in any way or "super" because it's hard to hide them using normal rules, they're T6 (meaning even autocannons wound them on 3+), and at the end of the day they only have BS4+. I don't care if it can be buffed, because every army has strategies for buffing their to hit rolls.
Want to kill them? hit them with anything long ranged Str 7 or above, or get them into melee. I bring 3 of them pretty often, and people don't complain about them much, it's the other stuff in my armies they're worried about.
As for the whole "IG are too powerful in general" argument. They good, probably around the 75th percentile as far as performance (make sure you actually look up what percentile means). I could easily see an IK list giving IG a lot of trouble since their codex came out.
I can already tell you they don't give them problems, if you are talking a pure IG list basalisk are good, but when you get 4 of them they are great. And knight lits drop to guard like fly's.
Assuming we know the lists, vostoyan supreme command detatchment, shadow sword, hitting on 2s wounding on 2s rerolling both hit and wound. So, GG knights
RogueApiary wrote: I've been consistently playing tournaments since 8th dropped and Mono-Guard being broken ended around when CA dropped.
If Guard vehicles were half as good as you guys are whinging about, they'd be seeing a lot more play competitively, but they're not There's many more factors that go into whether something is actually good or not than its points cost and theoretical damage output compared to some other similar unit in a vacuum. But I think that's the thing a lot of you who are calling Guard vehicles OP will disagree with at the core level. To you, that's how the game should be balanced because it's the obvious way to go about balancing units. The problem is that it doesn't factor in those intangibles that show up on the table. Terrain, LOS, mission objectives, stratagems, and most importantly, how that unit interacts with the rest of the army as a whole. An army can have mathematically 'broken' units, but still put out a pretty mediocre performance as an army on the table due to all these confounding factors.
In the two Mono Guard armies that placed top 3 in a Major during March and April (BoK doesn't have anything past April for some reason), there is a single Basilisk and zero Leman Russ tanks. There is a third Guard army, but it uses the old Celestine HQ/Cyberwolves to fill a BDE trick so it's not even a legal list any more and even that one didn't use Basilisks or LR's. I'm not seeing anything coming from the data at the higher levels of play, or even from personal experience at numerous local tournaments to indicate these units are actually a problem.
If you're getting spanked by Guard at your local store, then all I can say is I'm crushing at mine with Deathwatch, so anecdotes are pretty worthless regarding balance.
Going undefeated and averaging 32 points per round is pretty damn solid in ITC land.
This list has a Shadowsword, a couple Basilisks, 2++ Bullgryns, Hellhounds.
A list like this would probably see Leman Russ tanks if Shadowswords weren't stupid strong, and immune to turn 1 alpha by just outflanking.
The argument that Leman Russ tanks aren't showing up at top tables is kind of silly because Guard is still a top-tier army, even without them. You are implicitly saying that if Guard had to use Leman Russ they would fall out of top tier, which is not true, and you definitely haven't made any effort to prove that it is.
chrispy1991 wrote: I categorize basilisks as "Good". They are not OP in any way or "super" because it's hard to hide them using normal rules, they're T6 (meaning even autocannons wound them on 3+), and at the end of the day they only have BS4+. I don't care if it can be buffed, because every army has strategies for buffing their to hit rolls.
Want to kill them? hit them with anything long ranged Str 7 or above, or get them into melee. I bring 3 of them pretty often, and people don't complain about them much, it's the other stuff in my armies they're worried about.
As for the whole "IG are too powerful in general" argument. They good, probably around the 75th percentile as far as performance (make sure you actually look up what percentile means). I could easily see an IK list giving IG a lot of trouble since their codex came out.
I can already tell you they don't give them problems, if you are talking a pure IG list basalisk are good, but when you get 4 of them they are great. And knight lits drop to guard like fly's.
Assuming we know the lists, vostoyan supreme command detatchment, shadow sword, hitting on 2s wounding on 2s rerolling both hit and wound. So, GG knights
I haven't fought knights yet with my guard, so I can't really make a call from personal experience. I do know from personal experience that ranged invul saves combined with high toughness really messes with IG though.
A Shadowsword in the list you just mentioned will only do an average of 17 unsaved wounds to a knight using the ion shield stratagem, and let's face it.. they will be. That's not even enough to bracket a hawkshroud knight, and any mechanicus knight is just going to run at highest bracket anyways with their strat. If that knight happens to have the ion bulwark trait too, then it goes down to just 8 unsaved wounds.
Also, serious question as I may just be missing something, but where is the rerolling 1's to hit coming from on the shadowsword in a Vostroyan detachment? I didn't factor it in to my math because I can't figure where that comes from.
It should also be noted that if the IG player doesn't get first turn, which is more then likely to be the case, that Shadowsword will be dead on the first turn hands down.
Nah vastoyan does more then that, if we assume pure average on every roll, I can break it all down if you want.
It's going to end up doing 21 wounds if they have a 4++ and 14 wounds if they do a 3++.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Volcano canon gets +1 to hit and reroll wounds. Tank commanders gives him a reroll to hit, and vastoyan strat is another +1 to hit. So 2 on 2s rerolling it all
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now or course first turn alpha strike has always been an issue especially with big guys
Backspacehacker wrote: Tank commanders gives him a reroll to hit, and vastoyan strat is another +1 to hit. So 2 on 2s rerolling it all
Tank Commanders can only issue orders to Leman Russes. A Shadowsword cannot receive the order to reroll 1's to hit.
Sure on that? Maybe it was getting got another way I know it can be done hold on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok I found how he did it, my friend made this list he likes tank commanders turns out guli was in there, so it was a turbo hate craft list, so that will give you a reroll or 1 but I won't count that so re assuming statistical average it comes out to...
5 wounds needing to be saved, so honestly it's really close to the same thing, almost negligible if you are assuming average.
But still a shadow sword with 2 on 2 rerolling wounds is brutal.
Then the rules work.
