This is something I'm not seeing talked about much with the new releases, but holy actual god did GW decide that large vehicles needed to get absolutely slammed. New Gladiator tanks all over 200pts, land raiders sitting at 285 base, 300+ point repulsors, 300+ point Lord of War Monoliths, 100 point nerfs to multiple large models just months after the CA2020 points update.
It seems crazy to be shipping these kinds of changes without some kind of reduction in deadliness, which as we all know from the rampant Eradicator discussion is not happening pretty much anywhere. Vehicles are going to be taking more damage from dedicated AT weaponry but also more damage incidentally from anti-elite weaponry, which has an obnoxious tendency to just...not care about your vehicle having +1, +2, or even+3 toughness as compared to another vehicle - a heavy bolter hurts a Leman Russ the same as it hurts a T6 Goliath Truck or Taurox.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
Well maybe they want people to stock up an aggresors and the new up coming erdictors kits, only to nerf them in the spring on push primaris tanks on to people after they get fixed alongside the erdictor nerfs.
This way no one is going to stay with the same army they bought at the start of 9th, or worse for GW 8th ed.
in 4th non-skimmer vehicles were trash, they made them a little more survivable in 5th, then in 6th they made them paper again with hull points added to the damage chart that already existed(effectively giving them 2 damage systems that had the same results).
they are doing the same thing with the changes from 8th to 8.5 to 9th. much of it has to do with marketing new kits, or kits you need to buy many more of, or refocusing off kits that are no longer the big sellers.
People love the 40K universe, they love the minis they WANT it to be good/work, so no matter what GW does most players will still keep shoveling money at them, as long as that happens GW has no incentive to change course.
Lets face it there is no direct competition on the scale of GW even if many of the other game systems out there are better than current 40K. they just don't have the community support. and the few of us who have walked away by choosing to play 40K our way (an older edition) are the minority.
That's where they were before this? I mean the "base" cost is different because they changed back to including the "base" weapons/equipment in the "base" cost, but once you add the required base weapons onto the old hull cost, you're still within a few points of their new base cost.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
They didn't change much? The Gladius all being 200+ points kind of sucks - especially for the Lancer, that one does not look at all impressive - but that's about where we were predicting they'd land. Land Raiders were about 285 in 8th, 3 Repulsor Executioners were more than half your 2,000 points.
Blaming eradicators is missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, they're too good. But AT is widely available in quantity, and isn't even wasted with all the heavy infantry running around.
Even dropping in with meltaguns or combi-meltas is a reasonable tactic for a lot of armies. As the_scotsman points out, even heavy bolters are putting dings in now.
Most Main Battle Tanks are overpriced or have too few wounds (or both) at this point.
The new marine toys that aren't infantry are largely mediocre to poor choices. The cheapest Gladiator is the pure AT version at 200 points for 2 strength 10 attacks that feel bizarrely weak. The new speeders are a good bit more expensive than landspeeders, but aren't offering much return (especially since they degrade)
If you want to go for 'vehicles' in SM, grab dreads. Those are pretty good, and benefit from a lot of changes.
The necron stuff relies heavily on quantum shields or 4++, which their 'big stuff' doesn't have. Its an odd direction, since it does little but directly impact the sales of new kits.
Oh I agree - it's maddening.
I have two monoliths and an Obelisk.
I actually built the Tesseract Vault as an Obelisk (on purpose with Glue and everything) because I thought it looked cool and sleek and the Vault would be a pain to store and transport and I wanted the Transcendent C'tan to be separate because I wanted to run the Necron monster mash list with 3 or 4 C'tan.
So yeah... FML... I got double kicked.
I can only speculate that there's not as much outcry because a lot of people had already relegated a lot of this stuff to the Cool but Impractical shelf.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
Forgot about this bit, but probably worth addressing it separately anyway.
I think for a large number of people, it doesn't sink in/become reality until the books have been out a while.
A surprising number of people have had points and rules quoted at them directly from previews, photographs and videos, but carry on with their 'maybes, ifs and 'no it doesn't work that way'' as if the changes don't exist.
Sometimes its a mistake or misunderstanding, and fair enough, there's a lot of information to process and some of it is second hand. I've made mistakes that way myself.
But today I've seen people act as if the the DAFAQ published by GW doesn't exist, so we pretty much have to account for a time delay for people see and internalize the information.
Going by the surprise about the lack of weapon changes for other armies and no 2W for chaos marines, we might need two months before people start reacting to the shift away from main battle tanks.
I've said for a while now that vehicles are junk in 9th. GW's brainless approach to anti-tank weapons not being as good as mid-S high shot volume was just to buff everything to be even more deadly to everything. The result is that single entity units are not a good bet, unless they have at least a 4++ or another good way to negate damage.
The necron vehicles are actually interesting because QS is very good against anti-tank, and for 1CP you can get it up to a 4++, meaning you only take 1 in 4 hits from anti-tank. Even a unit of eradicators doesn't kill a QS vehicle.
Of course, monoliths etc don't have QS, or even an invuln, making them total junk and absolute eradicator bait.
Unkindly, there isn't much to say. I.E. you previously started a thread on "is anyone going to use vehicles?" - and the forum widely went "no, probably not."
Also such units were by and large bad before, so little is really changing meta wise. (I know there was that lengthy thread on making Land Raiders great again, but I think they've been overcosted for the last 20 years unless I'm blanking a year or two.)
I'm assuming we are going to get some "woops, all vehicles now have double wounds" - and uh, Lascannons and Las-equivalents do 2D6 damage - towards the end of 2021.
I love that Marine player's have written of the gladiators as trash.
Especially when a minority are still claiming riptides are OP not realising the gladiator is less points with more firepower.
I suspect that untill we see a codex that you could say had vehicals as core to it's design we won't truely know, however I do believe that this is GW deciding to force players to play the armies the way GW intended by using core to restrict buffs to what GW consider the units that should be in those armies.
That's a really dishonest comparison.
Riptides have never been good for the firepower, but because they are extremely hard to take down.
Give the gladiators a 3++ and you bet that it will change Marine's vision of it.
Potential and practical one turn of shoting would have to be huge from a tank that comes without an inv save, unless it is realy cheap, like under 130pts with weapons.
That's where they were before this? I mean the "base" cost is different because they changed back to including the "base" weapons/equipment in the "base" cost, but once you add the required base weapons onto the old hull cost, you're still within a few points of their new base cost.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
They didn't change much? The Gladius all being 200+ points kind of sucks - especially for the Lancer, that one does not look at all impressive - but that's about where we were predicting they'd land. Land Raiders were about 285 in 8th, 3 Repulsor Executioners were more than half your 2,000 points.
I havnt seen the full marine dex yet but can you confirm this? The lancer I was hoping for about 140-160 points. At 200+ it is straight worse than a las pred...which is actually quite high praise.
That's where they were before this? I mean the "base" cost is different because they changed back to including the "base" weapons/equipment in the "base" cost, but once you add the required base weapons onto the old hull cost, you're still within a few points of their new base cost.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
They didn't change much? The Gladius all being 200+ points kind of sucks - especially for the Lancer, that one does not look at all impressive - but that's about where we were predicting they'd land. Land Raiders were about 285 in 8th, 3 Repulsor Executioners were more than half your 2,000 points.
I havnt seen the full marine dex yet but can you confirm this? The lancer I was hoping for about 140-160 points. At 200+ it is straight worse than a las pred...which is actually quite high praise.
The Lancer is 200pts. 2 S10 AP-3 Dd3+3 shots at BS2+ works out to 4.62 unsaved wounds vs "standard tanks' vs a laspreds 5.1. A laspred is I believe 180 now? The Lancer has 4 Storm Bolters and is T8 W12 vs the Pred's T7 W11.
Spoletta wrote: That's a really dishonest comparison.
Riptides have never been good for the firepower, but because they are extremely hard to take down.
Give the gladiators a 3++ and you bet that it will change Marine's vision of it.
Riptide is T7, 2+, 5++ and it's 275 base
Gets 12 and 8 shots
Galldiator has 24 S6 -1/-2AP 1D shots plus
8 rapid fire S4 -1/-2AP 1D for 230 points.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
Bruh, thats the Stormsurge's "code". I never ever heard anyone call it by its code, its always "my stormsurge"
Ice_can wrote: I love that Marine player's have written of the gladiators as trash.
I'm not. One of them probably is trash, the Lancer does not look good. The Valiant may end up being decent but not great. The Reaper looks like it might even be good. Have to wait and see when I get the book to be certain.
Ice_can wrote: I love that Marine player's have written of the gladiators as trash.
I'm not. One of them probably is trash, the Lancer does not look good. The Valiant may end up being decent but not great. The Reaper looks like it might even be good. Have to wait and see when I get the book to be certain.
Auspex Tactics on youtube has a video going over them all, and nice clear shots of each datasheet.
Xenomancers wrote: I havnt seen the full marine dex yet but can you confirm this? The lancer I was hoping for about 140-160 points. At 200+ it is straight worse than a las pred...which is actually quite high praise.
I haven't either, but 200 points was about where I was predicting them - based on Impulsor chassis plus guestimates on the weapons. I think they added up to about 180 where/when you could do the adding, then I tossed in about 20 points with the assumption GW would too with a hoped for but not expected beefier stat line similar to Rhino to Predator - both of which GW has supposedly delivered.
The funny thing is, only like 3 armies right now are trashing vehicles. Marines, Sisters, and necrons, and of them, both marines and necrons have an entire class of vehicles that exist with the ability to mitigate damage coming at them to remain effective, but no one else has this damage, so until new books come out, quantum shielding and duty eternal are pretty crushing to armies not having the new damage output.
And knowing GW, it is no guarantee new armies are gonna get any. There's always the risk your book comes out and you're the new necrons of the edition after all
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Or even what army it's in.
Alphabet Soup units are always Tau. In fact, that's how GW names their new Tau units. They all have a bowl and whoever gets the coolest spoonful gets to name it.
stratigo wrote: The funny thing is, only like 3 armies right now are trashing vehicles. Marines, Sisters, and necrons, and of them, both marines and necrons have an entire class of vehicles that exist with the ability to mitigate damage coming at them to remain effective, but no one else has this damage, so until new books come out, quantum shielding and duty eternal are pretty crushing to armies not having the new damage output.
And knowing GW, it is no guarantee new armies are gonna get any. There's always the risk your book comes out and you're the new necrons of the edition after all
I can't speak for Marines, but a couple points for Necrons:
Necron vehicles have always had Quantum shielding though - they've changed it because otherwise it would basically auto-pass against too many of the Dx+y style AT weapons but it's arguably better against the hail of multiple lower damage shots.
OP was originally talking about big 200+ point vehicles.
Doomsday Ark is under 200 points - it was good before and it's still good. I haven't heard anyone complaining about the Ark. Only discussion I've seen is comparing it to with its direct competitor - Doomstalker which has a 4++.
Triarch stalker is largely unchanged except its long ranged AT gun is more anti elite infantry. It's under 200 points and is still about as good as before.
Only Necron complaining about vehicles is for the Monolith which has no quantum shielding - it gained a 2+ save and 4 wounds and a damage output boost but they moved it into Lord of War. The 3 CP cost + no invul means it probably won't see much play outside of casual.
The Obelisk is also a 370+ point LoW whose only gun is AP0 with some gimmicky anti-aircraft powers - it doesn't have quantum shielding and it can't dish out any damage and costs 3 CP to boot.
The Vault is 500 points but has a whole host of damage powers and a 4++ and is considered viable at least some from what I've heard.
So basically the complaining in the Necron world is about 200+ point vehicles that don't have Quantum shielding or other invul that were bad before and are even worse in a world of high damage & consistent damage AT weapons.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Or even what army it's in.
Alphabet Soup units are always Tau. In fact, that's how GW names their new Tau units. They all have a bowl and whoever gets the coolest spoonful gets to name it.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
I was thinking some form of Russian WWII tank, to be honest.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
I was thinking some form of Russian WWII tank, to be honest.
Those went as far as the KV-2, I'm afraid. Or the KV1-S, for the most amount of letters.
Germans go for word soup though - Panzerbefehlswagen III mit 5cm KwK L/42 / Sd.Kfz.141.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
I was thinking some form of Russian WWII tank, to be honest.
Those went as far as the KV-2, I'm afraid. Or the KV1-S, for the most amount of letters.
Germans go for word soup though - Panzerbefehlswagen III mit 5cm KwK L/42 / Sd.Kfz.141.
Don't forget the KV85, of course, even if it wasn't around for all that long.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
I was thinking some form of Russian WWII tank, to be honest.
Those went as far as the KV-2, I'm afraid. Or the KV1-S, for the most amount of letters.
Germans go for word soup though - Panzerbefehlswagen III mit 5cm KwK L/42 / Sd.Kfz.141.
Don't forget the KV85, of course, even if it wasn't around for all that long.
Ah, I thought I was forgetting one, and it is technically more numbers. Well reminded!
Still planning on fielding mine! I think they might be old enough to drink by now. The decision to move a 24-wound 360-point giant floating death brick to the Lord of War slot wasn't really a surprise - I'm pretty sure it only stuck it out in the Heavy Support slot as long as it did for legacy reasons.
Spoletta wrote: That's a really dishonest comparison.
Riptides have never been good for the firepower, but because they are extremely hard to take down.
Give the gladiators a 3++ and you bet that it will change Marine's vision of it.
Riptide is T7, 2+, 5++ and it's 275 base
Gets 12 and 8 shots
Galldiator has 24 S6 -1/-2AP 1D shots plus
8 rapid fire S4 -1/-2AP 1D for 230 points.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
Drachii wrote: Still planning on fielding mine! I think they might be old enough to drink by now. The decision to move a 24-wound 360-point giant floating death brick to the Lord of War slot wasn't really a surprise .
It was to me, especially with a new kit coming. I was expecting it to come down in points and made more feasible to field, not less.
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Or even what army it's in.
Whoops, yeah - sorry!
It's the Stormsurge.
I quite like the model (not everyone does), but it is just terrible for the cost (400 ish, plus 3cp, plus no sept traits, plus no saviour protocols)...
sanguine40k wrote: Welcome to the KV128's home since pretty much the start of 8th.
If you gave me 15 guesses I could not correctly tell you what a "KV128" is.
Tau... something, presumably. GW leaned into attaching meaningless alphanumeric codes for the various suits, but I didn't realize Tau players made conversations more difficult by actually using them.
I was thinking some form of Russian WWII tank, to be honest.
Those went as far as the KV-2, I'm afraid. Or the KV1-S, for the most amount of letters.
Germans go for word soup though - Panzerbefehlswagen III mit 5cm KwK L/42 / Sd.Kfz.141.
Don't forget the KV85, of course, even if it wasn't around for all that long.
Ah, I thought I was forgetting one, and it is technically more numbers. Well reminded!
You're also forgetting the KV-8 flamethrower tank.
The Monolith decision is... infuriating. It was bad for years and they finally make a cool new model, give it good offensive power, yet don't give it Quantum Shielding even though it appears to have been pointed as if it did.... fine, whatever, I'll take it anyway, it'll just die fast.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
The riptide compares really really well with the gladiator even without drones. Even with the (inflated) weapon stats you used for the gladiator, the difference of being able to shoot for more than a turn, is simply too great. And no one dare start the usual "But marines have lots of buffs!", because those tanks have close to none now. Riptides win the buff game by a landslide.
Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
The riptide compares really really well with the gladiator even without drones. Even with the (inflated) weapon stats you used for the gladiator, the difference of being able to shoot for more than a turn, is simply too great. And no one dare start the usual "But marines have lots of buffs!", because those tanks have close to none now. Riptides win the buff game by a landslide.
but but but eradicators! there see marines are evil and how dare you like Marines.
Yeah I bought a used original monolith after seeing the new model and...optimistically assuming they would make a good unit.
So may thinks they could have done so easily....
Maybe make it have a fortress mode that would allow it to put up a 5++ powerfield if it did not move, just for one.
Still, a 2+ save isn't bad. The list of AP4 weapons isn't huge, I looked at the new marine codex and even the premiere tankbuster, the lascannon,has an AP3. Some of the AP 4 weapons have a strength lower than the monolith's T8.
Adding in the deathray option and buffing the existing weapons was a good move, i wish they could give some necron weapons 2d3 instead of d6 shots...
If they'd left the monolioth at the old cost, it would have been a pretty easy take especially after they let it DS at 9", FINALLY!
But NNNNOO-OOOOO! They had to raise the cost. Well, ok, it was still a tempting take.
So they added 3CP to the cost.
I dunno, i paid a fair price for my monolith, it was less than a lot i see on ebay, but still it was a chunk o' change. I want to use it, but I don't know now.Maybe drop it near an objective that's worth a lotta points, like the ones that go up the longer you hold them, have it scour the enemy holding it will a full strike to keep the enemy from getting that last big points boost. Or between two objectives so it scour one and deploy units to grab another.
Or drop it between a real high point object I've just grabbed to make it hard for the enemy to make it hard for the enemy to charge at them to take them off it.
I suppose I can think of something to do with it...
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
You're statement is correct, but for the wrong reasons, imho.
They're not picking winners or losers. They're certainly disturbing the meta and that's not always a bad thing, because stale lists make for a stale game. Should GW ever achieve excellent balance then all units are equally viable. The meta will still shake as GW is essentially required to continue to produce new models every year. New armies will appear as well as new tools and people will naturally gravitate to them.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
You're statement is correct, but for the wrong reasons, imho.
They're not picking winners or losers. They're certainly disturbing the meta and that's not always a bad thing, because stale lists make for a stale game. Should GW ever achieve excellent balance then all units are equally viable. The meta will still shake as GW is essentially required to continue to produce new models every year. New armies will appear as well as new tools and people will naturally gravitate to them.
GW is 100 percent picking winners and losers, even internally to codexes.
"GW makes all of the new units OP so people have to buy them"
GW then makes the new tanks not OP.
"GW dumpster fired all of the tanks"
Newness only has minor correlation to what GW makes OP or not. The CEO isn't sitting over the rules writer's shoulder dictating every statblock for maximum profitability. But corporate has and likely still does hand down directives. Things like "Make wraith knights really strong" they did when those released.
And then the rules writers themselves have the models they think are super cool and they want to make cool, or the models they think are lame and want to make lame and even when they control for that bias, and they don't always do so, it will filter in.
And finally, they just make mistakes. They don't think out how a unit with good stats combos with a strategem that takes its good cost and sends it through the roof or something like this
GW wants people to buy Eradicators so they made their rules absolutely bonkers, but they don't actually want people destroying the game so they're also nerfing all the targets Eradicators are good against.
Everyone will buy two squads and then never actually get to use them on the tabletop.
Mind numbing reading all this. GW is obviously just playing the hype train game, since this is now a competitive games in the eyes of most players "trash" is anything that isnt "OP lul please nerf". So they just swing some numbers around to get you buying the newest toys and selling your old crap just to re buy it 10 months later after the 15th supplement battlezone campaign book comes out.
Warhammer 40k reminds me more of a competitive MOBA or game like Overwatch at this point, nerfs and buffs revolving around new skins and players complaining. The whole time GW sucking up them juicy micro transactions (oops I meant to say two $50 space marine books in just over a year).
Im a 30k player, and I wont pretend my game isnt rife with power creep, but my lord Im glad it isnt like this yet.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
The riptide compares really really well with the gladiator even without drones. Even with the (inflated) weapon stats you used for the gladiator, the difference of being able to shoot for more than a turn, is simply too great. And no one dare start the usual "But marines have lots of buffs!", because those tanks have close to none now. Riptides win the buff game by a landslide.
What inflated weapon stats? Those were lifted from the datasheet, go check the preview videos with pictures of gladiator datasheets.
Spoletta wrote: That's a really dishonest comparison.
Riptides have never been good for the firepower, but because they are extremely hard to take down.
Give the gladiators a 3++ and you bet that it will change Marine's vision of it.
3++ with drones to bullet spong.
Firepower is annoying. But more annoying is that removing it takes tons of effort unless opponent is very adept rolling 1's or you have fast assaulters that bypass overwatch
the_scotsman wrote: This is something I'm not seeing talked about much with the new releases, but holy actual god did GW decide that large vehicles needed to get absolutely slammed. New Gladiator tanks all over 200pts, land raiders sitting at 285 base, 300+ point repulsors, 300+ point Lord of War Monoliths, 100 point nerfs to multiple large models just months after the CA2020 points update.
It seems crazy to be shipping these kinds of changes without some kind of reduction in deadliness, which as we all know from the rampant Eradicator discussion is not happening pretty much anywhere. Vehicles are going to be taking more damage from dedicated AT weaponry but also more damage incidentally from anti-elite weaponry, which has an obnoxious tendency to just...not care about your vehicle having +1, +2, or even+3 toughness as compared to another vehicle - a heavy bolter hurts a Leman Russ the same as it hurts a T6 Goliath Truck or Taurox.
Personally I don't tend to use a whole lot of larger models in the game, but I'm surprised to see so little reaction to a whole swathe of vehicles apparently being relegated to Land Raider Hell.
As other already said, GW wants to push selling other models. At some point those vehicles, especially those whose kit was recently released, will get their buffs.
To be honest the LR was 285 even before, and with heavy weapons getting increased damage I don't think the way to go was to make vehicles cheaper, rather to give them more wounds or abilities to reduce damage. I'm pissed and extremely disappointed that the Stormfang gunship went from 250 to 360 though which is insane for a model that has 14W T7 (and degrades in BS), even with a natural -1 to hit. That's a huge points hike, and a LR looks now cheap and viable in comparison.
Firepower is annoying. But more annoying is that removing it takes tons of effort unless opponent is very adept rolling 1's or you have fast assaulters that bypass overwatch
Can only have the 3++ on one if you get the higher shots. If you ever try riptides without the higher shots, they are decidedly meh.
And since they are now 295+ points, and shield drones are 15 (okay take 10 point drones, but you can just mow them down unless there is convenient LOS blocking terrain), it feels kind of toast, like Tau in general.
Well I'm sitting on my poor little converted beautiful vindicators, and to be honest they have started getting better and better with stealth buffs here and there going through out of nowhere.
First it got up to d6 shots.
Then it got Blast.
Then it got move + shoot with no penalty.
Now it got the siege shields back for 2+ save or 1+ while in cover, which means it saves lascannons on a 4+ now.
All while still floating relatively low on the 135 pt range.
A man can dream that at some point I will be able to put three vindis down on the table again, look my opponent in the eye and dare them to try and come midfield.
Matt Swain wrote: Yeah I bought a used original monolith after seeing the new model and...optimistically assuming they would make a good unit.
So may thinks they could have done so easily....
Maybe make it have a fortress mode that would allow it to put up a 5++ powerfield if it did not move, just for one.
Still, a 2+ save isn't bad. The list of AP4 weapons isn't huge, I looked at the new marine codex and even the premiere tankbuster, the lascannon,has an AP3. Some of the AP 4 weapons have a strength lower than the monolith's T8.
Adding in the deathray option and buffing the existing weapons was a good move, i wish they could give some necron weapons 2d3 instead of d6 shots...
If they'd left the monolioth at the old cost, it would have been a pretty easy take especially after they let it DS at 9", FINALLY!
But NNNNOO-OOOOO! They had to raise the cost. Well, ok, it was still a tempting take.
So they added 3CP to the cost.
I dunno, i paid a fair price for my monolith, it was less than a lot i see on ebay, but still it was a chunk o' change. I want to use it, but I don't know now.Maybe drop it near an objective that's worth a lotta points, like the ones that go up the longer you hold them, have it scour the enemy holding it will a full strike to keep the enemy from getting that last big points boost. Or between two objectives so it scour one and deploy units to grab another.
Or drop it between a real high point object I've just grabbed to make it hard for the enemy to make it hard for the enemy to charge at them to take them off it.
I suppose I can think of something to do with it...
I remember back in the day when they were beasts. i think it was 4th or 5th ed when apocalypse first came out we did a mega battle VS tyranids and the objective of the atttackers was to get to and hold the center of the table from the nids for 1 full turn. the monolith was the game winner because back then it deepstruck in and pushed everything out of it's way. and being AV 14+the old living metal rules meant it put out some decent damage while also being hard to kill.
Then again it doesn't bother our group to much what GW is pulling with 9th since we all went back to playing 40K when it was good( 5th with some house rules ) where the big flying pyramid is still super effective.
in 4th non-skimmer vehicles were trash, they made them a little more survivable in 5th, then in 6th they made them paper again with hull points added to the damage chart that already existed(effectively giving them 2 damage systems that had the same results).
they are doing the same thing with the changes from 8th to 8.5 to 9th. much of it has to do with marketing new kits, or kits you need to buy many more of, or refocusing off kits that are no longer the big sellers.
People love the 40K universe, they love the minis they WANT it to be good/work, so no matter what GW does most players will still keep shoveling money at them, as long as that happens GW has no incentive to change course.
Lets face it there is no direct competition on the scale of GW even if many of the other game systems out there are better than current 40K. they just don't have the community support. and the few of us who have walked away by choosing to play 40K our way (an older edition) are the minority.
What about Star Wars Legions? I saw that played the other day and I was really impressed with what I saw. The Model quality is superb.
The Monolith itself is actually pretty alright ruleswise. No Invun hurts, but it's still a 2+ save and a Chronomancer can give it a 5++ anyway.
What kills it is the LoW slot because GW seems to be wanting people to move away from using LoW's in 9th. And conceptually I'm actually fine with that idea, but I think at this point it would never work. People have too many big boy monsters and vehicles that they like using and don't want to them to relegated to apocalypse games only.
This is something that I could see being changed in an FAQ down the line, like how they changed the CP benefits for detachments halfway through 8th. If nobody is taking any LoW's or SHA detachments whatsoever, that's the kind of thing that gets noticed and acted upon.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
So you are ignoring 3++ it can and tend to have?
You ignore aura's marines have where they would have them anyway too? "let's manipulate conditions to my taste to suit my argument"
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
You're statement is correct, but for the wrong reasons, imho.
They're not picking winners or losers. They're certainly disturbing the meta and that's not always a bad thing, because stale lists make for a stale game. Should GW ever achieve excellent balance then all units are equally viable. The meta will still shake as GW is essentially required to continue to produce new models every year. New armies will appear as well as new tools and people will naturally gravitate to them.
In a fictionally perfectly balanced game, the meta will change itself as people get bored with this list, and buy a couple kits to turn it into that list. In this fictional perfectly balanced game there won't be a meta because Bob will be playing Assaulty Ultramarines because he likes blue and chainswords, while Joe will be playing Greenwing because he likes robes and plasma.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Mind numbing reading all this. GW is obviously just playing the hype train game, since this is now a competitive games in the eyes of most players "trash" is anything that isnt "OP lul please nerf".
Lol. Competive game That term and 40k works together only as in "40k isn't competive game". It's logical impossibility. You have better success making competive lottery.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
So you are ignoring 3++ it can and tend to have?
You ignore aura's marines have where they would have them anyway too? "let's manipulate conditions to my taste to suit my argument"
Dishonest argument.
Which it takes it's own wounds for per turn and also isn't getting any benifit from, it's a bit like how drones magically cost 0 points.
But you still haven't addressed the point
Why are marine players screaming OMG GW this Unit is WTAF OP MUST NERF about a unit that's been nowhere near a top placement in any 9th edition event while screaming that they're new codex has been nerfed to unplayable trash?
Which it takes it's own wounds for per turn and also isn't getting any benifit from, it's a bit like how drones magically cost 0 points.
But you still haven't addressed the point
Why are marine players screaming OMG GW this Unit is WTAF OP MUST NERF about a unit that's been nowhere near a top placement in any 9th edition event while screaming that they're new codex has been nerfed to unplayable trash?
Haven't seen a single post about this in the recent threads in 40k General Discussion, definitely not the opinion of the perceived majority. But keep spinning your false narrative and antagonise people.
Bosskelot wrote: The Monolith itself is actually pretty alright ruleswise. No Invun hurts, but it's still a 2+ save and a Chronomancer can give it a 5++ anyway.
What kills it is the LoW slot because GW seems to be wanting people to move away from using LoW's in 9th. And conceptually I'm actually fine with that idea, but I think at this point it would never work. People have too many big boy monsters and vehicles that they like using and don't want to them to relegated to apocalypse games only.
This is something that I could see being changed in an FAQ down the line, like how they changed the CP benefits for detachments halfway through 8th. If nobody is taking any LoW's or SHA detachments whatsoever, that's the kind of thing that gets noticed and acted upon.
It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.
It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
It's actually quite weird that you have to pay 3CP per LOW in a SHA detachment, 1CP or less per LOW in a SH detachment (as long as they aren't TITANIC units) and it's free in a Supreme Command detachment if your LOW is a Primarch/Supreme Commander...
Doesn't make sense and could be re written, I agree.
They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
Making Monolith's LoW isn't even fluffy, that's the really stupid part. Monolith's are a mainstay of any Necron invasion force and are not rare, relatively speaking. The artwork depicts dozens of them supporting troops
The T. Vault on the other hand is rare, and deserves its LoW classification.
Still disingenuous, the Riptide's survivability comes from all the drones swarming around it. Not that those don't cost points too, but there's disproportionate value in adding ablative wounds to something like that.
It's wasn't ment to be a direct comparison it was only provided as once again someone's making up base stats that units just dont have again.
The origonal post was just about the irony of the "All my new units (which compair pretty well to everyone else units) are unplayable trash and these units that haven't been anywhere in 9th edition events are OP and deserve to be nerfed" sums up the issue with a subsect of Marine posters.
The riptide compares really really well with the gladiator even without drones. Even with the (inflated) weapon stats you used for the gladiator, the difference of being able to shoot for more than a turn, is simply too great. And no one dare start the usual "But marines have lots of buffs!", because those tanks have close to none now. Riptides win the buff game by a landslide.
What inflated weapon stats? Those were lifted from the datasheet, go check the preview videos with pictures of gladiator datasheets.
Yeah, because that tank is going to be in tactical and devastation doctrine at the same time, right?
I think the reaper gladiator has a shot. It is T8 with a boatload of shots. The main reason I would want to take it though isn't to kill hordes but to kill custodians. Now that custodians can ignore ap-1/2 it is useless. The gladiator with 2 MM and 2 lastalons breaks the cost to durability ratio (something GW just doesn't get) way too expensive.
It’s not unfluffy either. In the past the monolith has had some LOW survivability. But I was talking about the SHA det in general - as the post I was replying to and quoted was also about.
that's the really stupid part. Monolith's are a mainstay of any Necron invasion force and are not rare, relatively speaking. The artwork depicts dozens of them supporting troops
The T. Vault on the other hand is rare, and deserves its LoW classification.
Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.
Breton wrote: They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.
Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic (and so 3CP for an allied LOW with or without titanic) or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.
That is true, and one more reason why this thread is about marine vehicles being in a bad situation.
The grav pulse stratagem though is nice. The smoke one too.
Actually they would be decent if the game didn't decide that infantry based AT should be able to slug everything at will. And I'm not talking only about eradicators.
Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.
Weird way to type "I was wrong" but you do you.
Space marine vehicles, and vehicles in general, have been bad all edition. "GW is trying to shake up the meta" is an extremely weird claim to make around 9th when we've had:
-Late 8th: Space Marines are meta. Whether or not you think they're problematically OP at ANY point in all of this, you gotta admit they're the dominant meta force making up the largest single chunk of any part of the competitive scene. Lists are primarily heavy infantry based + Dreadnoughts.
-9th core rules "index era": Space Marines are still meta. Lists are still primarily heavy infantry based +Dreadnoughts.
-9th ed codex comes out. Buffs dreadnoughts, nerfs some heavy infantry but buffs others, nerfs tanks.
Wow, such meta shift, such sales driven balance strategy. Now competitive lists will go from Eradicators and Inceptors and Intercessors and Invictors to...
....I mean probably that, right? I'm no nostradamus but it does seem like it's gonna be those units still mostly.
It is also BUCK WILD to me how you can be the same guy, and when you make a thread or comment complaining about some aspect of the currently meta marine army being annoying to play against, people call you a biased marine hater, and if you make some other thread about how some aspect of marines being underpowered, people call you a biased marine apologist.
Marines have enough units to be like, four to five other armies. Parts of marines are gonna be busted OP while other parts are gonna be in need of buffs.
Breton wrote: They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.
Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.
Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.
Breton wrote: They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.
Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.
Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.
No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.
They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.
Breton wrote: They’re trying to keep people in “fluffy” detachment armies, forgetting the LOWs showing up every so often is fluffy. They should just stop using CP as the carrot/stick on Army creation, just keep the detachment keyword buff stuff, and find another way to prevent 20 1HQ 5 HS/FA/Elite whatever dets.
They are doing a bad job at it because with these rules it's "fluffier" to bring 3 LOWs rather than just one.
They are just afraid of everyone and their mother including the next broken LOW they can ally into their army if the SHA doesn't have a steep price. That's all.
Just add a second price to the SHA so that if it shares your army's keyword (CHAPTER/DINASTY/WHATEVER) it cost 1 point for non titanic and 2 for titanic or whatever and it will be roughly in line with the super heavy det.
Right now it's just a bad detachment.
Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.
It is obvious that GW wants soup to have a cost associated with it. Me personally, I'd rather see soup have a moderate CP cost than these cumbersome, wildly imbalanced 'army purity bonuses' that GW is pushing now.
3CP to bring an ally detachment of any kind that doesn't share all faction keywords with your primary warlord's faction, would seem to be a perfectly fine, simple framework to start from. Maybe make it 2CP if it's just a patrol, and 1CP if it's a special "imperial agents" style minor allied faction/auxiliary faction/mercenary unit dealie. And then feth doctrines, feth dynastic codes, feth sacred rites, throw that all in the trash.
I mean that's not the goal of GW, the goal of GW is to make sure games feel unfair so when you get yours you're really excited to really stick it to those dang space marines who've been giving you unfair gakky games for a year and a half, and so you don't feel bad dumping on opponents who don't have theirs yet because you did your time. That appears to get people to spend more money, so it's what they're gonna do. But a man can dream.
Didn't know it was core only as it wasn't mentioned in the games and the mentions of it during reviews.
But that said most of the people with the codex seem to believe competitive marines will be 100% core unit's anyway.
Weird way to type "I was wrong" but you do you.
Was only postulating a possible reason it wasn't covered in the games/reviews.
They probably don't see it as a restriction if you expect every unit in the competitive list to have the required keyword.
If the rest of your post was aimed at me I need you to break it down a bit more.
Breton wrote: Or just get rid of the CP cost entirely. You get 12 CP +/- whatever you gain/spend on List building buffs no matter how many Dets you have. Guard are kinda screwed if they want to get “enough” infantry squads in one Det.
No because they want to slightly deter you of picking what suits you best in each army you can ally, which I agree with.
So detachments needs to have a cost. Or they could create a universal strat in each codex that allows you to pick up a specific det from a list of ally for X CP. But it's too late for that. So we're stuck with tweaking existing stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.
They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.
They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.
Xenomancers wrote: No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.
They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.
They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.
You make a good point there. Maybe an argument to bring back the platoon system?
You make a good point there. Maybe an argument to bring back the platoon system?
I’d have to play with the idea more to “exact” numbers but I think I’d go with a combination of FOC/Det with unlimited troops choices and no CP cost beyond Strats and the 2nd Edition list building rules. In 2nd Ed there were basically only 3 FOC types. Characters, Squads, and Support(basically vehicles and allies- what we call soup today). You could have up to 50% of HQ and support, minimum 25% of squads. You’d have to juggle that around some:
But a minimum of X% troop, max of Y% HQ, FA, Elite, HS. And Y% may vary from slot to slot and faction to faction. The wonky subfaction theme/armies then have to be able to play FOC games I.e. Deathwing captains make Deathwing Troops, Ravenwing Ravenwing, Wild Riders, White Scars, and so on. But this should already be a thing anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.
They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.
They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.
How exactly are you defining squishy here?
Guardsman for their points are definataly less squishy than
Kabalites
Grots
Kroot
Fairly sure arguments can be made for
Guardians
Firewarriors
Ork Boys
but but but eradicators! there see marines are evil and how dare you like Marines.
We get it. Despite the fact that the last few years have seen marines become the most abusive faction (and subfaction) the game has literally ever seen, you honestly believe there's nothing wrong. Nothing at all. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Still planning on fielding mine! I think they might be old enough to drink by now. The decision to move a 24-wound 360-point giant floating death brick to the Lord of War slot wasn't really a surprise - I'm pretty sure it only stuck it out in the Heavy Support slot as long as it did for legacy reasons.
Yes, the hyperbole factor makes it quite comical.
That's great you're going to try and use it, but this was a pretty big whiff on GWs part. They took an iconic unit that had been borderline useless for years ... and made it useless but in a different way, but also costed it right off the table. Then you have things like Land Raiders. One of 40k's most iconic units. They've been in the bin for ages now and this doesn't help them at all. Yeah, the thread title is a bit click-baity, but really there is a problem here.
Guard have always kind of thrown off stuff that way. They're a horde army, but generally don't have "horde" units of 20/30+ models (save for Conscripts and combined squads gimmicks in various editions), rather they have hordes of small units, with potentially several dozen units of 3/6/10 models that all usually cost 30-70pts. This hasn't hasn't always played nice with FoC's, Kill Points, Detachments, etc and GW often seems to forget that.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well I'm sitting on my poor little converted beautiful vindicators, and to be honest they have started getting better and better with stealth buffs here and there going through out of nowhere.
First it got up to d6 shots.
Then it got Blast.
Then it got move + shoot with no penalty.
Now it got the siege shields back for 2+ save or 1+ while in cover, which means it saves lascannons on a 4+ now.
All while still floating relatively low on the 135 pt range.
A man can dream that at some point I will be able to put three vindis down on the table again, look my opponent in the eye and dare them to try and come midfield.
Ice_can wrote: Guardsman for their points are definataly less squishy than
'For their points' isn't directly relevant to how many ObSec bodies can be crammed into a single Battalion, or how easy they are to keep alive. A full Battalion of 60 Guardsmen are less durable than 60 Fire Warriors and so have a harder time holding objectives.
You can use the points saved to take a second Battalion with more Guardsmen, but now that also means taking additional HQ choices as taxes (and you max out at 3 CCs) plus losing 3CP, which is a very significant cost.
So it goes beyond durability for their raw points, because there's a secondary cost associated with being FOC-inefficient.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well I'm sitting on my poor little converted beautiful vindicators, and to be honest they have started getting better and better with stealth buffs here and there going through out of nowhere.
First it got up to d6 shots.
Then it got Blast.
Then it got move + shoot with no penalty.
Now it got the siege shields back for 2+ save or 1+ while in cover, which means it saves lascannons on a 4+ now.
All while still floating relatively low on the 135 pt range.
A man can dream that at some point I will be able to put three vindis down on the table again, look my opponent in the eye and dare them to try and come midfield.
A man can dream.
This sounds really fun to play in a BT list.
im so glad the vindicator keeps getting better, its my favorite "rhino" chassis tank and my night lords are already enjoying my first one. Might get some more to control the midfield even more.
Vaktathi wrote: Guard have always kind of thrown off stuff that way. They're a horde army, but generally don't have "horde" units of 20/30+ models (save for Conscripts and combined squads gimmicks in various editions), rather they have hordes of small units, with potentially several dozen units of 3/6/10 models that all usually cost 30-70pts. This hasn't hasn't always played nice with FoC's, Kill Points, Detachments, etc and GW often seems to forget that.
Right, but my point is while point for point they may compare well to boys and Fire warriors and what not, FOC for FOC they don't. Ork Boys can field what, 1500ish points of ObSec in a Batallion if they want to? Guard are hard capped at what? 300ish? Its why people Loyal 32'ed in the past edition. They got CP cheap that way. Now that CP goes the other direction, guard are paying CP to field as much ObSec as other armies. They need 5 batallions to field 1500 points of ObSec. what does that cost them? All 12 CP plus 400% more in HQs? or 7CP and a load of mandatory FA, HS, Elite, and more HQ? Those are obviously the extremes but the illustrate the issue. A Space Marine army doing just bare bones 3x5 Intercessors is also 300ish points of Obj Secured, but it's a far sturdier 300 points of ObSec, 3x5 Scout squads for the SM Toy lists are 210 and voluntary minimums instead of the top end ceiling. Space Marines can (currently) top out at about 1200 points of ObSec per Bat, Custodes can hit something like 2400 points. CWE somewhere around 1100, Drukhari just over 700, Tau 504, and on and on. I think the second lowest cap is Tau - and I imagine Tau can take a Brigade as easily as Guard can, and still be almost double their ObSec.
From what I hear Tau and IG are two of the armies struggling the most. I'd guess this is one of the reasons why. I'd have to game it out, but anyone else think focus firing the Infantry squads and any ObSec Spearhead Leman Russ early and often is game over for IG? How hard is it to wipe out ~300ish points of Guard Infantry and 500 or so points of Leman Russ in the first half of the game?
topaxygouroun i wrote: Well I'm sitting on my poor little converted beautiful vindicators, and to be honest they have started getting better and better with stealth buffs here and there going through out of nowhere.
First it got up to d6 shots.
Then it got Blast.
Then it got move + shoot with no penalty.
Now it got the siege shields back for 2+ save or 1+ while in cover, which means it saves lascannons on a 4+ now.
All while still floating relatively low on the 135 pt range.
A man can dream that at some point I will be able to put three vindis down on the table again, look my opponent in the eye and dare them to try and come midfield.
A man can dream.
This sounds really fun to play in a BT list.
im so glad the vindicator keeps getting better, its my favorite "rhino" chassis tank and my night lords are already enjoying my first one. Might get some more to control the midfield even more.
Since it got buffed to d6 shots all the time I've been using them a lot. They more than pull their weight. Now with the loss of rr all hits though not nearly as good.
pothocboots wrote: Why are we stuck using Battalions? Couldn't the guard player bring a brigade?
I mentioned that, at Brigade, the Guard player has 600 points of ObSec compared to the Tau Batallion's what was it? 700? And the Tau can probably brigade just as easily as the IG. The SM player making a Batallion into a full Company i.e. 6 Tacs, 2 Assaults, 2 Devs and a couple HQ's is going to have something like 1200 points of ObSec compared to the IG Brigade's 600. IG are in a world of hurt if/when the meta shifts hard to ObSec. They're probably already in a world of hurt if people focus fire what little ObSec they have anyway.
Edit for correction: Tau Batallion is 500, their Brigade is 1000, it was the Drukhari that are 700/1400.
im so glad the vindicator keeps getting better, its my favorite "rhino" chassis tank and my night lords are already enjoying my first one. Might get some more to control the midfield even more.
Since it got buffed to d6 shots all the time I've been using them a lot. They more than pull their weight. Now with the loss of rr all hits though not nearly as good.
eh, i never had rerolls of any kind on it and it still performs super well.
Xenomancers wrote: No way dude. They can include 90 infantry and vets and a battalion. In a brigade they can field 150. That is already more than enough bodies. Charging for detachments is a great way to balance slots. It's kind of nice to have to use other slots than heavy support.
They should probably just add a lord of war slot to the brigade to give you a way around the SHA.
They can only fit 60 infantry with ObSec. In a mission with six objectives they get stretched thin. Sure every army only gets six troop choices, but few of the others are limited to 10 squishy models per choice. Other armies either get more models or less squishy. I suppose another option is remove the upper limit on troops.
Obj sec is good but overrated. Many lists that placed at GTs so far had little amount of them. Last Sororitas list had only 5 girls, some ork lists had just a few troops despite being an army that can spam lots of them quite effectively.
Hence 60 obj sec models, which are also very undercosted, is certainly quite a lot. Most of the times more than the AM player needs.
It’s not unfluffy either. In the past the monolith has had some LOW survivability. But I was talking about the SHA det in general - as the post I was replying to and quoted was also about.
that's the really stupid part. Monolith's are a mainstay of any Necron invasion force and are not rare, relatively speaking. The artwork depicts dozens of them supporting troops
The T. Vault on the other hand is rare, and deserves its LoW classification.
Wasn't replying to you. I'm just vexed that they made that decision. It's a real feel bad for a lot of people.
And it is unfluffy. For almost 20 years the Monolith has been Heavy Support and they have incentivised you to take multiple of them. It's the Necron main battle tank in both the fluff and the artwork. And now suddenly it's a LoW, just because. Honestly it's ridiculous and I won't hear any apologising for a stupid decision on their part.
GW will likely fix at least a few of these deliberate mistakes in the next CA, hoping to force people to pay an annual 35,or now probably 40$, shakedown to keep their armies up to date.
It's kind of like a video game maker putting flaws in his game then charged players for the patches to fix them.
pothocboots wrote: Why are we stuck using Battalions? Couldn't the guard player bring a brigade?
I mentioned that, at Brigade, the Guard player has 600 points of ObSec compared to the Tau Batallion's what was it? 700? And the Tau can probably brigade just as easily as the IG. The SM player making a Batallion into a full Company i.e. 6 Tacs, 2 Assaults, 2 Devs and a couple HQ's is going to have something like 1200 points of ObSec compared to the IG Brigade's 600. IG are in a world of hurt if/when the meta shifts hard to ObSec. They're probably already in a world of hurt if people focus fire what little ObSec they have anyway.
Edit for correction: Tau Batallion is 500, their Brigade is 1000, it was the Drukhari that are 700/1400.
Are Conscripts not ObSec? Guard player can take as many conscripts as an ork player can take Ork boyz.
I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
pothocboots wrote: Why are we stuck using Battalions? Couldn't the guard player bring a brigade?
I mentioned that, at Brigade, the Guard player has 600 points of ObSec compared to the Tau Batallion's what was it? 700? And the Tau can probably brigade just as easily as the IG. The SM player making a Batallion into a full Company i.e. 6 Tacs, 2 Assaults, 2 Devs and a couple HQ's is going to have something like 1200 points of ObSec compared to the IG Brigade's 600. IG are in a world of hurt if/when the meta shifts hard to ObSec. They're probably already in a world of hurt if people focus fire what little ObSec they have anyway.
Edit for correction: Tau Batallion is 500, their Brigade is 1000, it was the Drukhari that are 700/1400.
Are Conscripts not ObSec? Guard player can take as many conscripts as an ork player can take Ork boyz.
Not very good ones by the looks of them, and not the bread and butter like an Infantry squad or a Boyz mob. Imagine making an infantry ork list only being able to take 10 boys or 20 grots per troop slot.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Doesn't SHA also have some sort of Faction/Doctrine/whatever nullifier for the unit in the Auxilliary det?
pothocboots wrote: Why are we stuck using Battalions? Couldn't the guard player bring a brigade?
I mentioned that, at Brigade, the Guard player has 600 points of ObSec compared to the Tau Batallion's what was it? 700? And the Tau can probably brigade just as easily as the IG. The SM player making a Batallion into a full Company i.e. 6 Tacs, 2 Assaults, 2 Devs and a couple HQ's is going to have something like 1200 points of ObSec compared to the IG Brigade's 600. IG are in a world of hurt if/when the meta shifts hard to ObSec. They're probably already in a world of hurt if people focus fire what little ObSec they have anyway.
Edit for correction: Tau Batallion is 500, their Brigade is 1000, it was the Drukhari that are 700/1400.
Are Conscripts not ObSec? Guard player can take as many conscripts as an ork player can take Ork boyz.
Not very good ones by the looks of them, and not the bread and butter like an Infantry squad or a Boyz mob. Imagine making an infantry ork list only being able to take 10 boys or 20 grots per troop slot.
That is irrelevant. Your argument was that Guard players can't do something that Tau/orkz etc can. But that isn't true, its just less efficient. Just like SM players can take 60 Heavy Intercessors but they aren't likely to because they don't want to spend 1,680pts on ObSec troops instead of taking other, cheaper options.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Xenomancers wrote: They more than pull their weight. Now with the loss of rr all hits though not nearly as good.
For sure. I barely could keep RR1s on them, but I sure as heck would heal, prescience, and ward them. Now I wonder if they'll even be eligible for those spells in the future. Thousand Sons vehicles might end up hurting the most with no vehicle buffing character to be had.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Szarekhan warlord trait allows you to pick an additional command protocol and it can be one that is already selected. So you can choose your main double protocol ability. Which will also net you a reroll on each reanimation roll you make that turn too (This has potential to be big or useless - Still I love any ability that gives me models back).
For your healing cryptec you can just make him immune to being shot at unless hes the closest for a cryptec ability. I think it's 20 points. Not sure how much points you want to sink into this guy.IMO you are probably better off just taking more spyders with claws because eventually 1 will die. Then you can focus your cryptec on buffing canoptek units with control node (which it might be worth making him unsnipable) and load up on doom stalkers and spyders. Personally I am very happy with this codex. I'm going to really enjoy list crafting and coming up with ideas for the next month and getting some games in.
pothocboots wrote: Why are we stuck using Battalions? Couldn't the guard player bring a brigade?
I mentioned that, at Brigade, the Guard player has 600 points of ObSec compared to the Tau Batallion's what was it? 700? And the Tau can probably brigade just as easily as the IG. The SM player making a Batallion into a full Company i.e. 6 Tacs, 2 Assaults, 2 Devs and a couple HQ's is going to have something like 1200 points of ObSec compared to the IG Brigade's 600. IG are in a world of hurt if/when the meta shifts hard to ObSec. They're probably already in a world of hurt if people focus fire what little ObSec they have anyway.
Edit for correction: Tau Batallion is 500, their Brigade is 1000, it was the Drukhari that are 700/1400.
Are Conscripts not ObSec? Guard player can take as many conscripts as an ork player can take Ork boyz.
Not very good ones by the looks of them, and not the bread and butter like an Infantry squad or a Boyz mob. Imagine making an infantry ork list only being able to take 10 boys or 20 grots per troop slot.
That is irrelevant. Your argument was that Guard players can't do something that Tau/orkz etc can. But that isn't true, its just less efficient. Just like SM players can take 60 Heavy Intercessors but they aren't likely to because they don't want to spend 1,680pts on ObSec troops instead of taking other, cheaper options.
Agree.
You said that your problem is not quality but quantity.
You can field 180 conscripts in a single battalion, which is one of the highest among the game factions. You don't get to say that they are not as efficient as IS. Your own point that you were trying to make precludes that.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Ok, I'm not sure you could use a spyde and a cryptek to give it 2d3 a turn. In 8e you could do that to a CCB because it was a character and a vehicle, so the spyd could heal it as a vehicle while the crypty healed it as a character.
Now, maybe, under the new rules (Might buy the dex to support a store and get a digital version later all I know know is what i saw on video reviews.) if the crypty or spyd turns the 1 point regen on living metal to 1d3 and the Srazaken dynasty protocol doubles the living metal healing maybe it could double it to 2d3.
It'd be nice if the Platoon structure for Guard came back. That was a defining feature of that army for such a long time. Failing that, put our commanders back in their command squads please.
On the subject of the Monolith, I keep seeing mentions of how durable it is - compared to Knight levels - except it doesn't have an invul save. It has Living Metal, I presume, to heal a whole 1 wound per turn (wow!)... and what else?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It'd be nice if the Platoon structure for Guard came back. That was a defining feature of that army for such a long time. Failing that, put our commanders back in their command squads please.
On the subject of the Monolith, I keep seeing mentions of how durable it is - compared to Knight levels - except it doesn't have an invul save. It has Living Metal, I presume, to heal a whole 1 wound per turn (wow!)... and what else?
Well, it has 24W (Almost typed HP there. ) t8 and a 2+ save so even the go to tank buster, a lascannon, will allow it a 5+ armor save. A tomb spyder cn add 1d3 wound regeneration.
Some spess muhreen weapons, notably hellblaster and metla, have -4 saves but some of the hellblasters have s7, lower than the monoliths T. A monolith can get a 5++ i think if you have a chronomancer near it. Some dynasties and protocols might buff it's suitability a bit too.
Agree.
You said that your problem is not quality but quantity.
You can field 180 conscripts in a single battalion, which is one of the highest among the game factions. You don't get to say that they are not as efficient as IS. Your own point that you were trying to make precludes that.
So you’re saying Orks are fine with Boys limited to 10 and Grots limited to 20 and their special rule only working on a 4+? Remember Conscripts get no options or upgrades.
And my “problem” - or the flaw with guard I noticed - was both quantity AND quality. More or less squishy remember? I didn’t say more and more squishy.
24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It'd be nice if the Platoon structure for Guard came back. That was a defining feature of that army for such a long time. Failing that, put our commanders back in their command squads please.
What was that two squads and a command squad? Not bad, make it two squads and a heavy weapon squad for current rules and that wouldn’t suck, would close the penalty Guard are paying for all the other imperium armies raiding their codex for CP soup.
Yeah, min Command Squad + 2 Infantry Squads. Max of 5 Infantry squads. My whole Guard army is structured around that as a concept (6 45-man platoons, 2 Cadian, 2 old Cadian, 1 Mordian, 1 Tallarn). And then the "Command HQ Platoon" had attached Heavy Weapon and/or Special Weapon squads.
I wouldn't be opposed to making the min requirement the same as it was + 1 HW squad. It's not like Guard are durable in any fashion, so having loads of extra super-squishy heavy weapons is hardly going to be a big deal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.
T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.
Just an invuln wouldn't really help either a Monolith or LR against the accidental tanks killers though. Although against melta yes and this is why Monolith's should have been given QS.
Or give it 30+ wounds. Or no degredation. Or reduce incoming damage by 1 (this is what many people expected). Instead they gave it...nothing. And made it a LoW.
Cynista wrote: Just an invuln wouldn't really help either a Monolith or LR against the accidental tanks killers though. Although against melta yes and this is why Monolith's should have been given QS.
Or give it 30+ wounds. Or no degredation. Or reduce incoming damage by 1 (this is what many people expected). Instead they gave it...nothing. And made it a LoW.
Vehicles, especially the large ones are just in a bad place right now.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
You're statement is correct, but for the wrong reasons, imho.
They're not picking winners or losers. They're certainly disturbing the meta and that's not always a bad thing, because stale lists make for a stale game. Should GW ever achieve excellent balance then all units are equally viable. The meta will still shake as GW is essentially required to continue to produce new models every year. New armies will appear as well as new tools and people will naturally gravitate to them.
In a fictionally perfectly balanced game, the meta will change itself as people get bored with this list, and buy a couple kits to turn it into that list. In this fictional perfectly balanced game there won't be a meta because Bob will be playing Assaulty Ultramarines because he likes blue and chainswords, while Joe will be playing Greenwing because he likes robes and plasma.
You're missing the underlying point of my half assed comment.
Obviously 40k will never be truly "balanced", nor would i want it to be. However since I started (in early 2014) I have seen a pattern of behavior, and a shift in the philosophy of the game itself during the advent of 8th. That pattern of behavior being that newer models tend to be better, and units that were good last edition always get shifted or replaced by another unit in the codex. I also know that GW is perfectly capable of making a more balanced game, as seen in ANY of their specialist games, and the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game. They could do a linear regression model on all of their gak to make sure that there are no ridiculous outliers as well (if it's easy enough for one of our local nerds to do that, it's easy enough for a multi million dollar international corporation). Now, they could do all of this and make a more balanced game, but why don't they? To answer that question we have to look at design philosophy.
40k as I have known it (6th and up) has always had a heavy emphasis on list building, with target priority, and finally positioning being the keys to victory in descending order. It has never really been a game about exploiting angles and maneuver, but it did have a small element of that in previous editions. With the advent of 8th, everything became about command points, stratagems, character auras, busted units and individualized special rules for nearly EVERY SINGLE UNIT IN THE GAME. In 8th your job as the commander was now to maximize your auras, buffs, and special rules to their greatest efficiency, while killing your enemies buffs and stratagems. None of these kinds of game interactions are dependent on the PLAYER to make them work. They pretty much just happen automatically, or you spend a command point. There is no maneuvering around cover to flank an enemy while your MG team suppresses your oppositions support assets. Either you have the right unit with the right auras, or you don't. What you do with them is largely inconsequential, and even if there is a rare situation where positioning and tactics may win the day, the unit special rules pretty much tell you how to play with that unit anyway.
So now you have a system where it intimately requires you to think about each units capabilities and how they work with your other ones. It consistently has you thinking about how your army works together, what buffs what, how many command points you have, and what stratagems to use. The emphasis is not on the battle, or the terrain, or how to maneuver through it, it's what you bring to it. This game design keeps you thinking about army comps by design. Change the meta, the viability of units, points, etc and you have people thinking more and more about comps.
Just look at this thread it's people talking all about 3+ saves, point values, wounds, and army special rules. None of this would matter if the game itself rewarded play rather than construction.
I've stopped playing 40k, but I so wish I could like it
So now you have a system where it intimately requires you to think about each units capabilities and how they work with your other ones. It consistently has you thinking about how your army works together, what buffs what, how many command points you have, and what stratagems to use. The emphasis is not on the battle, or the terrain, or how to maneuver through it, it's what you bring to it. This game design keeps you thinking about army comps by design. Change the meta, the viability of units, points, etc and you have people thinking more and more about comps.
Just look at this thread it's people talking all about 3+ saves, point values, wounds, and army special rules. None of this would matter if the game itself rewarded play rather than construction.
I've stopped playing 40k, but I so wish I could like it
I’ve been playing since 2nd and it’s always been like this. List building is also a significant portion of the fun for me at least. And it absolutely does transition to being about the battle terrain etc. I build lists taking a little of everything, with everything having a couple or more different jobs, and units they’re slated to pair/partner with. The rest of the fun is putting them on the table and fixing whatever broke in the “plan” after it’s been applied to terrain, tables, and opponent plans.
Agree. You said that your problem is not quality but quantity. You can field 180 conscripts in a single battalion, which is one of the highest among the game factions. You don't get to say that they are not as efficient as IS. Your own point that you were trying to make precludes that.
So you’re saying Orks are fine with Boys limited to 10 and Grots limited to 20 and their special rule only working on a 4+? Remember Conscripts get no options or upgrades.
And my “problem” - or the flaw with guard I noticed - was both quantity AND quality. More or less squishy remember? I didn’t say more and more squishy.
Do you ever get tired of moving those goal posts? You just went from Guard having an issue because unlike other horde factions they can't take as many troops to now being on a spiel about how Orkz need to limit their max squad size because they have to follow IG rules. Also, Conscripts can be taken in squads of 30 still. And even at 5ppm and only getting their special rule on a 4+ they are still significantly better than those grots As far as "Squishy" 10 guardsmen at 5ppm T3 with a 5+ save require about 35 bolter shots to kill. 48pts of Boyz require 36 bolter shots to kill You guys are almost exactly as durable as boyz.
So Imperial Guard can have Quantity, for 900pts they can field 180 Conscripts, you could go nuts and go for 1800pts and 360 or they can have a middle ground of quantity/quality with guardsmen, 300pts nets you 60 Guardsmen or 600pts in a brigade for 120. Or you can go elite with Tempestus Scions and get 60 for 540 or 120 for 1080. The best part? you can grab some of each if you really wanted to So grab a couple of blobs to stick on objectives, backed up by some Guardsmen nearby as fire support and have some Scions running around backfield. So what is your real complaint?
Do you ever get tired of moving those goal posts? You just went from Guard having an issue because unlike other horde factions they can't take as many troops to now being on a spiel about how Orkz need to limit their max squad size because they have to follow IG rules.
No, because I know you wouldn't agree to being so limited yourself in the name of balance
I don't even play guard, but I can see and admit they have an issue there. Awful generous of you though to decide Guard can have their crappiest troop in number, or their typical, iconic and basic troop the army and its mechanics are built around in ridiculously insufficient numbers.
Do you ever get tired of moving those goal posts? You just went from Guard having an issue because unlike other horde factions they can't take as many troops to now being on a spiel about how Orkz need to limit their max squad size because they have to follow IG rules.
No, because I know you wouldn't agree to being so limited yourself in the name of balance
I don't even play guard, but I can see and admit they have an issue there. Awful generous of you though to decide Guard can have their crappiest troop in number, or their typical, iconic and basic troop the army and its mechanics are built around in ridiculously insufficient numbers.
LMAO, yep you got me, I am actually a GW rules writer and I specifically said guard squads HAD to be 10 in size and the crappier conscripts squads had to be 20-30 in size.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, min Command Squad + 2 Infantry Squads. Max of 5 Infantry squads. My whole Guard army is structured around that as a concept (6 45-man platoons, 2 Cadian, 2 old Cadian, 1 Mordian, 1 Tallarn). And then the "Command HQ Platoon" had attached Heavy Weapon and/or Special Weapon squads.
I wouldn't be opposed to making the min requirement the same as it was + 1 HW squad. It's not like Guard are durable in any fashion, so having loads of extra super-squishy heavy weapons is hardly going to be a big deal.
Any platoon could take in 5e-7e:
1-1 Platoon Command Squad
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Conscript Squad
0-5 Heavy Weapons Squad
0-1 Special Weapons Squad
I don't understand what you mean about command platoons, Command Squads were a PCS that could issue more orders, take regimental advisors, and shoot better. They didn't have attached units or anything.
Anyway, I too think Platoons, Command Squads, and etc. should return. Commanders going solo shouldn't be a thing [and of course, the game does in fact support units of characters so like it's not like it doesn't work mechanically] and if lascannons in character units are a problem [which they are] remove the CCS and PCS Heavy Weapons Team Upgrade options and also let whoever writes the rule that lets a dreadnought with 4 lascannons become a untargetable character know.
As for Guard having an issue, I think Guard's issue is actually that they're basically everything the edition hates scoring wise and have nothing to show for it. They give up a ton of points for both Bring it Down and either Thin Their Ranks or Grind Them Down and do so simultaneously. While the numbers show that you can get by if you give up one easy secondary, you can't if you give up two, and there aren't any secondaries that score against elite infantry units [and you're very limited in what board control secondaries you can take]
Then to make matters worse, they're not actually good at the rest of the game, because they're light shooting infantry with pretty piss melee stats, while the game is by and large decided by being able to push the enemy off objectives in close quarters combat and then hold them against enemy attempts to do the same, which hits guard double-hard. They're not resilient enough to keep any number of units on a point, and aren't able fight well enough to take it for themselves.
The best they can do is try to repeatedly shoot the enemy away to keep both scores low, and when this happens they lose on secondaries.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, min Command Squad + 2 Infantry Squads. Max of 5 Infantry squads. My whole Guard army is structured around that as a concept (6 45-man platoons, 2 Cadian, 2 old Cadian, 1 Mordian, 1 Tallarn). And then the "Command HQ Platoon" had attached Heavy Weapon and/or Special Weapon squads.
I wouldn't be opposed to making the min requirement the same as it was + 1 HW squad. It's not like Guard are durable in any fashion, so having loads of extra super-squishy heavy weapons is hardly going to be a big deal.
Any platoon could take in 5e-7e:
1-1 Platoon Command Squad
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Conscript Squad
0-5 Heavy Weapons Squad
0-1 Special Weapons Squad
I don't understand what you mean about command platoons, Command Squads were a PCS that could issue more orders, take regimental advisors, and shoot better. They didn't have attached units or anything.
Anyway, I too think Platoons, Command Squads, and etc. should return. Commanders going solo shouldn't be a thing [and of course, the game does in fact support units of characters so like it's not like it doesn't work mechanically] and if lascannons in character units are a problem [which they are] remove the CCS and PCS Heavy Weapons Team Upgrade options and also let whoever writes the rule that lets a dreadnought with 4 lascannons become a untargetable character know.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that so much. 2 Infantry Squads to get 5 Heavy Weapon Squads - Loyal 32 with 6,000 Autocannon and Heavy Bolters is just begging GW to punish guard again for soup players abusing their list - without using a HS choice might be a little squirmy. But if you made it 2 Infantry Squads, and One Heavy Weapon Squad per Troop Choice Maybe 3 Infantry, 1 HW. At that point you're floating around 200 points (depending on Wargear) per Troop FOC for sitting on an objective
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, min Command Squad + 2 Infantry Squads. Max of 5 Infantry squads. My whole Guard army is structured around that as a concept (6 45-man platoons, 2 Cadian, 2 old Cadian, 1 Mordian, 1 Tallarn). And then the "Command HQ Platoon" had attached Heavy Weapon and/or Special Weapon squads.
I wouldn't be opposed to making the min requirement the same as it was + 1 HW squad. It's not like Guard are durable in any fashion, so having loads of extra super-squishy heavy weapons is hardly going to be a big deal.
Any platoon could take in 5e-7e:
1-1 Platoon Command Squad
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Conscript Squad
0-5 Heavy Weapons Squad
0-1 Special Weapons Squad
I don't understand what you mean about command platoons, Command Squads were a PCS that could issue more orders, take regimental advisors, and shoot better. They didn't have attached units or anything.
Anyway, I too think Platoons, Command Squads, and etc. should return. Commanders going solo shouldn't be a thing [and of course, the game does in fact support units of characters so like it's not like it doesn't work mechanically] and if lascannons in character units are a problem [which they are] remove the CCS and PCS Heavy Weapons Team Upgrade options and also let whoever writes the rule that lets a dreadnought with 4 lascannons become a untargetable character know.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that so much. 2 Infantry Squads to get 5 Heavy Weapon Squads - Loyal 32 with 6,000 Autocannon and Heavy Bolters is just begging GW to punish guard again for soup players abusing their list - without using a HS choice might be a little squirmy. But if you made it 2 Infantry Squads, and One Heavy Weapon Squad per Troop Choice Maybe 3 Infantry, 1 HW. At that point you're floating around 200 points (depending on Wargear) per Troop FOC for sitting on an objective
I agree that the Heavy Weapons should be reduced in the platoon, but for a different reason. HWS are f****** terrible with anything except for mortars because mortars are NLoS and really really cheap, so I don't think spamming a bunch of heavy bolter teams will get you far. They're not even glass cannons, they don't hit that hard either, are very fragile, and fairly expensive. A single aggressor kills the entire section, while the section barely manages to dent one in reverse.
More importantly, a platoon with more support sections than infantry is just a silly concept. Like, an Infantry Platoon is conventionally formed of a Command Squad, lead by a lieutenant, 3 Squads of Infantry, and a Weapons Squad that has support weapons. An IG platoon should reflect that, with some customizability.
Were I to perform this rearrangement:
HQ - Company Command Squad, replacing Company Commander with Company Commander +4 upgradable Veterans, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade.
Troops:
Infantry Platoon
1-1 Platoon Command Squad [replaces Platoon Commander with PC+4 upgradable infantry, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade]
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Heavy Weapons Squad [moved from Heavy Support]
0-1 Special Weapons Squad [moved from Elites]
Veterans Squad [moved from Elites]
Stormtrooper Squad
Elites:
Conscripts, reduced in cost to maybe 3 or 4 and losing access to Doctrines as well [since after all, they're Conscripts and not trained in the regiment's doctrine]
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Typically that same ability will tell you it cant be used twice on the same unit. For different abilities it would mention specifically what abilities can't be used on the same unit. I was a little skeptical too but I don't see any wording that prevents it.
skchsan wrote: Maybe you should think about playing onslaught if +200 pt units are a problem for you.
That solves nothing.
Its still more effective and efficient to bring better units that don't cost as much. They do more and you have more of them.
Scaling the game upwards actually makes the problem worse, not better.
Were I to perform this rearrangement:
HQ - Company Command Squad, replacing Company Commander with Company Commander +4 upgradable Veterans, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade.
Troops:
Infantry Platoon
1-1 Platoon Command Squad [replaces Platoon Commander with PC+4 upgradable infantry, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade]
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Heavy Weapons Squad [moved from Heavy Support]
0-1 Special Weapons Squad [moved from Elites]
Veterans Squad [moved from Elites]
Stormtrooper Squad
Elites:
Conscripts, reduced in cost to maybe 3 or 4 and losing access to Doctrines as well [since after all, they're Conscripts and not trained in the regiment's doctrine]
I don't think Conscripts are going down in price, I think Guardsmen are going up. 5ppm for Guardsmen is pretty low. Scouts were pretty similar and almost triple. Boys are pretty similar (sort of) and about 50% more. Guardsmen should probably be closer to boys than Grots in price. Probably jump to 7ish or so points. Half the cost of scouts while -1 S/T, and Flashlights instead of bolt X's would probably still be a bargain but in the ballpark. .
I agree that the Heavy Weapons should be reduced in the platoon, but for a different reason. HWS are f****** terrible with anything except for mortars because mortars are NLoS and really really cheap
I don't know. I mean yeah the mortar is still probably a better choice, but D2 Heavy Bolters en masse might not suck with the new changes.
vs t4 3+, 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds, 1.5 failed saves, 3 damage doing rough math per roughly 60 point 3 team squad team squad thing.
skchsan wrote: Maybe you should think about playing onslaught if +200 pt units are a problem for you.
That solves nothing.
Its still more effective and efficient to bring better units that don't cost as much. They do more and you have more of them.
Scaling the game upwards actually makes the problem worse, not better.
Then why don't we price everything so all army lists across all factions fits comfortably in combat patrol? That'll make better pool of 'effective and efficient' units that more or less cost the same.
The fact of matter is, there is economy of scale in this game as well. Certain units do better in smaller games while certain units do better in larger games. It's always about critical mass. In onslaught, it's always about bigger and badder units because of the sheer amount of firepower present in larger games mean usefulness of expendable fodder = 0. Also, with rule of 3 in place, that means you can't spam more of the most OP units you are abusing at strike force games. So no, scaling the game upwards does not make room for more "effective and efficient... units that don't cost as much" which 'does more and have more' of.
Stop arguing that your toys don't fit in a uhaul medium sized box. If it doesn't fit you need to get the uhaul large box.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Typically that same ability will tell you it cant be used twice on the same unit. For different abilities it would mention specifically what abilities can't be used on the same unit. I was a little skeptical too but I don't see any wording that prevents it.
Genuine question, which may or may not be a silly one - does this combo work if the Monolith is sat in a SHA detachment?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Typically that same ability will tell you it cant be used twice on the same unit. For different abilities it would mention specifically what abilities can't be used on the same unit. I was a little skeptical too but I don't see any wording that prevents it.
Genuine question, which may or may not be a silly one - does this combo work if the Monolith is sat in a SHA detachment?
It does. It just means you have 4 less CP to start the game. NVM. I thought necrons got the stratagem to give traits to super heavy like IG.
skchsan wrote: Maybe you should think about playing onslaught if +200 pt units are a problem for you.
That solves nothing.
Its still more effective and efficient to bring better units that don't cost as much. They do more and you have more of them.
Scaling the game upwards actually makes the problem worse, not better.
Then why don't we price everything so all army lists across all factions fits comfortably in combat patrol? That'll make better pool of 'effective and efficient' units that more or less cost the same.
The fact of matter is, there is economy of scale in this game as well. Certain units do better in smaller games while certain units do better in larger games. It's always about critical mass. In onslaught, it's always about bigger and badder units because of the sheer amount of firepower present in larger games mean usefulness of expendable fodder = 0. Also, with rule of 3 in place, that means you can't spam more of the most OP units you are abusing at strike force games. So no, scaling the game upwards does not make room for more "effective and efficient... units that don't cost as much" which 'does more and have more' of.
Stop arguing that your toys don't fit in a uhaul medium sized box. If it doesn't fit you need to get the uhaul large box.
I don't think you understand the argument. It isn't that they 'don't fit' because of points. Its that their _rules are bad_. They are garbage units, and, on an unrelated note, they happen to cost a lot. There is no reason to field them at all- it does not matter what their points are, if you increase game size you still just take units that are better. The list of options is never so small (except for a few extreme cases like harlequins), that you run out of choices or have to take garbage 'because rule of 3.'
The place where these models potentially could dominate is small points games, where opponents don't necessarily have enough tools to deal with them. But that is bad for the game as well, as it doesn't create fun gameplay for both players (in general, anyway, but I don't really care about players who get their fun from clubbing baby seals or climbing every mountain)
Were I to perform this rearrangement:
HQ - Company Command Squad, replacing Company Commander with Company Commander +4 upgradable Veterans, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade.
Troops:
Infantry Platoon
1-1 Platoon Command Squad [replaces Platoon Commander with PC+4 upgradable infantry, only one of which can take a weapon upgrade]
2-5 Infantry Squad
0-1 Heavy Weapons Squad [moved from Heavy Support]
0-1 Special Weapons Squad [moved from Elites]
Veterans Squad [moved from Elites]
Stormtrooper Squad
Elites:
Conscripts, reduced in cost to maybe 3 or 4 and losing access to Doctrines as well [since after all, they're Conscripts and not trained in the regiment's doctrine]
I don't think Conscripts are going down in price, I think Guardsmen are going up. 5ppm for Guardsmen is pretty low. Scouts were pretty similar and almost triple. Boys are pretty similar (sort of) and about 50% more. Guardsmen should probably be closer to boys than Grots in price. Probably jump to 7ish or so points. Half the cost of scouts while -1 S/T, and Flashlights instead of bolt X's would probably still be a bargain but in the ballpark. .
I agree that the Heavy Weapons should be reduced in the platoon, but for a different reason. HWS are f****** terrible with anything except for mortars because mortars are NLoS and really really cheap
I don't know. I mean yeah the mortar is still probably a better choice, but D2 Heavy Bolters en masse might not suck with the new changes.
vs t4 3+, 9 shots, 4.5 hits, 3 wounds, 1.5 failed saves, 3 damage doing rough math per roughly 60 point 3 team squad team squad thing.
I don't think they need to go up in cost. They're already underperforming. For reference:
Guardsman, 5 points [FRF-SRF]: 4 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds, 0.22 damage. Followed by 1 attack, 0.5 hits, 0.17 wounds, 0.06 damage. Collective, 0.28 damage to MEQ-class targets.
Ork, 8 points [large section]: 1 shot, 0.39 hits, .2 wounds, 0.07 damage. Followed by 4 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.35 wounds, 0.45 damage. Collective, 0.53 damage to MEQ class targets. Almost twice as much.
Intercessor, 21 points [Auraed, Tactical Doctrine]: 2 shots, 1.6 hits, 1 wound, 0.6 damage. Followed by 3 attacks, 2.3 hits, 1.8 wounds, 0.7 damage. Collective, 1.3 damage
In resilience:
Guardsmen and Orks are a wash:
2/3*2/3 = 0.44 versus 1/2*5/6 = 0.42
Intercessors are 1/2*1/3 = 0.16, and have 2 wounds, so really they're like more than 4 times as resilient as either.
We normalize those numbers by price, we've got:
0.056 damage per point for Guardsmen
0.066 damage per point for Orks
0.062 damage per point for Intercessors
2.2 lost points per hit for Guardsmen
3.3 lost points per hit for Orks
1.6 lost points per hit for Space Marines
This shows that while Space Marines are really out there mostly in survivability, Guardsmen and Orks are pretty close, with Guardsmen being still generally worse than Orks per point actually, and that's before getting into the relative greater value of melee than short ranged shooting because of the way things are scored.
In addition, as they lose buffs, the Space Marines about a quarter of their performance, Orks lose a about a quarter of their performance, and Guardsmen lose a whole half of their performance.
For this, Guard are at least better off than Tau.
One the outbound, fully buffed with a fireblade and 5 markerlights, Tau average 0.049 damage per point and taking fire take 3 lost points per hit.
Also, 1 dead marine per 60 points HWT isn't a great rate. It's actually pretty bad. Guardsmen do that, and they at least are obsec and have 4 more wounds
Posting HWT's up there, that's 0.05 damage per point, worse than Guardsmen, and also less resilient at 4.4 points lost per hit.
So, my 2c on infantry:
Infantry are okay at 5 points
Orks are probably good at 8 points.
Fire Warriors need to come down, probably to 7 points.
Intercessors need to be more. Probably about 33% more or so.
Back to vehicles, yeah, vehicles all suck, but I've said my piece on them many times.
Light/Medium/Heavy should not be T6/T7/T8 and should be T7/T8/T9, or even T8/T9/T10. Vehicle Armor Saves should be less than 1, because AT weapons also all have AP2, 3 or 4 which effectively translates to them not getting their armor saves and it being irrelevant.
Second, tank guns need to be appreciably better than anything man portable. Seriously, 2 recoilless rifles bolted together isn't an armament worth having on a main battle tank. GW is afraid of having a single shot gun do more than d6 damage [or I guess d6+2 now, or just feth that Eradicators], but is perfectly happy to have things fire a ton of shots for 2 or 3 damage.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think we could have gotten the stats we want for a Monolith without going to LOW status. As it stands. For the Price it's better than any Imperial knight. Titan killer weapons are going to murder it - standard AT like lascannons are going to struggle to kill it.
Lets just go over how much healing you can get outta this puppy.
It is <Dynasty> and has command protocols - So if Szarekhan it can get a plus 1 to it's living metal - so 2 turns of 2 Wounds (Szar warlord trait) healed at the start of the turn.
Plus you can roll with a technomancer with canoptic cloak (admitably you want the control node but this can do fine) to heal another d3 every turn
Plus you can roll with a canoptek spider with fabricator claw to heal another d3.
So if you so plan - you can heal for 8 - 16 wounds for the first 2 turns.
I don't believe any stratagems can enhance this but we are talking some serious healing here. A knight can't do that. Knights don't have 2+ saves ether. So while knights can get a 4++ / which they can't have in melee. The 2+ is always on. Most the time you will be getting a 5+ from that 2+ anyways for the most part.
As long as you can build an army to make use of those 2 support units in other ways - I think that could be quite effective.
You make a good case, sir. Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. OTOh the monolith is so...monolithic in size you can hide them behind it.
Not having read the dex yet why would this only work for 2 turns? Those new protocol rules? And I see it could get 8 wounds back, 2 +2d3, but how does that double to 16? Something in the dex i haven't seen yet? Aoso your cryptek would need a couple murderbuckets with him to deal with those pesky snipers...
Yeah one of the new protocols is 2 wounds from Living metal and a Szarken trick lets you use that protocol twice.
I think he's saying a potential of 4 wounds back from living metal + 2d3 over 2 turns (if you magically got max rolls) = 4 + 12 = 16
But Re. the scarab and technomancer healing the monolith - isn't there some wording about preventing a vehicle from being repaired twice in the same turn? Or is it only if it's the exact same ability name??
Typically that same ability will tell you it cant be used twice on the same unit. For different abilities it would mention specifically what abilities can't be used on the same unit. I was a little skeptical too but I don't see any wording that prevents it.
Genuine question, which may or may not be a silly one - does this combo work if the Monolith is sat in a SHA detachment?
I think so. The abilities only require <dynasty> and <vehicle> keywords. So they will still work. I want to have codex in hand so I can read into the larger groups of text which aren't so clear in my PDF. It's possible there are some rules here that I am missing involving different detachments.
Voss wrote: I don't think you understand the argument. It isn't that they 'don't fit' because of points. Its that their _rules are bad_. They are garbage units, and, on an unrelated note, they happen to cost a lot. There is no reason to field them at all- it does not matter what their points are, if you increase game size you still just take units that are better. The list of options is never so small (except for a few extreme cases like harlequins), that you run out of choices or have to take garbage 'because rule of 3.'
That's not the issue and you know it. If a model can be useful in a vacuum simulation (i.e. guardsmen vs a landraider, 500 pt combat patrol), then it can be made useful under right circumstances. The problem you have is that "these models that cost X doesn't do X amount of worth of damage, therefore it's useless" and "so and so units dakka moar and killz moarz for less points, therefore this model is garbage".
Not all units can be priced according to its offensive capacity. You just have to play your units right.
Units that cost ~250 pts or more are liability because there's not enough threat distribution. How do you expect these units to survive if it has a huge bullseye on it? You just have to give your opponent more targets that are equally as juicy, which onslaught can provide the pts room for. OR, you could use that concept of shifting liability to one unit so that your other units can survive the turn unscathed.
~200 pt units are only a problem when it constitutes +10% of your total army. It is less of a liability if its only worth ~+7% of your army.
You can't win in chess without losing any pieces. You can't win in 40k without losing any units (unless of course you set your battlefield for maximum carnage, aka napoleonic standoff).
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
Yup. Come play a different game where skill on the table actually matters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.
T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.
Respectfully disagree. Remember, we're talking T9 with a 2+ save. That means most of those "accidental tank killers" would only be pushing the Monolith onto a 3+ or 4+ save as they are mostly AP-1 or AP-2, while most of the stuff with AP-3 or AP-4 is S8 and would be wounding on 5s instead of 4s. Most LOWs should have the T9 2+ defensive stat line without an invul, including knights. That would help against the "accidental" anti-tank weapons while making the real anti-tank weapons more desirable against them. More standard MBTs, like Leman Russes, should be T9 with a 3+, that way meltas really want to get in close for that extra oomph to make up for wounding on 5s.
Edit: Probably a good idea to give those T9 MBTs and LOWs a rule that reduces AP-1 and possibly Ap-2 to 0 as well to help against all those HROF S5, 6, and 7 weapons. Those things should chew through light armour but not the heavy stuff.
Sledgehammer wrote: Because the more that your ability to win hinges on your army construction, and the more they change what units are viable, the more you think about and buy models.
It's literally what the entire game is fundamentally designed around.
Yup. Come play a different game where skill on the table actually matters.
I'll go join all zero of the players making up the local community for other wargames.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.
T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.
Respectfully disagree. Remember, we're talking T9 with a 2+ save. That means most of those "accidental tank killers" would only be pushing the Monolith onto a 3+ or 4+ save as they are mostly AP-1 or AP-2, while most of the stuff with AP-3 or AP-4 is S8 and would be wounding on 5s instead of 4s. Most LOWs should have the T9 2+ defensive stat line without an invul, including knights. That would help against the "accidental" anti-tank weapons while making the real anti-tank weapons more desirable against them. More standard MBTs, like Leman Russes, should be T9 with a 3+, that way meltas really want to get in close for that extra oomph to make up for wounding on 5s.
Edit: Probably a good idea to give those T9 MBTs and LOWs a rule that reduces AP-1 and possibly Ap-2 to 0 as well to help against all those HROF S5, 6, and 7 weapons. Those things should chew through light armour but not the heavy stuff.
The "Accidental Tank Killers" I'm referring to are the Grav-style/statline MEQ/TEQ guns. Multiple shots, S5/6-ish -3ish save 2ish damage. 4 shots, 3 hits, 2 and a half wounds, a sixth of a save ~4 damage per gun. The ones where S5 doesn't care about the difference between T6 and T9.
No, I'd start with giving every vehicle +10 Toughness. I'd give every anti-tank that's supposed to be anti-tank gun +10S when targetting a vehicle - or all the time and -1 to hit anything non-vehicle depending on the gun. i.e. the Battlecannon might get +10S only vs Vehicle, the Lascannon might +10S all the time,and -1 to hit non vehicles. I'd even change the Hit Modifier cap such that you can max -1 or +1 to hit from each player i.e. you can get -2 to hit if you shoot an "unweildy" gun or use an "unweildy" powerfist (-1 to hit from your side) on an an agile "dodgy" Eldar git(-1 to hit on their side for a total of -2). Of course then I'd think of Dreads in close combat, or Sentinels and old Landspeeders etc all the time and mutter some four letter words under my breath as things fall apart. I mean, I don't mind that a Dread might be immune to combat knives and the generic close combat weapon all troops are assumed to have and all Tau are assumed to have forgotten in their locker on the mothership but the power weapons etc should still hurt them especially TH and PF. You'd probably have to figure out how to draw this line for Tyranid Monsters as well.
I like reducing AP for really monstrous or tough tanks like a landraider, knight or monolith. Maybe a -1 AP to all weapons due to thick armor, hardened armor, coherent matter armor or whatever.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 24W in the current damage system seems about appropriate for the larger side of regular tanks. It'd be better at T9 (much like the Land Raider should be), but I'm not seeing how this is LOW-worthy.
T9 would help, but not much.. What are you affecting? Las, Lances, Kraks, and Melta for 16%,? Any of the S5-S7 accidental tank killers don’t care and still perform the same accidentally killing your monolith/land raider. The big “tanks” especially the ones pushing knight prices need an invuln in a world where people make armies while worried about seeing a knight or more show up.
Respectfully disagree. Remember, we're talking T9 with a 2+ save. That means most of those "accidental tank killers" would only be pushing the Monolith onto a 3+ or 4+ save as they are mostly AP-1 or AP-2, while most of the stuff with AP-3 or AP-4 is S8 and would be wounding on 5s instead of 4s. Most LOWs should have the T9 2+ defensive stat line without an invul, including knights. That would help against the "accidental" anti-tank weapons while making the real anti-tank weapons more desirable against them. More standard MBTs, like Leman Russes, should be T9 with a 3+, that way meltas really want to get in close for that extra oomph to make up for wounding on 5s.
Edit: Probably a good idea to give those T9 MBTs and LOWs a rule that reduces AP-1 and possibly Ap-2 to 0 as well to help against all those HROF S5, 6, and 7 weapons. Those things should chew through light armour but not the heavy stuff.
The "Accidental Tank Killers" I'm referring to are the Grav-style/statline MEQ/TEQ guns. Multiple shots, S5/6-ish -3ish save 2ish damage. 4 shots, 3 hits, 2 and a half wounds, a sixth of a save ~4 damage per gun. The ones where S5 doesn't care about the difference between T6 and T9.
No, I'd start with giving every vehicle +10 Toughness. I'd give every anti-tank that's supposed to be anti-tank gun +10S when targetting a vehicle - or all the time and -1 to hit anything non-vehicle depending on the gun. i.e. the Battlecannon might get +10S only vs Vehicle, the Lascannon might +10S all the time,and -1 to hit non vehicles. I'd even change the Hit Modifier cap such that you can max -1 or +1 to hit from each player i.e. you can get -2 to hit if you shoot an "unweildy" gun or use an "unweildy" powerfist (-1 to hit from your side) on an an agile "dodgy" Eldar git(-1 to hit on their side for a total of -2). Of course then I'd think of Dreads in close combat, or Sentinels and old Landspeeders etc all the time and mutter some four letter words under my breath as things fall apart. I mean, I don't mind that a Dread might be immune to combat knives and the generic close combat weapon all troops are assumed to have and all Tau are assumed to have forgotten in their locker on the mothership but the power weapons etc should still hurt them especially TH and PF. You'd probably have to figure out how to draw this line for Tyranid Monsters as well.
Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.
Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?
I don't think they need to go up in cost. They're already underperforming. For reference:
Guardsman, 5 points [FRF-SRF]: 4 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds, 0.22 damage. Followed by 1 attack, 0.5 hits, 0.17 wounds, 0.06 damage. Collective, 0.28 damage to MEQ-class targets.
Ork, 8 points [large section]: 1 shot, 0.39 hits, .2 wounds, 0.07 damage. Followed by 4 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.35 wounds, 0.45 damage. Collective, 0.53 damage to MEQ class targets. Almost twice as much.
Intercessor, 21 points [Auraed, Tactical Doctrine]: 2 shots, 1.6 hits, 1 wound, 0.6 damage. Followed by 3 attacks, 2.3 hits, 1.8 wounds, 0.7 damage. Collective, 1.3 damage
In resilience:
Guardsmen and Orks are a wash:
2/3*2/3 = 0.44 versus 1/2*5/6 = 0.42
Intercessors are 1/2*1/3 = 0.16, and have 2 wounds, so really they're like more than 4 times as resilient as either.
We normalize those numbers by price, we've got:
0.056 damage per point for Guardsmen
0.066 damage per point for Orks
0.062 damage per point for Intercessors
2.2 lost points per hit for Guardsmen
3.3 lost points per hit for Orks
1.6 lost points per hit for Space Marines
This shows that while Space Marines are really out there mostly in survivability, Guardsmen and Orks are pretty close, with Guardsmen being still generally worse than Orks per point actually, and that's before getting into the relative greater value of melee than short ranged shooting because of the way things are scored.
In addition, as they lose buffs, the Space Marines about a quarter of their performance, Orks lose a about a quarter of their performance, and Guardsmen lose a whole half of their performance.
For this, Guard are at least better off than Tau.
One the outbound, fully buffed with a fireblade and 5 markerlights, Tau average 0.049 damage per point and taking fire take 3 lost points per hit.
Also, 1 dead marine per 60 points HWT isn't a great rate. It's actually pretty bad. Guardsmen do that, and they at least are obsec and have 4 more wounds
Posting HWT's up there, that's 0.05 damage per point, worse than Guardsmen, and also less resilient at 4.4 points lost per hit.
So, my 2c on infantry:
Infantry are okay at 5 points
Orks are probably good at 8 points.
Fire Warriors need to come down, probably to 7 points.
Intercessors need to be more. Probably about 33% more or so.
Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.
I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.
Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.
Nah, I get to pay LOW prices for Land Raider and Repuslor Durability. I'm also interested in "fixing" more than just the LR/Repulsor/Mono. The Truly light vehicles (Speeders, Sentinels and the like) should be vulnerable to mid-tier (i.e. MEQ/TEQ) guns. Hollywood aside, it's hard to shoot down a helicopter with a handgun. Dreads and MC's should be able to faceroll their way through units that don't have a hefty CCW in the unit. They should be vulnerable to but not especially scared of the basic weapons. I'm looking to fix them all, really. Trukks, Wagons, Preds, HammerBladeSwords, and so on and so on. It should be a choice between taking anti-tank/anti-vehicle shooting, and taking anti infantry (even TEQ) shooting. Very few things should excel at both, and they should usually be limited to a tank turret or artillery.
Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?
I'm going to guess: by doing it when I should have been sleeping. Instead of keeping the 1/3 and discarding the 2/3, I kept the 2/3 and discarded the 1/3
Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.
I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.
I think you are pretty much on point. As a Drukhari player I can live with Kabalites at 9 (with better weapons) and Wracks at 12, but Wyches at 11 is way too expensive. The other day I realised that Flayed Ones are 14... I mean, it seems that we are paying way too much for our Dodge and our drugs.
I guess other Xeno players will have the same problem, and maybe is just that the most played basic troop in the game is way cheap in comparison.
Ah, so you want to alter the rules even more than my proposal. Understood. I would point out however, against those AP-3 weapons such as grav a 2+ save unit like the Monolith is getting the same save as a knight without the Rotate Ion Shields strategem, do you consider knights as lacking in durability? T9 2+ is quite durable, especially with 20+ wounds. I actually field units with that defensive profile, do you? Their problem is their price, not their durability. Agreed that penalties to hit imposed by yourself should stack with those imposed by your opponent.
Nah, I get to pay LOW prices for Land Raider and Repuslor Durability. I'm also interested in "fixing" more than just the LR/Repulsor/Mono. The Truly light vehicles (Speeders, Sentinels and the like) should be vulnerable to mid-tier (i.e. MEQ/TEQ) guns. Hollywood aside, it's hard to shoot down a helicopter with a handgun. Dreads and MC's should be able to faceroll their way through units that don't have a hefty CCW in the unit. They should be vulnerable to but not especially scared of the basic weapons. I'm looking to fix them all, really. Trukks, Wagons, Preds, HammerBladeSwords, and so on and so on. It should be a choice between taking anti-tank/anti-vehicle shooting, and taking anti infantry (even TEQ) shooting. Very few things should excel at both, and they should usually be limited to a tank turret or artillery.
Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.
Edit: Also how are you getting two and a half wounds from three hits that wound on 5s?
I'm going to guess: by doing it when I should have been sleeping. Instead of keeping the 1/3 and discarding the 2/3, I kept the 2/3 and discarded the 1/3
Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.
The Rep-Ex is 360ish. G is only about 5% more. Guard have something like 3 LOW cheaper than it is
The Crassus Armored Vehicle is a LOW practically IS a Land Raider when you give it two HB and 2 LC. Add two more LC it's technically not allowed to have and it's 290 points.
Its BS 4+ instead of BS 3, and it gets the usual Super Heavy special rule. It's t8 20W 3+ instead of T8 16W 2+
I mean seriously look at the thing, it even looks like someone took a Chimera and bits from the Leman Russ Kit and then used the Land Raider Instruction booklet.
Land Raiders are 285 PPM, Repulsives are 311 PPM I think? That is nowhere near LOW prices, much less the price of anything T9 2+. Sounds to me like you want to go back to the old wounding table. Good luck with that. I'd be cool with it, but probably not gw.
The Rep-Ex is 360ish. G is only about 5% more. Guard have something like 3 LOW cheaper than it is
The Crassus Armored Vehicle is a LOW practically IS a Land Raider when you give it two HB and 2 LC. Add two more LC it's technically not allowed to have and it's 290 points.
Its BS 4+ instead of BS 3, and it gets the usual Super Heavy special rule. It's t8 20W 3+ instead of T8 16W 2+
I mean seriously look at the thing, it even looks like someone took a Chimera and bits from the Leman Russ Kit and then used the Land Raider Instruction booklet.
Yes, it practically is a Land Raider...with worse shooting. 20 T8 3+ wounds takes about the same number of shots from most weapons to kill as 16 T8 2+ wounds. And it'll cost you 3CP on top of its points.
And I'm assuming that "G" refers to Gulliman, who is only a LOW for FOC reasons, I thought we were talking about real LOWs. You know, knights, Baneblades, Fellblades, etc..
Look, I'm not arguing that Land Raiders, or even Repulsive Executioners aren't currently overcosted, but they aren't hitting the price of what I was talking about, which is anything T9 2+. Those start at 680 PPM with the Cerberus. Picking the odd Guard LOW that's in that category only because gw considers anything with 20 wounds or more as one is odd, especially since having that distinction is actually a detriment for the unit in question. Would you prefer to pay less for Land Raiders and Repulsives at the expense of CP and them not having chapter tactics?
Yes, it practically is a Land Raider...with worse shooting. 20 T8 3+ wounds takes about the same number of shots from most weapons to kill as 16 T8 2+ wounds. And it'll cost you 3CP on top of its points.
And I'm assuming that "G" refers to Gulliman, who is only a LOW for FOC reasons, I thought we were talking about real LOWs. You know, knights, Baneblades, Fellblades, etc..
Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.
Look, I'm not arguing that Land Raiders, or even Repulsive Executioners aren't currently overcosted, but they aren't hitting the price of what I was talking about, which is anything T9 2+. Those start at 680 PPM with the Cerberus. Picking the odd Guard LOW that's in that category only because gw considers anything with 20 wounds or more as one is odd, especially since having that distinction is actually a detriment for the unit in question. Would you prefer to pay less for Land Raiders and Repulsives at the expense of CP and them not having chapter tactics?
Truth be told, I'd rather pay the same, have them get a substantial durability boost and move to the LoW slot. At least for the Land Raiders. They're supposed to be rare, so 1 per army in a SHA - or normal with the idea people like to add one LOW slot to a Batallion etc. wouldn't be unfluffy. Also I think BladeSwordHammers in a SHA should have Doctrines etc.
The Repulsors and RepEx should probably just get cheaper as they're not AFAIK fluffed as rare. A lot cheaper. And with the Impulsor move to the 10/5 or 16/8 transport schedule. I would also quit doing the segretated transport thing Marines have going.
Breton wrote: Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.
Gulliman doesn't pay for true LOW stats, he pays for all those wonderful buffs he gives to his brainwashed minions (though when anyone plays him against me he's just a 380 PPM paperweight, but I digress ). Yes, those other units approach LOW price and abilities, but not quite. Which is why I call them "almost LOWs", and was so annoyed by the silly wound cap for obscuring terrain.
Truth be told, I'd rather pay the same, have them get a substantial durability boost and move to the LoW slot. At least for the Land Raiders. They're supposed to be rare, so 1 per army in a SHA - or normal with the idea people like to add one LOW slot to a Batallion etc. wouldn't be unfluffy. Also I think BladeSwordHammers in a SHA should have Doctrines etc.
I agree Land Raiders need a durability boost, T9 would do it, as would a rule to ignore low AP shots similar to Valorous Heart SoB. I don't think it would require making them LOWs with all the issues that would cause for them. Agreed that LOWs should get faction traits if they belong to the same faction as their warlord. And I'd LOVE it if they'd add a LOW slot to battalions and brigades.
The Repulsors and RepEx should probably just get cheaper as they're not AFAIK fluffed as rare. A lot cheaper. And with the Impulsor move to the 10/5 or 16/8 transport schedule. I would also quit doing the segretated transport thing Marines have going.
I could see Repulsives of both varieties getting cheaper, along with other vehicles, if gw doesn't do anything else to help them against the new melta rules. If you're implying that Impulsors should be able to transport gravis and terminators, I don't see that, unless the same happens to Rhinos, as Impulsors are just floating Rhinos. It would be nice if Classic Marines vehicles could transport primaris though, just to improve the aesthetics of the game.
But to bring this back around to where we started, you obviously don't play, and probably haven't played against, anything with the T9 2+ defensive stat line. As someone who owns and plays both a Fellblade and a Cerberus, I can tell you, durability isn't an issue for them, their problem is price, and if vehicles like Land Raiders and Repulsives get a price cut I'd expect the same for them. T9 would be a big improvement to many heavy vehicles, Monoliths and Land Raiders included.
And if you really want a tough Land Raider, get an Achilles.
Breton wrote: . The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx.
Pfft, I wish the Stormsurge was that cheap. Standard kit if you don't want to get vaporised by the first dedicated AT unit that looks at it funny is 399.
A Duty Eternal type stat as standard for vehicles (to deal with the mid-strength HROF accidental AT weapons dealing D2 damage) and a toughness boost (to reduce the effectiveness of low strength mass infantry fire) would make a difference to survivability while preventing vehicles being immune to small arms, like in 2nd-7th...
Breton wrote: The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.
Just what points are you using for those Vehicals?
Repulsor is currently 316 points, exicutioner is 356
Stormsurge is 335 base. At plus 1 point it's square in the middle with 0 transport options, costs 3CP to bring and is way more vulnerable to melta.
Just some quick maths puts it at 8.18 D6 damage melta shots to kill a Stormsurge
It takes 13.7 to kill a Repulsor seems like it's way more durable.
Gadzilla666 wrote: . If you're implying that Impulsors should be able to transport gravis and terminators, I don't see that, unless the same happens to Rhinos, as Impulsors are just floating Rhinos. It would be nice if Classic Marines vehicles could transport primaris though, just to improve the aesthetics of the game.
I'm saying let Primaris in Rhinos, and Soon To Be Squatted Marines in Impulsors with the same Gravis/Terminator restrictions they have now.
But to bring this back around to where we started, you obviously don't play, and probably haven't played against, anything with the T9 2+ defensive stat line. As someone who owns and plays both a Fellblade and a Cerberus, I can tell you, durability isn't an issue for them, their problem is price, and if vehicles like Land Raiders and Repulsives get a price cut I'd expect the same for them. T9 would be a big improvement to many heavy vehicles, Monoliths and Land Raiders included.
And if you really want a tough Land Raider, get an Achilles.
Going to T9 realistically only affects Melta and Lascannon. The stuff you didn't want (from a balance standpoint) taking down the big tanks is going to shrug and not care. Those S5/S6/S7 get the same roll they had before. This is the downfall of Toughness over Armor Value. How many Grav Amps does it take to kill a T8 2+ Land Raider? How many does it take to kill a T9 2+ Land Raider? Now sure, there should be some lucky chance for an Onslaught to scramble a Land Raider through weight of fire. I wouldn't mind experimenting with parts of both systems. Leave them with a bunch of wounds, give them back an Armor Value, and anything that shoots it glances on a 6 unless it would Pen on a 6 or less (thus costing a Wound) Anything that Pens does extra wounds. How many I'm not sure of. Something along those lines. It would probably work out similar to T18 Heavy Tanks vs weapons that get +10S vs VEHICLE or ARMOR etc keywords. Pick whichever ones gives more room to work with and grow.
Breton wrote: . The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx.
Pfft, I wish the Stormsurge was that cheap. Standard kit if you don't want to get vaporised by the first dedicated AT unit that looks at it funny is 399.
Its default price is. And the fact that it's less than a RepEx is both funny, and depressing.
A Duty Eternal type stat as standard for vehicles (to deal with the mid-strength HROF accidental AT weapons dealing D2 damage) and a toughness boost (to reduce the effectiveness of low strength mass infantry fire) would make a difference to survivability while preventing vehicles being immune to small arms, like in 2nd-7th...
Yeah, that's kind of what I'd like. it feel like it would be simpler just to bring back some USR's based on Keywords. They've got such a goldmine in the keyword system, but couldn't find a pick and shovel in their entire company.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.
Grav is -3, Krak is -2.
So heavy armour would get its full 3+ or 2+ save against Krak but not Grav. A -1 to damage rule would affect all weapons, including the ones that should hurt armour. Something has to be able to damage vehicles or we'll be back at parking lots.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.
Grav is -3, Krak is -2.
So heavy armour would get its full 3+ or 2+ save against Krak but not Grav.
Yeah, that's not right. Krak (and it's variously named Xenos versions) is actually for vehicles and gets boned, while Grav doesn't which is too good against vehicles. Of course Krak should be better. They could also give Grav+Amp a second stat-line for vehicles i.e. Concentrated: Heavy 1 (or 2), S8/9/10, -3 D2. I like the idea of anti infantry - even MEQ/TEQ quality ones only wounding the tough vehicles on a 6, and I like the idea of the actual tank killers being less accurate vs non-vehicles with limited and rare single statline dual purpose (i.e. tank turret weapons such as BC's, Auto Cannons(and this my be the boost the man portable AC's need too) and so on)
A -1 to damage rule would affect all weapons, including the ones that should hurt armour. Something has to be able to damage vehicles or we'll be back at parking lots.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.
Something like that could work. The issue is people will just stop taking ap -1 and 2 weapons then. I really don't like "ignore this stat" abilities. There is nothing more unfun than abilities like that.
IMO a lot could be learned by GW by looking at how StarCraft balances their units. armor types and weapon types does a great job at making use you can't just spam a certain unit to win because there is another unit type that will just crush your spammed unit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's why I suggested all heavy armour be given a rule to reduce AP-1 and AP-2 to 0 in addition to a boost in toughness.
Something like that could work. The issue is people will just stop taking ap -1 and 2 weapons then. I really don't like "ignore this stat" abilities. There is nothing more unfun than abilities like that.
IMO a lot could be learned by GW by looking at how StarCraft balances their units. armor types and weapon types does a great job at making use you can't just spam a certain unit to win because there is another unit type that will just crush your spammed unit.
Yeah but starcraft lets you basically bring your whole army and react to your opponent.
If i'm spamming marauders and my opponent spams zerglings, i have the option to build hellions.
If i'm spamming eradicators and my opponent spams termagants, i don't have the option to bring agressors.
yes, i know that bringing skew lists is bad, this is just as an example of how the systems differ.
Demon summoning is arguably the best existing mechanic to let you tailor a list to your opponents, the problem is how unreliable it is.
I really think GW should embrace the use of Keywords and add an "Anti-Tank" keyword.
Then give tanks a rule that ignores/reduces AP of non "Anti-Tank" weapons.
Technically tanks will still be woundable from any weapon but now things like disintegrator cannons or starcannons wont be the "best" weapons because they combine AP with a high rate of fire.
The way I see it, the four battle sizes are reflection of what happens in a game of SC.
The first 4 minutes is rush timing, which is the combat patrol. The middle 5~12 minutes is when the early techs come out & start contesting for each others expansions = incursion. This is the timing when the MMM's, immortal rushes, roach spam comes out. The top 12~22 minutes is when you're fully tech'ed, but not max food yet - you've secured 3~4 expansions and trying to take = strike force. You have critical mass for at least one component of your army while the other is getting built. You more or less have covered both air, ground & seige components. Past the 25~30 minute mark you're in the late game, when you begin to max out on your food and fighitng with maxed out food = onslaught. This is when you start seeing a fleet of battle cruisers, carriers & 70% of map covered in creep.
Having said, you know what you need to bring (like when you scout your enemy's base) by reading on the meta/rulebooks - see what's strong, guess what your opponent is bringing, consider your opponent's playstyle, etc. When you begin setting up at the table, this is like when the fog of war lifts and you see your opponents' entire army.
I don't think they need to go up in cost. They're already underperforming. For reference:
Guardsman, 5 points [FRF-SRF]: 4 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds, 0.22 damage. Followed by 1 attack, 0.5 hits, 0.17 wounds, 0.06 damage. Collective, 0.28 damage to MEQ-class targets.
Ork, 8 points [large section]: 1 shot, 0.39 hits, .2 wounds, 0.07 damage. Followed by 4 attacks, 2.7 hits, 1.35 wounds, 0.45 damage. Collective, 0.53 damage to MEQ class targets. Almost twice as much.
Intercessor, 21 points [Auraed, Tactical Doctrine]: 2 shots, 1.6 hits, 1 wound, 0.6 damage. Followed by 3 attacks, 2.3 hits, 1.8 wounds, 0.7 damage. Collective, 1.3 damage
In resilience:
Guardsmen and Orks are a wash:
2/3*2/3 = 0.44 versus 1/2*5/6 = 0.42
Intercessors are 1/2*1/3 = 0.16, and have 2 wounds, so really they're like more than 4 times as resilient as either.
We normalize those numbers by price, we've got:
0.056 damage per point for Guardsmen
0.066 damage per point for Orks
0.062 damage per point for Intercessors
2.2 lost points per hit for Guardsmen
3.3 lost points per hit for Orks
1.6 lost points per hit for Space Marines
This shows that while Space Marines are really out there mostly in survivability, Guardsmen and Orks are pretty close, with Guardsmen being still generally worse than Orks per point actually, and that's before getting into the relative greater value of melee than short ranged shooting because of the way things are scored.
In addition, as they lose buffs, the Space Marines about a quarter of their performance, Orks lose a about a quarter of their performance, and Guardsmen lose a whole half of their performance.
For this, Guard are at least better off than Tau.
One the outbound, fully buffed with a fireblade and 5 markerlights, Tau average 0.049 damage per point and taking fire take 3 lost points per hit.
Also, 1 dead marine per 60 points HWT isn't a great rate. It's actually pretty bad. Guardsmen do that, and they at least are obsec and have 4 more wounds
Posting HWT's up there, that's 0.05 damage per point, worse than Guardsmen, and also less resilient at 4.4 points lost per hit.
So, my 2c on infantry:
Infantry are okay at 5 points
Orks are probably good at 8 points.
Fire Warriors need to come down, probably to 7 points.
Intercessors need to be more. Probably about 33% more or so.
Actually boyz have 2 attacks base, 3 if they are slugga/choppa. 4 only if they are 20+ models which makes them a very expensive unit (160+ points). Most of the times they'll have 3 if not just 2 as shoota boyz are quite popular now; in that case they gain a BS5+ extra shot though. The shot you listed for boyz is from a 12'' pistol and CC is 1-2 turns at most while shooting is easier to do multiple times since better range ad possibility to target units behind screeners.
I think boyz and guardsmen are definitely on par and should have max 1 pts of difference in price, the reason why AM is underperforming is the lack of good CC which is required in this edition. Fire Warriors are probably better than boyz, it's the drukhari troops that should be cheaper and wyches in particular should be much cheaper, like 40-50%. But I agree about intercessors, they're undercosted, like pretty much any primaris infantry unit.
You are dramatically overestimating the power of ranged troops, especially this edition. Melee troops are head and shoulders above ranged troops this edition because they're melee troops and can do the melee thing, which Guardsmen and Fire Warriors cannot do. Position and pressure advantage, zoning the enemy in with all your models, and being able to kill them off an objective are far more powerful intangible tactical bonuses that contribute to winning the objective game and having lasting local superiority over the marginally increased threat range of short range shooting units.
They're also not really having all this additional effect that close quaters units aren't. The battle is a scrum in the middle mostly, decided by charging the enemy off of points, and for pretty much any army you're engaged in melee on any round after the first, and many armies are engaged on turn 1 if they want to be [of which Orks are one of those armies].
Anyway, Shoota Boyz:
0.48 wounds dealt to an MEQ target per combined shoot+charge phase. That's 0.06 wounds per point.
Orks are the only massed light infantry army performing well right now. Guard and Tau are really bad and Tyranids aren't doing particularly hot either. Combining the pressures of the edition with the actual numerical performance expectations of the units, I think Boyz are good at 8 points compared to 5 point Guardsmen.
It's the fire warriors, termigaunts, and hormagaunts that need to come down. Boyz and Infantry can go up, but if they go up they'll become nonviable or even less viable against the armies that aren't light massed infantry [read, Marines].
But our discussion of light infantry is off topic for a threat about vehicles.
I don't think that vehicles ignoring AP-2 is what's needed and doesn't solve the problem. The fundamental problem for the tanks is as follows:
Infantry has 3 measures of resilience: Toughness, Armor, and Wounds. Basically all weapons are graduated on their strength, ap, and damage based on their effect on infantry, with the exception of high end AT weapons which are still graduated on anti-infantry strength and AP but have a damage based on AT effect.
Because any weapon that can logically be expected to damage a vehicle would and should also paste infantry utterly, they all have high S and AP. They have to have high enough strength to wound infantry on 2's and high enough AP to ignore heavy infantry armor.
Tanks are graduated on the same 2+-6+ scale for armor saves, but they're graduated on that scale versus each other while the weapons that are inbound are graduated on the scale versus infantry. The same applies to toughness, since tanks were selected to be 6/7/8 and the weapons need to be 8/9/10 out of legacy and the expected effect on infantry, tanks are basically all seen the same way by AT weapons.
This means that tanks' toughness and armor are effectively irrelevant relative to each other, and all have essentially the same defensive effect with only their guns differing.
I think the simple solutions would be to slide the scales for vehicles to match with the scales of the weapons used against them. Pretty much all armored vehicles are at least bulletproof armored, so infantry weapons wounding on 6's should be a given, with T6 and T7 reserved for unarmored irregular vehicles pressed into combat roles.
Then, slide their armor scale to a range several points adjusted, probably 2 points down, so that the primary region of interest of AT weapons AP2/3/4 corresponds with vehicle armor saves the way the primary region of interest for infantry weapons AP0/1/2/3 corresponds with infantry saves.
This would give differentiation to the way vehicle resilience and AT weapons interact with each other so that there are legitimately heavy vehicles that require big guns to damage.
Then, one would have to visit the damage profile of heavy weapons. A vehicle tank gun doing 1d6 damage for a single shot is really pitiful when you can bring massed d3 or 3 damage fire from supposedly lower quality weapons [or even bring a Demolisher Cannon which has D6 damage and shoots D6 times]. Increasing the damage of single-shot AT weapons like the Vanquisher, Railcannon, etc. would bring vehicle resilience back into line so that heavy vehicles aren't unstoppable, but require the right tools.
So, another option would be to repurpose a rule we already have seen - instead of 'treat weapons with AP values of -1 or -2 as 0' we could go with 'treat weapons with a damage value of D2 as D1' and give that to heavy vehicles (tanks, etc) but not light vehicles (speeders, APC's, buggies, etc).
Then you have:
D1 weapons - for killing light/medium infantry (W1 models, etc).
D2 weapons - for killing Heavy infantry/light vehicles (W2-6 models, in general plus bikes/speeders, etc)
Dd3+ weapons - dedicated anti-tank weapons (and generally inefficient for killing the other 2 categories)
And before anyone brings up weapon X (totes anti-tank, but is only D2) or weapon Y (totes not, but does Dd3, etc) - as we have seen, weapon stats can be tweaked in FAQ'S.
Guilliman is 95% of a knight in cost. The Crassus is about Land Raider priced. When you start hitting 300+ you're talking LOW prices. The KV128 Stormsurge falls about halfway between a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner, even slightly closer to the Rep instead of the RepEx. The Land Rander Ultima actually IS a LOW now that I think about it, though it's moved to Legends now. Those of you who bought one when the Index came out and got less than a full edition of playing with it - you have my condolences. The Obelisk is 10 points more than Gulliman, the RepEx is 92% of an Obelisk, 90% of a Wraith Knight. They are in that low end LOW ballpark price wise.
MY Gorkanaut is 340pts and T8 Can i get that 2+ save and become a LOW as well?
These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.
Quasistellar wrote: These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.
The problem is, with that no single anti tank weapon can destroy or wreck a vehicle in one shot, aside for some of the really light and small ones, but maybe not even those, if those too got extra wounds. So either GW would have to make whole units really good at destroying tanks, but then the same units are going to be really good at killing marines. Or make the anti tank weapons able to blow up even those big vehicles with a shot or two, but then they become great hunters of big high cost models GW wants everyone to buy, and GW doesn't want people to remove their nice big model just after they deployed them.
So we are kind of a forced in to the situation we are right now.
Quasistellar wrote: These solutions are silly. Just give the vehicles more wounds, better saves, and/or higher toughness. Those are stats that exist; no need to create extra rules.
The problem is, with that no single anti tank weapon can destroy or wreck a vehicle in one shot, aside for some of the really light and small ones, but maybe not even those, if those too got extra wounds. So either GW would have to make whole units really good at destroying tanks, but then the same units are going to be really good at killing marines. Or make the anti tank weapons able to blow up even those big vehicles with a shot or two, but then they become great hunters of big high cost models GW wants everyone to buy, and GW doesn't want people to remove their nice big model just after they deployed them.
So we are kind of a forced in to the situation we are right now.
No single anti-tank weapon? A single Eradicator standing within melta range holding a Multi-melta can theoretically do 32 damage a turn it averages 6.66 dmg.
A 135pt squad of Eradicators with Heavy rifles, in melta range can theoretically do 60 Damage a turn. And averages 15.
So when you say no single anti-tank weapon...you mean besides Space Marines.
The way I see it, the four battle sizes are reflection of what happens in a game of SC.
The first 4 minutes is rush timing, which is the combat patrol.
The middle 5~12 minutes is when the early techs come out & start contesting for each others expansions = incursion. This is the timing when the MMM's, immortal rushes, roach spam comes out.
The top 12~22 minutes is when you're fully tech'ed, but not max food yet - you've secured 3~4 expansions and trying to take = strike force. You have critical mass for at least one component of your army while the other is getting built. You more or less have covered both air, ground & seige components.
Past the 25~30 minute mark you're in the late game, when you begin to max out on your food and fighitng with maxed out food = onslaught. This is when you start seeing a fleet of battle cruisers, carriers & 70% of map covered in creep.
Having said, you know what you need to bring (like when you scout your enemy's base) by reading on the meta/rulebooks - see what's strong, guess what your opponent is bringing, consider your opponent's playstyle, etc. When you begin setting up at the table, this is like when the fog of war lifts and you see your opponents' entire army.
So in a sense, you CAN bring a counter list.
While true we aren't reacting in real time like what happens in SC. We are reacting to what we expect to be there. But mainly the weapon types approach makes it so weapons that aren't intended to do damage vs tanks but have a high damage profile/potential damage vs bioligical only does 10% damage to mechanical (or something).
Armor bane and fleshbane is another great way to do this. Weapons str is 4. But it wounds tanks on a 2+. That kind of stuff.
sanguine40k wrote: So, another option would be to repurpose a rule we already have seen - instead of 'treat weapons with AP values of -1 or -2 as 0' we could go with 'treat weapons with a damage value of D2 as D1' and give that to heavy vehicles (tanks, etc) but not light vehicles (speeders, APC's, buggies, etc).
Then you have:
D1 weapons - for killing light/medium infantry (W1 models, etc).
D2 weapons - for killing Heavy infantry/light vehicles (W2-6 models, in general plus bikes/speeders, etc)
Dd3+ weapons - dedicated anti-tank weapons (and generally inefficient for killing the other 2 categories)
And before anyone brings up weapon X (totes anti-tank, but is only D2) or weapon Y (totes not, but does Dd3, etc) - as we have seen, weapon stats can be tweaked in FAQ'S.
I don't know, I still like the keyword-feeds-USR system. At that point you can also break your own rules when a unique weapon should get something different/special/unique as a reward/drawback by giving it or not giving it the appropriate keyword to trigger the USR. It also gives you more fine control - for example the autocannon I mentioned. Using Keyword-into-USR could give it a niche it desperately needs both as man portable and in a Pred/LR turret etc. Beyond that, most of the tank turret weapons should get a dual purpose keyword/USR while most of the man portable anti-tank should lose some accuracy against smaller than tank targets via keyword into USR. The point being to prevent any boost to a weapon in one category becoming adept in the other category through "collateral damage" from the change. Generally speaking - with some exceptions - a man portable (i.e. a thing carried by a Dev, a Heavy Weapon Team, an Eldar Support Platform etc) heavy weapon - with a single statline - should be good at anti infantry or antivehicle but not both. The mutti-statline things like Krak/Frag or Sun/Star missiles etc. should have the appropriate keyword on the matching statline. A very few - like AutoCannons, potentially Assault Cannons, the Xenos corollaries etc. might get both/neither/third keywords to be truly dual purpose. I say that because some of those middle/straddle weapons are in tank turrets or aircraft and might need it to keep being their main gun, plus some of them like Autocannon need some sort of a boost.
MY Gorkanaut is 340pts and T8 Can i get that 2+ save and become a LOW as well?
Assuming it doesn't have some sort of special rule(s) you're obfuscating, then sure. The point is to fix vehicles because they're pretty much bad no matter which faction is taking them.
There are some basic flaws that cross factions.
Transports are / Transporting is - bad because in addition to the points cost of a transport that is probably too high to begin with, it usually adds an opportunity cost of 20% or more of the unit being transported.
Most vehicles are either over-priced, under-durable or both.
Most vehicles are too vulnerable to too many things - meaning we went from taking FOR EXAMPLE an Anti-Tank Dev Squad with 4 MM, and an Anti Personnel Dev Squad with 4 HB to two Multi Purpose Dev Squads with 4 GC+A each. Now in a way, that's TAC, but in practice its more Skew.
Orks are the only massed light infantry army performing well right now. Guard and Tau are really bad and Tyranids aren't doing particularly hot either. Combining the pressures of the edition with the actual numerical performance expectations of the units, I think Boyz are good at 8 points compared to 5 point Guardsmen.
It's the fire warriors, termigaunts, and hormagaunts that need to come down. Boyz and Infantry can go up, but if they go up they'll become nonviable or even less viable against the armies that aren't light massed infantry [read, Marines].
Nah, orks horde do well only in a single built, the goff greentide. And they do not because boyz are good but because in that built they get +1S, +1A, exploding 6s and re-roll 1s in combat. If Ghaz gets nerfed the entire built disappears, because boyz don't worth 8 points. They were 6ppm when a single pk in them could wreck a tank and they were considered meh or decent at most at that time, now they're certainly worse.
I haven't seen an ork list with lots of boyz doing good without Ghaz. And that goff greentide is a skew anti meta list. Tailor against orks or bring full TAC lists and their winning rate drops dramatically, keep tailoring against marines and they'll get good results.
Most of the ork players just bring the bare minimum in boyz or even gretchins to be legal and avoid losing too many CPs.
Most vehicles are either over-priced, under-durable or both.
Most vehicles are too vulnerable to too many things - meaning we went from taking FOR EXAMPLE an Anti-Tank Dev Squad with 4 MM, and an Anti Personnel Dev Squad with 4 HB to two Multi Purpose Dev Squads with 4 GC+A each. Now in a way, that's TAC, but in practice its more Skew.
It's true in a meta that is marines heavy. Outside marines vehicles are not that squishy. Everytime I play against non marines factions an ork vehicle based list is by far more durable than a boyz based one. My SW land raider wasn't always killed in 8th after a single turn of shooting, typically soaked heavy firepower for 2-3 turns, as I never played SW vs imperium.
So again, marines are the problem that should be fixed.
Orks are the only massed light infantry army performing well right now. Guard and Tau are really bad and Tyranids aren't doing particularly hot either. Combining the pressures of the edition with the actual numerical performance expectations of the units, I think Boyz are good at 8 points compared to 5 point Guardsmen.
It's the fire warriors, termigaunts, and hormagaunts that need to come down. Boyz and Infantry can go up, but if they go up they'll become nonviable or even less viable against the armies that aren't light massed infantry [read, Marines].
Instead of getting cheaper they should get better. Especially Hormaguants should get better. They need the chainsword treatment applied to their scything claws. At least the +1A part. Guard are suffering from the same things that made people soup them last edition. They need a FOC rebuild, and probably some laspistol chainsword troops as a new unit. Tau. I don't know what to do with Tau, I think they're just up a creek. They probably need a some of their old jetpack shenanigans brought back but in a far more controlled way. Being able to shoot someone off the objective then jetpack on it in the assault phase, so they too have a way to get on the objective before their next command phase but not to be able to walk out, shoot, jetpack back behind cover out of sight Maybe they only get to Jetpack on someone else's assault phase. Or in the command phase before scoring. That would be entertaining.
So, what are the chances that the new Smoke Screen strategem loyalists got that gives vehicles with smoke launchers -1 to be hit will be given to vehicles in other codexes and other books with smoke launchers? I can definitely think of some vehicles in my army that I would love to use it on.
Gadzilla wrote:So, what are the chances that the new Smoke Screen strategem loyalists got that gives vehicles with smoke launchers -1 to be hit will be given to vehicles in other codexes and other books with smoke launchers? I can definitely think of some vehicles in my army that I would love to use it on.
I really, REALLY think that any -1 to hit rules are nearly useless in 9th. Instead of making your opponent choices harder, you're allowing him to move any heavy infantry or advance wherever possible without further risk. The same goes for deep cover, obviously.
Maybe it's situationally useful (and I agree a lot of other armies will need it), but I feel it's something that you won't use nearly as much as you would have done in 8th.
Gadzilla wrote:So, what are the chances that the new Smoke Screen strategem loyalists got that gives vehicles with smoke launchers -1 to be hit will be given to vehicles in other codexes and other books with smoke launchers? I can definitely think of some vehicles in my army that I would love to use it on.
I really, REALLY think that any -1 to hit rules are nearly useless in 9th. Instead of making your opponent choices harder, you're allowing him to move any heavy infantry or advance wherever possible without further risk. The same goes for deep cover, obviously.
Maybe it's situationally useful (and I agree a lot of other armies will need it), but I feel it's something that you won't use nearly as much as you would have done in 8th.
Stacking -1 to hit was too much before, but GW - as usual - overcorrected. It should have been capped at -1 per originating player i.e. your opponent can generate up to -1, and you can generate up to -1, if you both do you're capped at -2. That way if you decided to do something penalizing against a unit that was already penalizing, you actually suffer said penalty.
Gadzilla wrote:So, what are the chances that the new Smoke Screen strategem loyalists got that gives vehicles with smoke launchers -1 to be hit will be given to vehicles in other codexes and other books with smoke launchers? I can definitely think of some vehicles in my army that I would love to use it on.
I really, REALLY think that any -1 to hit rules are nearly useless in 9th. Instead of making your opponent choices harder, you're allowing him to move any heavy infantry or advance wherever possible without further risk. The same goes for deep cover, obviously.
Maybe it's situationally useful (and I agree a lot of other armies will need it), but I feel it's something that you won't use nearly as much as you would have done in 8th.
Stacking -1 to hit was too much before, but GW - as usual - overcorrected. It should have been capped at -1 per originating player i.e. your opponent can generate up to -1, and you can generate up to -1, if you both do you're capped at -2. That way if you decided to do something penalizing against a unit that was already penalizing, you actually suffer said penalty.
Nah it should have just been a flat cap at can't be modified to worse than a 5+, outside of thibgs like the calexus's only hit on a 6 roll.
Rolling 50-100 dice fishing for 6's is a complete waste of time but is what it is.
A more sensible way would have been to have Nth categories to apply, and the final cap would have been is "-1 x N".
For example, if you want to have a modifier caused by enemy, one caused by the player, one caused by the battlefield... the cap is -3).
But to be honest it's not even surprising anymore. Also D&D (5th edition) have the exact same issue with the concept of advantage/disadvantage.
Sometimes, in order to pursue simplicity, you get dullness.
Ice_can wrote:Rolling 50-100 dice fishing for 6's is a complete waste of time but is what it is.
To be honest I think the "to Hit" roll is redundant. It was even in 8th, but there where still modifiers. Now, with a cap at -1, I don't even see the utility of rollling 6 attack at 2+ or 30 at 5+ instead of directly causing 5 and 10 hits.
I mean, the number of attacks and dice is already so out of control that, regarding the hit roll, we're already at an almost perfect statistical average.
Anyway, in regard to the initial post and the main topic, I'm not so sure the large vehicle can be already dead.
I am personally planning to bring an Imperial Knight + Deathwing army when the local scene will come back.
It's an army based on forced target priorities to the opponent, waste of anti-infantry and resilience in the late game (and, following the supposed new meta where vehicles are a weakness, it hasn't any ranged threat toward tanks). Imperial Knight will bring the ObSec (if I remember correctly you can ahve 2 or 3 Obsec Knight with minimal trade-off). Deathwing will bring bodies, anti-infantry and staying power.
As soon as I can get a game, I'll let you know how it goes.
Cybtroll wrote: A more sensible way would have been to have Nth categories to apply, and the final cap would have been is "-1 x N".
For example, if you want to have a modifier caused by enemy, one caused by the player, one caused by the battlefield... the cap is -3).
But to be honest it's not even surprising anymore. Also D&D (5th edition) have the exact same issue with the concept of advantage/disadvantage.
Sometimes, in order to pursue simplicity, you get dullness.
Except with -3 you have stripped out 3 of the 5 pass values on a D6.
Negative modifiers penalise those with worse BS more than those with High BS. -2 is a 50% reduction in 3+BS (ignorine Rerolls for now) its 66% for 4+BS and 100% for 5+BS and 6+BS.
On a D10+it's not so bad as its a much smaller swing but on a D6 it's too big an impact.
The point is about design philosophy: instead of either "everything stacks" or "nothing stacks"; the sensible approach would have been "something stacks, but something doesn't".
Stacking -1s was awful for the game and I think its a great thing that its no longer possible. I think the cap of -1 is fine.
I also really feel this concern of "but the heavy weapons can just run round a corner and shoot my -1 to hit stuff without penalty" is rooted in theory, rather than caring much about what happens on the table. Encouraging movement is always better for the game than encouraging castling up.
The point is about design philosophy: instead of either "everything stacks" or "nothing stacks"; the sensible approach would have been "something stacks, but something doesn't".
No you missed the point GW has a design philosophy nothing stacks and in the wider context of a D6 based game it's the far better option.
Orks are the only massed light infantry army performing well right now. Guard and Tau are really bad and Tyranids aren't doing particularly hot either. Combining the pressures of the edition with the actual numerical performance expectations of the units, I think Boyz are good at 8 points compared to 5 point Guardsmen.
It's the fire warriors, termigaunts, and hormagaunts that need to come down. Boyz and Infantry can go up, but if they go up they'll become nonviable or even less viable against the armies that aren't light massed infantry [read, Marines].
The only reason that Ork boyz are doing ok right now is because of the meta of the game currently. More players are bringing D2+ weapons to deal with Primaris, new tacs and of course Gravis Marines. In order to do so they are bringing fewer horde clearing weapons, relying on blast to shore up their weakness there, and the fact is, the new blast rule only increases average # of shots by 2.5 per weapon.
Every faction in the game right now has plenty of tools in their kit boxes to eradicate an Ork boyz horde, but they don't bring them because Orkz make up a much smaller % of the game than space marines. You are significantly more likely to go 5 for 5 against some flavor of marines in a tournament than you are to face even 1 ork list. So tournament players aren't building a tac list with that mindset.
As an example, the Fantasia Fanatic XXXVIII tournament winner won with 16 gravis models. 6 Eradicators, 6 Aggressors and 4 Inceptors. 2nd place at 17 Gravis models.
To put this in context, even if you buff the Goff boyz to be S5 with pre-game strats it takes 27 attacks to kill 1 Gravis model on average. Each goff boy gets 4 attacks if he is in a buffed mob (20+ models). So roughly 6-7 boyz to kill 1 gravis model. At most you are going to get 15ish boyz into CC against a squad of Gravis unless they are very close when you charge or you roll box cars. Ghaz is decent against SM's since they generally can't do much to him except in the shooting phase, so long as he keeps a painboy nearby with his medisquig ghaz should be able to survive for a few turns. Ironically, SM's are probably one of his best match ups.
If you take regular boyz instead of goff it actually takes them closer to 41 attacks to kill 1 gravis model, which is 10-11 boyz in a buffed mob OR 14 boyz in a smaller mob
So best case scenario, in CC goff boyz are taking between 48-56pts to kill 1 model in their best phase, at worst its 112pts worth of boyz to kill 1 Gravis model, not exactly a stellar performance by Ork boyz in the new meta. All this does is highlight that ork boyz are not in a good place, they just happen to be the skew anti-meta list that wins because instead of facing a line of aggressors they are facing eradicators, and luckily for Orkz, we can overwhelm Eradicators with numbers.
Gadzilla wrote:So, what are the chances that the new Smoke Screen strategem loyalists got that gives vehicles with smoke launchers -1 to be hit will be given to vehicles in other codexes and other books with smoke launchers? I can definitely think of some vehicles in my army that I would love to use it on.
I really, REALLY think that any -1 to hit rules are nearly useless in 9th. Instead of making your opponent choices harder, you're allowing him to move any heavy infantry or advance wherever possible without further risk. The same goes for deep cover, obviously.
Maybe it's situationally useful (and I agree a lot of other armies will need it), but I feel it's something that you won't use nearly as much as you would have done in 8th.
Unless I'm mistaken, the strategem is reactionary, IE., you choose to use it after your unit is targeted in the shooting phase. That means your opponent has already chosen to move that heavy weapons squad or not, or advance that assault weapon squad or not (which probably won't happen with eradicators because they would lose their double tap). That means it wouldn't be wasted. You're also ignoring weapons that don't make that choice, like rapid fire plasma or vehicles with heavy weapons. Dense cover isn't an issue either for me as neither of the vehicles that I'm hoping this will apply to can benefit from it due to the wound cap on dense cover.
Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
SemperMortis wrote: The only reason that Ork boyz are doing ok right now is because of the meta of the game currently. More players are bringing D2+ weapons to deal with Primaris, new tacs and of course Gravis Marines. In order to do so they are bringing fewer horde clearing weapons, relying on blast to shore up their weakness there, and the fact is, the new blast rule only increases average # of shots by 2.5 per weapon.
Every faction in the game right now has plenty of tools in their kit boxes to eradicate an Ork boyz horde, but they don't bring them because Orkz make up a much smaller % of the game than space marines. You are significantly more likely to go 5 for 5 against some flavor of marines in a tournament than you are to face even 1 ork list. So tournament players aren't building a tac list with that mindset.
As an example, the Fantasia Fanatic XXXVIII tournament winner won with 16 gravis models. 6 Eradicators, 6 Aggressors and 4 Inceptors. 2nd place at 17 Gravis models.
To put this in context, even if you buff the Goff boyz to be S5 with pre-game strats it takes 27 attacks to kill 1 Gravis model on average. Each goff boy gets 4 attacks if he is in a buffed mob (20+ models). So roughly 6-7 boyz to kill 1 gravis model. At most you are going to get 15ish boyz into CC against a squad of Gravis unless they are very close when you charge or you roll box cars. Ghaz is decent against SM's since they generally can't do much to him except in the shooting phase, so long as he keeps a painboy nearby with his medisquig ghaz should be able to survive for a few turns. Ironically, SM's are probably one of his best match ups.
If you take regular boyz instead of goff it actually takes them closer to 41 attacks to kill 1 gravis model, which is 10-11 boyz in a buffed mob OR 14 boyz in a smaller mob
So best case scenario, in CC goff boyz are taking between 48-56pts to kill 1 model in their best phase, at worst its 112pts worth of boyz to kill 1 Gravis model, not exactly a stellar performance by Ork boyz in the new meta. All this does is highlight that ork boyz are not in a good place, they just happen to be the skew anti-meta list that wins because instead of facing a line of aggressors they are facing eradicators, and luckily for Orkz, we can overwhelm Eradicators with numbers.
While non of the math you present is wrong, Ork boys don't need to be super killy to be valuable. It is good enough to have more obsec bodies on an objective than the enemy. Marines usually run 3 or 5 man squads nowadays, so you can't contest until you basically cleared the whole Boyz squad off of it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
Looks like the Smoke Screen strat is available to ADEPTUS ASTARTES units with the SMOKESCREEN keyword.
Whoever said it was Primaris-only is talking out their rear end, Gadzilla - looking at proper Marine vehicles, all the Dreads have smokescreen, as do all the Rhino and Land Raider chassis vehicles I could see. Neither Land Raiders or the flyers get it, but that's not really a shock.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
Looks like the Smoke Screen strat is available to ADEPTUS ASTARTES units with the SMOKESCREEN keyword.
Whoever said it was Primaris-only is talking out their rear end, Gadzilla - looking at proper Marine vehicles, all the Dreads have smokescreen, as do all the Rhino and Land Raider chassis vehicles I could see. Neither Land Raiders or the flyers get it, but that's not really a shock.
I'm going to guess this is what happened the first time too, a "Freudian" slip with Land RAIDERS and Land SPEEDERS.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
Looks like the Smoke Screen strat is available to ADEPTUS ASTARTES units with the SMOKESCREEN keyword.
Whoever said it was Primaris-only is talking out their rear end, Gadzilla - looking at proper Marine vehicles, all the Dreads have smokescreen, as do all the Rhino and Land Raider chassis vehicles I could see. Neither Land Raiders or the flyers get it, but that's not really a shock.
You mean land speeders don't get it, right? So anything with a smoke launcher gets it? So it's possible that once the Imperial Armour Compendium and the new csm codex are both out I can basically give In Midnight Clad to my vehicles? Including my Fellblade and Achilles? Thanks Dysartes, you just made my day.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
Looks like the Smoke Screen strat is available to ADEPTUS ASTARTES units with the SMOKESCREEN keyword.
Whoever said it was Primaris-only is talking out their rear end, Gadzilla - looking at proper Marine vehicles, all the Dreads have smokescreen, as do all the Rhino and Land Raider chassis vehicles I could see. Neither Land Raiders or the flyers get it, but that's not really a shock.
You mean land speeders don't get it, right? So anything with a smoke launcher gets it? So it's possible that once the Imperial Armour Compendium and the new csm codex are both out I can basically give In Midnight Clad to my vehicles? Including my Fellblade and Achilles? Thanks Dysartes, you just made my day.
I would take nothing for granted until the Death Guard book comes out (unless the FW one comes out first).
The important bit to take from this, though, is that it isn't Primaris-only In fact, the Impulsive doesn't get it, though Gladiator/Repulsive vehicles can do, if they take (or don't replace) their Auto Launchers, but it doesn't automatically crop up in the Keyword field. Which I can see being a little problematic if people just skim for what is allowed to use it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Edit: Never mind. From all the reviews I've seen, it looks like the strategem is only available to primaris vehicles. So if gw won't let loyalist Land Raiders, Rhinos, Predators, or Vindicators use it, there's no chance they'll give something similar to smoke launcher equipped vehicles in other codexes. Really gw? You couldn't give this to the Classic Marines vehicles? Couldn't help them that one little bit?
Looks like the Smoke Screen strat is available to ADEPTUS ASTARTES units with the SMOKESCREEN keyword.
Whoever said it was Primaris-only is talking out their rear end, Gadzilla - looking at proper Marine vehicles, all the Dreads have smokescreen, as do all the Rhino and Land Raider chassis vehicles I could see. Neither Land Raiders or the flyers get it, but that's not really a shock.
You mean land speeders don't get it, right? So anything with a smoke launcher gets it? So it's possible that once the Imperial Armour Compendium and the new csm codex are both out I can basically give In Midnight Clad to my vehicles? Including my Fellblade and Achilles? Thanks Dysartes, you just made my day.
I would take nothing for granted until the Death Guard book comes out (unless the FW one comes out first).
The important bit to take from this, though, is that it isn't Primaris-only In fact, the Impulsive doesn't get it, though Gladiator/Repulsive vehicles can do, if they take (or don't replace) their Auto Launchers, but it doesn't automatically crop up in the Keyword field. Which I can see being a little problematic if people just skim for what is allowed to use it.
True, that's why I said it was possible, I take nothing for granted with gw. Guess I shouldn't put to much stock in reviewers, especially when their coverage of Predators and Land Raiders is basically "nothing to see here". All of them just mentioned the grav tanks and the two sneaky troops for the strategem. Now I have hope I won't have to have that Dark Apostle trailing along behind my Fellblade anymore, he never looked right in a Night Lords army.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yes, because nothing says "WAAAAGGGHHHH!!!" better than sitting on an objective and dieing as slowly as possible.
The discussed point was not about wether Orks play enough like in the lore. What are you getting at?
Exactly that. Most people choose their factions based on their lore, and want them to play accordingly. If the only way to win is to play against the playstyle you chose the army for, what's the point of playing that faction? Orks should be able to win by playing like Orks, and sitting on objectives and dieing as slowly as possible isn't very orky. If it's important for "space marines to feel like space marines", then it's important for Orks to feel like Orks. Sorry if that wasn't the "discussed point", but you're already comparing infantry units in a thread about vehicles.
SemperMortis wrote: The only reason that Ork boyz are doing ok right now is because of the meta of the game currently. More players are bringing D2+ weapons to deal with Primaris, new tacs and of course Gravis Marines. In order to do so they are bringing fewer horde clearing weapons, relying on blast to shore up their weakness there, and the fact is, the new blast rule only increases average # of shots by 2.5 per weapon.
Every faction in the game right now has plenty of tools in their kit boxes to eradicate an Ork boyz horde, but they don't bring them because Orkz make up a much smaller % of the game than space marines. You are significantly more likely to go 5 for 5 against some flavor of marines in a tournament than you are to face even 1 ork list. So tournament players aren't building a tac list with that mindset.
As an example, the Fantasia Fanatic XXXVIII tournament winner won with 16 gravis models. 6 Eradicators, 6 Aggressors and 4 Inceptors. 2nd place at 17 Gravis models.
To put this in context, even if you buff the Goff boyz to be S5 with pre-game strats it takes 27 attacks to kill 1 Gravis model on average. Each goff boy gets 4 attacks if he is in a buffed mob (20+ models). So roughly 6-7 boyz to kill 1 gravis model. At most you are going to get 15ish boyz into CC against a squad of Gravis unless they are very close when you charge or you roll box cars. Ghaz is decent against SM's since they generally can't do much to him except in the shooting phase, so long as he keeps a painboy nearby with his medisquig ghaz should be able to survive for a few turns. Ironically, SM's are probably one of his best match ups.
If you take regular boyz instead of goff it actually takes them closer to 41 attacks to kill 1 gravis model, which is 10-11 boyz in a buffed mob OR 14 boyz in a smaller mob
So best case scenario, in CC goff boyz are taking between 48-56pts to kill 1 model in their best phase, at worst its 112pts worth of boyz to kill 1 Gravis model, not exactly a stellar performance by Ork boyz in the new meta. All this does is highlight that ork boyz are not in a good place, they just happen to be the skew anti-meta list that wins because instead of facing a line of aggressors they are facing eradicators, and luckily for Orkz, we can overwhelm Eradicators with numbers.
While non of the math you present is wrong, Ork boys don't need to be super killy to be valuable. It is good enough to have more obsec bodies on an objective than the enemy. Marines usually run 3 or 5 man squads nowadays, so you can't contest until you basically cleared the whole Boyz squad off of it.
Which translates to: Orkz are counter meta.
Everyone is bringing super elite forces to kill other super elite forces. The fact that 2W infantry is a norm and 3W is common says a lot about the current game. The go to choice for SM troops is Intercessors with -1AP rifles. Why? Because they want to be able to plink some wounds of 3+ save models. Against my ork boyz? Who cares? 90% of the time they don't get an armor save anyway, or if they do its from the KFF.
Amazing you shot 10 plasma shots at my ork boyz! your 200pt unit managed to overkill 4 Ork boyz. etc.
Orkz are literally doing well as a horde faction because nobody is building a list with the intent of fighting against 120 OBSEC infantry models. Any SM list can obliterate 120 ork boyz...in 1 turn, if they build a list to do so. But those same SM players at tournaments aren't as worried about facing an Ork horde list as they are about facing an Elite SM/Custodes list. Hence, they build to beat High toughness, multi wound models with good saves.
Orkz are literally doing well as a horde faction because nobody is building a list with the intent of fighting against 120 OBSEC infantry models. Any SM list can obliterate 120 ork boyz...in 1 turn, if they build a list to do so. But those same SM players at tournaments aren't as worried about facing an Ork horde list as they are about facing an Elite SM/Custodes list. Hence, they build to beat High toughness, multi wound models with good saves.
That's what lots of players can't get or purposefully ignore. No ork horde would be really competitive if tournament players start bringing real TAC lists, not just tailored against elite armies, let alone pure anti horde lists.
Everyone is bringing super elite forces to kill other super elite forces. The fact that 2W infantry is a norm and 3W is common says a lot about the current game. The go to choice for SM troops is Intercessors with -1AP rifles. Why?
Because those are the ones we glued on when we first got them before Assault Bolters were improved? And I'm not sure they're still the Go-To now that Tacs have 2W. If they are, its probably not the -1 Bolter, it's the +1(or more for assault Intercessors)A. That's going to be the interesting thing to watch shake out. If Tacs are X, Assault Intercessors are X+ a little, and Intercessors are X+a little more, its going to be interesting to see how many of how many are taken once people start giving it thought.
With 10 Tacs (before upgrades) at X vs 10 Infiltrators (before Upgrades) at X+ 85% of a Drop Pod, that should also be interesting.
Because they want to be able to plink some wounds of 3+ save models. Against my ork boyz? Who cares? 90% of the time they don't get an armor save anyway, or if they do its from the KFF.
Amazing you shot 10 plasma shots at my ork boyz! your 200pt unit managed to overkill 4 Ork boyz. etc.
Orkz are literally doing well as a horde faction because nobody is building a list with the intent of fighting against 120 OBSEC infantry models. Any SM list can obliterate 120 ork boyz...in 1 turn, if they build a list to do so. But those same SM players at tournaments aren't as worried about facing an Ork horde list as they are about facing an Elite SM/Custodes list. Hence, they build to beat High toughness, multi wound models with good saves.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yes, because nothing says "WAAAAGGGHHHH!!!" better than sitting on an objective and dieing as slowly as possible.
The discussed point was not about wether Orks play enough like in the lore. What are you getting at?
Exactly that. Most people choose their factions based on their lore, and want them to play accordingly. If the only way to win is to play against the playstyle you chose the army for, what's the point of playing that faction? Orks should be able to win by playing like Orks, and sitting on objectives and dieing as slowly as possible isn't very orky. If it's important for "space marines to feel like space marines", then it's important for Orks to feel like Orks. Sorry if that wasn't the "discussed point", but you're already comparing infantry units in a thread about vehicles.
You're preaching to the choir here. I think DA should be able to do DW only, RW only, DW + RW, I think White Scars should be able to do significant Bikers, I think Saim-Hann should be able to do Wild Riders and on and on. Now sitting on an Objective is kind of Orky, and there's no way around it in the game right now anyway. I suppose the problem is we're not getting fluffy explanations for what they're DOING on the objective. Orks might be looting food, teeth, and whatever else. Space Marines and Guard might be searching for Intel, Eldar might be meditating for insight or what have you. Nids might be having dinner. Tau are making propaganda posters. The Emperor's Children are doing things we can't speak of on a public forum. That kind of thing.
The Dark Imperium Intercessors and other sources of monopose and easy to build Intercessors all come with the rapid fire bolter. Most of the intercessors I have seen at tournaments have been those and would explain why so many use them.
I only have the intercessors from the intercessor box so I never glued the scope/mag and just use something similar to bluetack to keep it on. Already a tight fit so they wont fall off. Right now they are all carrying the assault version but I have a little box with the rapidfire parts from before the point changes. If I decide to use the heavy/stalker versions one day I would only need about 2 hours to clean, undercoat, paint, varnish and replace 20 rifles.
Havent seen anyone else in person actually bother with this so could explain why you see the rapidfire version more often in tournament lists with strict wysiwyg even if they would have prefered the assault version. Think this have more to do with it than an meta choice against marines. Not that much of a difference and most people are too lazy to buy and paint up 5-10 more intercessors for such a tiny advantage. An advantage so small you probably wouldnt even notice it even over a whole tournament.
Orkz are literally doing well as a horde faction because nobody is building a list with the intent of fighting against 120 OBSEC infantry models. Any SM list can obliterate 120 ork boyz...in 1 turn, if they build a list to do so. But those same SM players at tournaments aren't as worried about facing an Ork horde list as they are about facing an Elite SM/Custodes list. Hence, they build to beat High toughness, multi wound models with good saves.
That's what lots of players can't get or purposefully ignore. No ork horde would be really competitive if tournament players start bringing real TAC lists, not just tailored against elite armies, let alone pure anti horde lists.
But this is how a meta works. I agree - most factions can tailor to be anti-horde, and, I think, anti-Harlequin. But when they make up a small percentage of the total lists, this is a bit pointless unless you really hate those factions, and won't to destroy someone's run if by luck you run into them. So those lists continue to work very well because of that enviroment. This may change if Marines are no longer 25-50%+ of tournament lists, but until that happens its unknown.
Now this may raise questions of whether you should balance based on a tournament scene which will have this meta component - but there isn't much else to go on.
Klickor wrote: The Dark Imperium Intercessors and other sources of monopose and easy to build Intercessors all come with the rapid fire bolter. Most of the intercessors I have seen at tournaments have been those and would explain why so many use them.
I only have the intercessors from the intercessor box so I never glued the scope/mag and just use something similar to bluetack to keep it on. Already a tight fit so they wont fall off. Right now they are all carrying the assault version but I have a little box with the rapidfire parts from before the point changes. If I decide to use the heavy/stalker versions one day I would only need about 2 hours to clean, undercoat, paint, varnish and replace 20 rifles.
Havent seen anyone else in person actually bother with this so could explain why you see the rapidfire version more often in tournament lists with strict wysiwyg even if they would have prefered the assault version. Think this have more to do with it than an meta choice against marines. Not that much of a difference and most people are too lazy to buy and paint up 5-10 more intercessors for such a tiny advantage. An advantage so small you probably wouldnt even notice it even over a whole tournament.
Do people really host tournaments with such stupidly strict WYSIWG rules? The difference between an auto-bolt rifle and a regular bolt rifle is small, the difference between stalker and regular is almost impossible to tell. If you're using the right model, it seems to be one would have to be a real dink to care about brass tacks of the weapon loadout.
I like my stuff to be WYSIWIG to a reasonable degree, but I'm not buying a new Repulsor just because GW changes the weapon stat lines. it's a repulsor. You don't know what the weapons do anyway unless you're another primaris player, so just look at my army list if you want to know what its got.
But this is how a meta works. I agree - most factions can tailor to be anti-horde, and, I think, anti-Harlequin. But when they make up a small percentage of the total lists, this is a bit pointless unless you really hate those factions, and won't to destroy someone's run if by luck you run into them. So those lists continue to work very well because of that enviroment. This may change if Marines are no longer 25-50%+ of tournament lists, but until that happens its unknown.
Now this may raise questions of whether you should balance based on a tournament scene which will have this meta component - but there isn't much else to go on.
They had to raise the cost. Well, ok, it was still a tempting take.
Still you're talking a lot of points to keep a cryptek and spyder near it. 
) t8 and a 2+ save so even the go to tank buster, a lascannon, will allow it a 5+ armor save. A tomb spyder cn add 1d3 wound regeneration.
As far as "Squishy" 10 guardsmen at 5ppm T3 with a 5+ save require about 35 bolter shots to kill. 48pts of Boyz require 36 bolter shots to kill You guys are almost exactly as durable as boyz. 
So grab a couple of blobs to stick on objectives, backed up by some Guardsmen nearby as fire support and have some Scions running around backfield. So what is your real complaint?
Really 