Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 10:07:28


Post by: The_Real_Chris


So if you are concerned GEV troops are blown off the table in seconds, what's the solution... Well obviously more special exceptions and CPs

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/10/12/the-whiteshields-are-back-and-codex-supplement-cadia-makes-them-hard-enough-to-shrug-off-lascannons/

Spoiler:




Spoiler:


Plus everyone gets to be Creed.

Spoiler:


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 10:10:06


Post by: Valkyrie


What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 10:25:29


Post by: tneva82


Bloat for the bloat god. That's the issue.

The more combos and silly stuff you add to rules the less tactical game becomes and the less it's about being good player and more about building army list with silly combos.

Also game gets more and more expensive. And with what's good and what's bad this just keeps encouraging pay to win mentality.

Guess if you are rich guy who wants to win without being good player you have no issue with this


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 10:26:35


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 10:56:49


Post by: Strg Alt


Just wondering what t-shirt saves of Catachans might look like in that system. Or they will implement stunt doubles for each Catachan soldier. Extra points for doing it with a straight face.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 11:13:54


Post by: jeff white


Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 11:30:56


Post by: the_scotsman


 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go

"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."

And then you have 40k, a game by the same company, which is supposedly the 'cash cow' and presumably treated with...I mean at a normal company I'd say "more care", where its like

"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!! Guardsmen feel too weak, you say? FINE, here is ze stratagem, only for cadians, allowing zem to have three plus save and never wound on ze one or two, but ONLY ON TUESDAYS and ONLY IF YOU SPEND ZE SPECIAL POINTY-POINTS LIKE WE SAID YOU HAVE TO. And you have to say to your opponent "Cadia Stands" every time and ZEN and ONLY ZEN you get your extra point of armor save!!!!

WHAT??? Guardians? termagants? Fire warriors? Neophytes? Cultists? Grots? VAT DO VE LOOK LIKE ZE RULES SANTA CLAUS???? PAY ZE SIXTY DOLLARS AND YOU GET ZE LIGHT INFANTRY BOOST FOR CADIANS ONLY AND ONLY STRATAGEM, NO SOUP FOR YOU!"


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 12:06:50


Post by: chaos0xomega


 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go



Games aren't designed by "the company', they are designed by "design teams" or "studios" within it. The people doing Age of Sigmar are different from the people doing 40k are different from the people doing War Cry and Kill Team are different from the people doing Necromunda, Aeronautica, Blood Bowl, and Titianicus. Different people mean different approaches and design philosophies. Theres nothing really wacky about this, this is the norm for larger publishers with multiple product lines in both the video game and tabletop game worlds.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 14:06:10


Post by: Valkyrie


a_typical_hero wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell


I don't get it. People are bitching and moaning about this. It's one announced rule that now appears to set the precedent for every comparable unit out there. We have no idea about any other interactions or even if the Guardsmen stats will change at all. Let's wait until the book is out first.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 14:25:47


Post by: Vaktathi


This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 14:59:27


Post by: PenitentJake


tneva82 wrote:


The more combos and silly stuff you add to rules the less tactical game becomes and the less it's about being good player and more about building army list with silly combos.

Also game gets more and more expensive. And with what's good and what's bad this just keeps encouraging pay to win mentality.

Guess if you are rich guy who wants to win without being good player you have no issue with this


It is true that the redesign of the game in 8th to create a system of stacking buffs from auras and strats significantly changed the way to be a good player. It's also clear from Dakka that a lot of people preferred the game when the skills needed were things like clever use of suppression fire to pin powerful units, use morale to nullify enemy units, etc.

But make no mistake about it, doing either thing well IS a skill. It may not be a skill YOU enjoy employing as much as you enjoyed applying other skills. Auras are not common and can be mitigated; strats require resource management, timing and a keen sense of target priority to be used effectively. And again, if those kinds of skills don't appeal to you, yeah, you aren't going to enjoy this edition as much as you enjoyed previous editions.

I like the approach, because it can be faction or even subfaction specific, which makes playing one army different from playing another. The tactical skill of using suppression fire to pin priority targets mentioned above was something that could be done by every subfaction of every faction, which meant that while it was a key tactic, it was the same for everyone so it didn't feel special to anyone. Some people like that, and even I understand the appeal- it's just not my personal preference.

I like that each of my armies tries to win by doing things that only it can do, and that my opponent is trying to beat me by doing things only it can do. That way I get a different feel when I play my Death Watch than I do when I play my Sisters, or my DE. It incentivizes me to explore other armies, and game size mechanics that allow me to play meaningful games with as few as twelve infantry models and still have mission support make that less financially painful.

In this new system, it's more interesting and fun for me personally to have a 25 PL Crusade force for six factions than it is to have a 2k army for one faction.

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain. Who needs or wants multiple factions when that's the case? Better to pick one faction and grow it to a ridiculous size. And if you couldn't decide which faction's models and fluff appealed to you the most, you had to make a hard call because the amount of models you needed for a game would prevent you from dipping your toes into the pool to explore an alternative faction. This is even MORE true of sub-factions: because they all feel so different, I know want to paint 25PL of Order of Our Martyred Lady, 25 PL of Bloody Rose, 25 PL of Valorous Heart and 25 PL of Sacred Rose, rather than painting 100 PL of whichever Order's paint scheme appealed to me most.

I know that these things don't appeal to everyone, and that's cool- I'm not saying that you're playing wrong if you prefer a single, big 2k army, or even a small handful of them to dozens of small 25pl forces. I'm just pointing out to you that they new version of the game works really well for people who do, because on the off chance that you've never experimented with this style of collecting and playing, you might not be aware of just how well suited the current ruleset supports that style of play.

Your preferences are always going to be your preferences, just as mine are always going to be mine; both are valid ways to play. Old rules probably do support your preferences more than current rules, and I can see how that feels bad for you. But current rules support my preferences better than old rules, so I frequently object to the attitude that they are objectively bad.

 the_scotsman wrote:


"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."


Wow, I don't play AoS, so I didn't know this is how they do it. Question: Are there 60 page threads bitching about how it's DLC because in order to get the new data sheet for monsters and it how all of that stuff should have been in the battle tome, and all battle tomes should have been released at the exact same time. I suspect that's what would happen if the same thing was done for 40k.

I used to think it was a design feature that BIG army-wide updates weren't included in campaign books. I've been saying for a while that 40k campaign books don't really feel like DLC since the stuff in them was "Must have" for all armies, or even all subfactions of armies who get content in campaign books. Seeing it written out short and sweet like this though, it does sound good. Maybe GW should just go all in and not try to keep the material in campaign books optional.

Not sure which approach is better. I get the feeling that some people would bitch either way, but only if it's 40k we're talking about. Could be wrong about that, but that's how it feels after reading as many threads as I have on 40k General. The opposite is also true, cuz detractors will say that they feel like there are some people who would defend it no matter what... and they aren't necessarily wrong.

 the_scotsman wrote:

"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!! Guardsmen feel too weak, you say? FINE, here is ze stratagem, only for cadians, allowing zem to have three plus save and never wound on ze one or two, but ONLY ON TUESDAYS and ONLY IF YOU SPEND ZE SPECIAL POINTY-POINTS LIKE WE SAID YOU HAVE TO. And you have to say to your opponent "Cadia Stands" every time and ZEN and ONLY ZEN you get your extra point of armor save!!!!


Okay, the accent helps me understand that there is humour here, and I'm gonna seem like an obtuse jackhole for responding to the underlying point you're making.

But I know that if this was in fact a stat update to conscripts for all subfactions of the guard:

a) there would be a thread bitching about how guardsmen are GAK now because conscripts are the new hotness, and GW did it exclusively to sell more models since conscript units have a higher model count than basic guardsman units

b) there would be multitudes of people who changed their armies overnight so that all they brought was conscripts, and anyone who got their ass handed to them by an all conscript army would blame GW rather than the guy who went out and but six more boxes of Cadians to chase the meta

The way it was done here was:

a) it's a strat, so only one unit can do it per turn which discourages people from making every unit in their army conscripts (kinda like the incentives for bringing ONE monster as opposed to monster skew that were a praiseworthy design feature in a game that isn't 40K, but for some reason are a terrible idea when the game IS 40k)

b) it's only Cadians, because after the fall of Cadia and the battles that led to it, there is some background that supports the rule- only the strong survived. It does also help to keep the content optional, though I must concede it does have the effect of making Cadians a stronger subfaction of guard and thus skews internal balance. Hopefully, it's balanced by also including an Army of Renown that can be used by any regiment... But then again, if it is, I predict a 60 page thread bitching about DLC in 5, 4, 3....


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:00:36


Post by: PenitentJake


Snip- accidental repost


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:04:16


Post by: Insectum7


chaos0xomega wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go



Games aren't designed by "the company', they are designed by "design teams" or "studios" within it. The people doing Age of Sigmar are different from the people doing 40k are different from the people doing War Cry and Kill Team are different from the people doing Necromunda, Aeronautica, Blood Bowl, and Titianicus. Different people mean different approaches and design philosophies. Theres nothing really wacky about this, this is the norm for larger publishers with multiple product lines in both the video game and tabletop game worlds.
"the company" is what dermines how disjointed and un-unified those design teams and philosophies are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.
Agree.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:13:48


Post by: Tyel


Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:14:55


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tyel wrote:
Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.


Put them in cover, play this, play Take Cover, guardsmen with a 2+


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:20:39


Post by: Kanluwen


 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.

It doesn't hamfist out Conscripts entirely but it does make for the option of doing the more lore friendly Cadian equivalent.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

If someone can't be bothered to WYSIWYG Whiteshields of all frigging things, then they are not someone worth playing with.

Since their inclusion as the Youth Army Platoons in C: Eye of Terror, they were differentiated from mainline Infantry Squads by the vertical white stripe running down their helmets. It then got rewritten to be all Conscripts do it because reasons.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:20:51


Post by: Mezmorki


 the_scotsman wrote:
"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!!"


Well that was the easiest post exaltation ever!


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:26:08


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.


But... but they did make Whiteshields an extra unit, in so many words.

They're conscripts that lose a (debuff) special rule, gain better LD, and have different keywords.

The difference between those changes (that cost cp) and making them an actual datasheet (that costs points) is largely academic/semantic.

There's no more or less bloat doing it one way rather than the other. I still have to remember what is a Whiteshield unit and what is a Conscript unit (as they can still exist in the same army) and remember what being a Whiteshield unit does differently than what Conscripts do.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:27:37


Post by: Ordana


 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go
This really drove home for me with the mini rulebooks in 8th. It really showed there that while both AoS and 40k were tasked with creating a mini rulebook from on high they were then designed by basically 2 entirely different companies.

The 40k version was a literal copy of the 40k rules pages complete with obsolete rules that had been changed by faq's.
The AoS version included all the changes from the Generals Handbook and was entirely up to date with what AoS was at the point the book was released.

It was clear that at no point did the 2 studio's talk to eachother about what they were doing.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:36:36


Post by: Kanluwen


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But... but they did make Whiteshields an extra unit, in so many words.

They're conscripts that lose a (debuff) special rule, gain better LD, and have different keywords.

The difference between those changes (that cost cp) and making them an actual datasheet (that costs points) is largely academic/semantic.

No, they're really not.
Veteran Intercessors are a datasheet. They're a thing that has a physical cost now. They take up an army slot.
When they were a Stratagem? They didn't.

If someone is picking the stratagems, then it means there's a choice being made...but not every choice needs to be mathhammered to hell and back again or done in such a way that it's "OMG! this unit is X ppm better!".

There's no more or less bloat doing it one way rather than the other. I still have to remember what is a Whiteshield unit and what is a Conscript unit (as they can still exist in the same army) and remember what being a Whiteshield unit does differently than what Conscripts do.

Enough with this "remembering" nonsense. It's disingenuous, and you know better--or at least you should.

If you're so worried about your opponent not having things marked? Get better opponents, or get on their butts to do so.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:42:07


Post by: Tyel


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.


Put them in cover, play this, play Take Cover, guardsmen with a 2+


I guess in a perfect world if you can somehow be in cover and on an objective (kind of unusual) your opponent will feel they have to clear the squad and theoretically takes 3 times as many shots as it should.

But in most situations surely you'd just brush some shooting into a squad, see if they play the combo, if they do switch to murdering the other infantry.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:53:22


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


To be honest, this is a really good way to make squads with HWTs really good. I see this as a plus.

On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 15:59:59


Post by: a_typical_hero


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.
Why? You use the strat when your unit is chosen as the target of an attack.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:00:38


Post by: Unit1126PLL


a_typical_hero wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.
Why? You use the strat when your unit is chosen as the target of an attack.


Agreed; the rule is pretty clear. It wouldn't be popped during the charge phase but rather the Fight Phase.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:03:07


Post by: Vaktathi


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.

It doesn't hamfist out Conscripts entirely but it does make for the option of doing the more lore friendly Cadian equivalent.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

If someone can't be bothered to WYSIWYG Whiteshields of all frigging things, then they are not someone worth playing with.

Since their inclusion as the Youth Army Platoons in C: Eye of Terror, they were differentiated from mainline Infantry Squads by the vertical white stripe running down their helmets. It then got rewritten to be all Conscripts do it because reasons.
I don't think that Cadia just giving a name to their conscripts other than "Conscript" really makes them an iconic hallmark unit, as noted, it was just a way to use fluff to visually mark conscripts vs normal guardsmen with white markings. If they're too competent to merit the Conscript unit entry, they should just be used as regulard Guardsmen.

That doesn't need special rules, some slight FoC shifting in a book 2 decades old doesn't really need a distinct unit entry or Stratagem manipulation. I would consider all of that to be bloat. Same thing for Scions vs Kasrkin or Krieg Grenadiers (just allow them to take a Regiment keyword basically, doesnt need a stratagem or new unit entry).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:03:23


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Kanluwen wrote:
GW really can't win no matter what


Well, yeah. They can't win. As in they have a seemingly unsolvable problem on their hands with 9th; a game that's crippled because it's too flabby, when the only levers they have pour more fat onto the rules.

9th has lots and lots of problems, but some of these could be solved by, say, a complete shift in the business model or hiring playtesters or paying rules writers living wages; what ultimately killed any hope I had for 9th being any good whatsoever was the realization that they created a game that's not fun because of bloat and artificial complexity, but they can't realistically just strip rules from the game and invalidate major chunks of 9th edition supplements, campaign books or codexes without an edition nuke or a player revolt. All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:05:41


Post by: Daedalus81


 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:07:34


Post by: Spoletta


Stratagems have always been used as stopgap measures to fix models. Did you miss PA? It was full of that. Stratagems fixing underpowered models.

Since the IG and nid dexes are far far in the future, they are putting in a stopgap measure. Nothing more to see here.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:07:46


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Tyel wrote:


But in most situations surely you'd just brush some shooting into a squad, see if they play the combo, if they do switch to murdering the other infantry.


My guard infantry die shortly after exposing themselves, so they tend to get used like one shot weapons.
This is a way of having a resilient blob of infantry, as you say on an objective. Now due to blast some armies wouldn't be that worried, but still, the fact I can have (5+ save, cover, take cover!, Cadia Stands!, Psychic Barrier) 1+ saves shooting and 3+ for CC for a guard infantry unit, while handy for holding an objective, doesn't strike me as very fluffy and revolves around my use of abilities and stratagems, not on table tactics.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:14:59


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.



You could reduce the lethality of the bolter boys, instead of increasing the durability of Guardsmen.

In 4th, a Bolter couldn't fire 24", but could fire twice at 12" if it moved. This means that the Marines had to either move within 12", or take 1 shot at 24". The latter option only kills 5 guardsmen in the open from 10 marines, not a concerning trade for the guard player at all.

The former option is devastating, but also requires the Marines to somehow get within 12" of the Guardsmen. As this makes maneuver and force concentration more important for the Marines, it also makes counterplay options exist for the IG player (such as setting sightlines with AP3 weapons to deter the Marines from cover-hopping or movement blocking with something more durable to bolters like Ogryn or a tank, etc).

In 4th, the IG player could take objectives with his troops by covering them with fire, maneuvering other assets to protect them, or even simply hunkering down in cover with them to wait for reinforcement from something that could deter, suppress, or destroy the Marines.

they could only do this because the lowered lethality of the Marines themselves meant that IGOUGO didn't immediately result in the Guard squad getting vaporized like a moth in a blowtorch all the way from the enemy's DZ, giving the Guard player time to react.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:15:06


Post by: Vaktathi


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.

The fundamental concept of stratagems, spending a resource for specific abilities or actions, is fine, Ill grant that.

Trying to address a larger faction balance like the one you're talking about, by presenting it as "X subfaction's dudes are just too darn plucky to die!" is just not a greatly applied solution to me.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:24:12


Post by: Kanluwen


 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think that Cadia just giving a name to their conscripts other than "Conscript" really makes them an iconic hallmark unit, as noted, it was just a way to use fluff to visually mark conscripts vs normal guardsmen with white markings. If they're too competent to merit the Conscript unit entry, they should just be used as regulard Guardsmen.

Or maybe the Conscript unit entry just needs to be reworked, period, because it's been a frigging millstone around the Guard army's neck for far, far too long.
That doesn't need special rules, some slight FoC shifting in a book 2 decades old doesn't really need a distinct unit entry or Stratagem manipulation. I would consider all of that to be bloat. Same thing for Scions vs Kasrkin or Krieg Grenadiers (just allow them to take a Regiment keyword basically, doesnt need a stratagem or new unit entry).

Sure it does. Nothing wrong with Cadians only being able to access a more reliable version of Conscripts.

Additionally, Kasrkin and Grenadiers didn't run around plasma spamming. Krieg Grenadiers had their own weapon loadouts(Heavy Stubbers+HFT team) and Kasrkin did in the lore as well...though technically in the lore the Kasrkin had their own full Regiments, complete with Heavy Weapons Teams, scout teams, etc.

And really, not everything is "bloat". You lot have watered the term down to be meaningless at this point.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:28:13


Post by: Pyroalchi


The_Real_Chris wrote:


Plus everyone gets to be Creed.



I'm a bit irritated by this I have to say. The Tallarn Ambush stratagem was already pretty heavyly invalidated by everyone suddenly being able to put everything into strategic reserves. But at least it was still - sometimes - a bit cheaper in CP then doing it the "normal" strategic reserve way. Now with this warlord trait, even this can't be said anymore for the Tallarn ambush, as putting units in reserve with this is free and can be done after deployment.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:34:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You could reduce the lethality of the bolter boys, instead of increasing the durability of Guardsmen.

In 4th, a Bolter couldn't fire 24", but could fire twice at 12" if it moved. This means that the Marines had to either move within 12", or take 1 shot at 24". The latter option only kills 5 guardsmen in the open from 10 marines, not a concerning trade for the guard player at all.

The former option is devastating, but also requires the Marines to somehow get within 12" of the Guardsmen. As this makes maneuver and force concentration more important for the Marines, it also makes counterplay options exist for the IG player (such as setting sightlines with AP3 weapons to deter the Marines from cover-hopping or movement blocking with something more durable to bolters like Ogryn or a tank, etc).

In 4th, the IG player could take objectives with his troops by covering them with fire, maneuvering other assets to protect them, or even simply hunkering down in cover with them to wait for reinforcement from something that could deter, suppress, or destroy the Marines.

they could only do this because the lowered lethality of the Marines themselves meant that IGOUGO didn't immediately result in the Guard squad getting vaporized like a moth in a blowtorch all the way from the enemy's DZ, giving the Guard player time to react.


Changing bolters doesn't do much. If I need 10 T3 to die I can make it happen in any edition. In older editions those guardsmen would be testing for morale and probably running even if they had cover.

You can stick chimeras in front now. You can duck behind cover. But sooner rather than later you'll get charged.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:35:08


Post by: Vaktathi


To me, if the distinction between a unit is basically equipped the same and fills the same role and all thats different is a faction keyword and maybe an optional upgrade (in the case of the Grenadiers, a Heavy Stubber option nobody ever used, but stands in wonderfully for a Volleygun), they dont need to be their own units, thats bloat to me.

We're not making the game deeper or more tactically reflective, we're not really reflecting meaningful lore in any but the most pedantic and flanderized of lenses, and we're just addings lots of extra complexity and record keeping.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:40:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 Vaktathi wrote:


Trying to address a larger faction balance like the one you're talking about, by presenting it as "X subfaction's dudes are just too darn plucky to die!" is just not a greatly applied solution to me.


It's hard to assess how it will all shape up. You may see Mordians just straight ignore morale, Tallarn get an extra cover bonus, etc.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 16:42:19


Post by: Kanluwen


 Vaktathi wrote:
To me, if the distinction between a unit is basically equipped the same and fills the same role and all thats different is a faction keyword and maybe an optional upgrade (in the case of the Grenadiers, a Heavy Stubber option nobody ever used, but stands in wonderfully for a Volleygun), they dont need to be their own units, thats bloat to me.

That's fine. It ain't bloat to me, because they can be differentiated from fairly well...assuming that someone actually takes the bloody time and isn't just going to keep using the same models all the time.

Not my problem that you want to seem to just play stand-ins while complaining about bloat.

We're not making the game deeper or more tactically reflective, we're not really reflecting meaningful lore in any but the most pedantic and flanderized of lenses, and we're just addings lots of extra complexity and record keeping.

Sure we're not. Because the core rot at the heart of the Guard book is always there. Everything is too samesy and the book just keeps staggering along. It NEEDS to start having things like this to actually force people to start realizing that Guard is an army that really can be interesting.

Things like the Confidant Veteran we saw introduced in KT? That's aces. We've had for years now a "2nd in command" for squads in the lore, but it took until NOW for that to happen. Maybe we'll get lucky and start seeing something heavy happen for Officers too.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 17:36:01


Post by: Racerguy180


PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.


That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:01:07


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


Additive cover saves are a little stupid.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:06:18


Post by: Kanluwen


Racerguy180 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.


That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.

It's requiring:
-Cover save(which can be nullified by certain weapons or even some army traits), meaning that the cover in question has Light Cover.
-1CP for this "Cadia Stands!" Stratagem which requires the Guardsmen to be Cadian and the weapon damaging them to be 1 Damage.
-1CP for "Take Cover!", which has to be used when your opponent selects a unit as a target to be shot at.
So that's 3 situational bits to tick off(cover having Light Cover for a +1, Cadia Stands requiring the weapon damaging to be 1 damage for an additional +1 save, and the unit having been chosen to get shot at during your opponent's shooting phase for an additional +1 from "Take Cover!").

I do not think that is such a wild set of circumstances to be 100% all the time active. Stop pretending that it is.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:12:18


Post by: Racerguy180


If you don't think guard armies are gonna lean into this heavily, I'm not sure what to say?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:16:23


Post by: Cronch


What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:19:52


Post by: Daedalus81


Racerguy180 wrote:
If you don't think guard armies are gonna lean into this heavily, I'm not sure what to say?


It's going to be one unit. Part of the trick is not overcommitting to the ploy so that I decide to shoot something else and let you burn that CP, but that really depends how key that objective is at the moment. If it is imperative then I better bring more than I think I need to get the job done.

There's a lot more decision making that happens on the table than people here are willing to admit.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 18:34:16


Post by: the_scotsman


PenitentJake wrote:


 the_scotsman wrote:


"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."


Wow, I don't play AoS, so I didn't know this is how they do it. Question: Are there 60 page threads bitching about how it's DLC because in order to get the new data sheet for monsters and it how all of that stuff should have been in the battle tome, and all battle tomes should have been released at the exact same time. I suspect that's what would happen if the same thing was done for 40k.
.


No, actually, because AOS *had* a very solid App that updated those datasheets for you for free...because I dunno, maybe games workshop is a model company or something.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 19:15:32


Post by: Kanluwen


Cronch wrote:
What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?

They're literally recruiting from every planet they serve on.

They also had a fairly robust number of settled worlds with mustered out Cadians.

Also, this is another argument in favor of Conscripts being "Auxilia"...with "Whiteshields" stratagem giving them the Cadian regimental keyword+trait.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 19:33:54


Post by: waefre_1


Cronch wrote:
What I want to know is behind what space-couch are the Cadians finding all those Cadian Conscripts now the planet is a jigsaw puzzle?

They've actually taken to breaking the pieces of the planet down into man-sized chunks and given them flak and a lasgun. Roughly the same accuracy, a bit harder to transport but much tougher and much easier on supply lines. Another brilliant move by His Most Holy Administratum!


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 19:55:03


Post by: Racerguy180


Actually the chunks would be easier to fit into chimeras/whatever transport. Administratum would love that efficiency.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 20:22:03


Post by: waefre_1


And significantly less prone to motion sickness or asphyxiation (and capable of high-altitude deployment without needing fancy doodads like "parachutes" or "soft ground to land on"), but also much heavier per unit volume and thus less fuel-efficient overall.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 20:24:46


Post by: Esmer


The Warlord trait seems good, but two Full Payload Manticores are probably still better. Are Guard currently able to hand out 2 different Warlord traits to 2 different officers?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 20:28:45


Post by: PenitentJake


Racerguy180 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain.


That's how you win a real firefight so it should be a valid way to do things in game.

2+ guardsmen in cover is fething ridiculous.


Sure, it is how you win a real fire fight with humans vs humans in the early 21st century.

But that's not what 40k is.

It's a fight (sometimes a firefight and sometimes a brawl) between sometimes humans, but also sometimes lightning quick elves who move too fast to hit at range or use hollow projectors; sometimes against robots who contain the undying souls of a vanquished race; sometimes it's humans in power armour who can call upon their faith in the power of a God Emperor to affect miracles on the battlefield, and sometimes it's between aliens who bleed acid, spit venom or learn things by eating your brains.

That kind of lore diversity supports a system where not every army wins by using the same tactics or fighting styles. I'm not saying it's the only way, I'm just saying that the way is appropriate, given the context of this particular game.

And it's not guarsman having 2+ in cover. That's what it would be if it was a datacard ability.

It's a single unit of particularly hard troopers conditioned by the destruction of their entire planet having the option to use their extraordinary experience to go to ground if the army hasn't already committed enough heroic acts over the course of the battle that doing so would be beyond the threshold of expertise for even this particularly battle-hardened force. Because it's a strat, so there are limitations in place that govern its use.

It is the 130 pound mom lifting the tree that's crushing her kid: it can't always happen- it doesn't even often happen, and it is even less likely to happen to the same mom twice, or to two different moms who live in the same neighbourhood.

In short, it is EXACTLY the kind of thing that strats were designed to represent.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 20:39:15


Post by: Racerguy180



Notice how I didn't say only way. It should be a way to win. Just like how you can win the game by tabling or out secondarying your opponent. You should be able to use valid tactics to overcome shortcomings of your army. If you cannot, well that sucks.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 22:46:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Valkyrie wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell
I don't get it.
It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 22:54:23


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell
I don't get it.
It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?

Bingo let that sink in a little....


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:04:05


Post by: Daedalus81


Racerguy180 wrote:

Bingo let that sink in a little....


And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:15:05


Post by: Racerguy180


If all you have to shoot at is Infantry.....so maybe relevant?

It's more ridiculous layering of crap.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:17:30


Post by: PenitentJake


Racerguy180 wrote:

Notice how I didn't say only way. It should be a way to win. Just like how you can win the game by tabling or out secondarying your opponent. You should be able to use valid tactics to overcome shortcomings of your army. If you cannot, well that sucks.


Ahhh. Fair enough.

Gotcha.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:37:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:39:56


Post by: PenitentJake


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?


Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.

People do really have to stop writing their complaints in such a way that it makes it sound like this is going to happen with EVERY unit of conscripts on EVERY turn, cuz it just isn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone would burn 2 CP and tie up a warlord to protect a unit of conscripts. Yes, it is possible. But is it ever really going to be tactically wise to invest so many resources in a unit of conscripts?

I mean maybe if it's a tie game on turn five and you somehow have both the character alive AND in position AND you somehow still have enough CP, AND then conscripts are standing on the objective you need for the win.

There are stories of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, or being struck by lightning and surviving. But that doesn't mean that it's safe to jump out of a plane or stand under a tree in a thunderstorm.

This is why strats exist- so that crazy legendary sh*t like this is technically possible, but not very likely.

Now the case were they use ONE of the three stacking buffs on one unit of conscripts, ONE of the others on a different unit of conscripts and the final buff on a third unit is more likely, and I suppose it's possible to argue that this is an issue. Or that using any two of these three buffs on the same unit is an issue... But even then, I think the opportunity cost of doing it balances the impact of it.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:45:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


PenitentJake wrote:
Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.
It doesn't matter if it's one unit or 100 units. The fact is that it can happen, and it shouldn't.

What about that don't you get?



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:53:16


Post by: epronovost


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell
I don't get it.
It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound a Land Raider than Cadians.

D'ya get it now?


That's technically incorrect. A shadowsword has twin heavy bolters which are only str 5 and thus largely useless against a Land Raider. It's easier for a Shadowsword to injure Cadians with this strat active than a Land Raider.

Startagem to provide a small temporary nudge of toughness to infantry either through a "to wound cap" like Orks and Space Marines, extra cover saves, malus to hit are nearly universal and for a good reason. In a game with Shadowswords and the like, infantry would be nearly useless without it (and people endlessly complained about it, especially Marines fan who were offended that an army filled with anti-tank weapons would wreck their elite infantry like any random guardsmen). In the same vein, people complained endlessly about not having cool toys to blow away stuff because that's also really fun. A good game will try to mitigate both, and I think those strats are quite interesting in that regard. They allow to take some risk taking with infantry and are a nice way to represent "heroic grit" or the like.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/13 23:55:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


epronovost wrote:
That's technically incorrect.


You know we're talking about the Volcano cannon. Don't be a pedant.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 00:02:28


Post by: PenitentJake


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Again though... It's not.

It's easier for a Shadowsword to wound ONE UNIT of Cadians per turn if they are are standing close enough to a legendary hero and the army has not already used all of it's capacity for excellence on other options like offensive tactics than it is for the Shadowsword to wound a landraider.
It doesn't matter if it's one unit or 100 units. The fact is that it can happen, and it shouldn't.

What about that don't you get?



And people SHOULDN'T be able to survive falling out of a plane or being struck by lightning, and moms SHOULDN'T be able to lift cars. Usually these things don't happen.

But there have been edge cases where they DID happen. What about that don't YOU get?

Especially when making the investments necessary to represent this on the table would likely leave the rest of the army vulnerable in such a way that you could walk all over them.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 00:09:29


Post by: H.B.M.C.


PenitentJake wrote:
And people SHOULDN'T be able to survive falling out of a plane or being struck by lightning, and moms SHOULDN'T be able to lift cars. Usually these things don't happen.
This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

PenitentJake wrote:
But there have been edge cases where they DID happen. What about that don't YOU get?
We're talking about rules. Rules bloat. More DLC. More endless rules on top of endless rules. And now Guardsmen have Transhuman.

It's fething stupid, and I'm going to repeat myself:

They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.

But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.

PenitentJake wrote:
Especially when making the investments necessary to represent this on the table would likely leave the rest of the army vulnerable in such a way that you could walk all over them.
WHO. CARES?

This rule shouldn't exist in the first place.

This is my beef with this rule. This is why this rule infuriates me, more than any rule change I've seen since the brain-dead decision to (incorrectly) merge the living creature and vehicle rules in Dark Heresy 2.0.

It's a ludicrous addition to the Guard rules - they magically become super tough because... memes, I guess - rather than actually looking at what the Guard should be about and giving them rules that reflect that.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 00:13:22


Post by: epronovost


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
epronovost wrote:
That's technically incorrect.


You know we're talking about the Volcano cannon. Don't be a pedant.


Well if you want to make the argument that shooting a volcano cannon at guardsmen and basically killing one less than usual giving this strat, I would say that you are being extremely pedantic too. Is saving a single guardsmen in a squad really that important to mention? That start is actually going to make a difference when someone will use stuff like assault cannons and other high power anti-infantry/light tank hunting weapons.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 00:57:49


Post by: Sledgehammer


How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 01:23:29


Post by: epronovost


 Sledgehammer wrote:
How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.


Well this might come to a surprise to you, but rifles in modern warfare, even at infantry level combat, are basically "useless". They serve to provide covering fire and support fire to special weapons, pin enemy in place for portable artillery, etc.

Plus, in 40K, rifles are actually pretty good at killing infantry. Space Marines Intercessor can put out a very descent amount of anti-infantry firepower without going into plasma and the like. To a certain extend, Tau and Necron enjoy excellent rifles capable of doing some good damage. While Scions might have a more restricted version, Hot-Shot Lasguns aren't too bad, especially against things like Tau, Sisters of Battle, Guardsmen though, its true that their ability to pack a lot of special weapons outshine their basic weapons. Skitarii, be they vanguard or ranger, can both put the hurt on other infantry without having to lean heavily on special weapons. Guardsmen are basically the only troop choice whose basic rifle is weak and really needs special weapons to compensate (and maybe ork shoota, but these haven't been good since 5th edition).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 02:02:33


Post by: Sledgehammer


epronovost wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
How about infantry that can actually do something on the battlefield? Standard small arms are neigh on useless. All you end up carìng about are special weapons and characters. I don't know why GW thinks dudes armed with rifles should be so bad...

I mean infantry squads are pretty much only there to die / screen, or sit back in your deployment zone on an obj to do nothing. It's not very fun or engaging.

At least allow people some means of situational usefulness for standard infantry. Like allowing your factions standard rifle to fire right before an assault or something.


Well this might come to a surprise to you, but rifles in modern warfare, even at infantry level combat, are basically "useless". They serve to provide covering fire and support fire to special weapons, pin enemy in place for portable artillery, etc.

Plus, in 40K, rifles are actually pretty good at killing infantry. Space Marines Intercessor can put out a very descent amount of anti-infantry firepower without going into plasma and the like. To a certain extend, Tau and Necron enjoy excellent rifles capable of doing some good damage. While Scions might have a more restricted version, Hot-Shot Lasguns aren't too bad, especially against things like Tau, Sisters of Battle, Guardsmen though, its true that their ability to pack a lot of special weapons outshine their basic weapons. Skitarii, be they vanguard or ranger, can both put the hurt on other infantry without having to lean heavily on special weapons. Guardsmen are basically the only troop choice whose basic rifle is weak and really needs special weapons to compensate (and maybe ork shoota, but these haven't been good since 5th edition).

Marine platoons were critical in falijuah, and the Marine Corps has committed to every marine a riflemen until at least 2030. Infantry are needed to secure, clear, and hold objectives. Without them air and artillery support is useless.

In 40k there is no pinning mechanic, infantry have a range of 24inchs, which if you take 28mm as 1/56 scale then they shoot at 112 feet. They lack the ability to advance onto a position and dispace a pinned enemy. Their role is to use up enemy activations by dying or standing back and doing nothing in your deployment zone. Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 02:56:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


This is why the "lose more" morale mechanics should be replaced with a pinning/suppression mechanic.

Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:11:18


Post by: epronovost


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?


I mean, you can absolutely use infantry, even basic troop choice, to capture objective, clear up enemy squads without using even a single special weapons. If you include special and heavy weapons they can be used to snipe tanks or hard hitting stuff. If you can't use infantry and basic troops to achieve objective in 40K, you are basically doomed to be a very mediocre player.

PS: securing, clear, and hold objectives is basically basic troops entire shtick. That's what Objective Secure actually represents as a rule. Almost all troop choice in the game can do this. With Space Marines, being probably the best at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:34:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I would wager that depends on the troop. Guard squads don't clear up anything by themselves, and also only capture objectives in the most pedantic sense (running forwards and evaporating as soon as the enemy is permitted to act).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:45:10


Post by: Spoletta


Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?

I don't understand where the problem is honestly.

And for those that think that 2+ conscripts are going to be a mainstay for IG... just no. This strat will see a very marginal use.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:50:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


epronovost wrote:
I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.
I don't imagine it would be that difficult, especially when you consider that 40k doesn't really have morale rules but instead just has a "now more things die in a way that bypasses all the standard methods of toughness, damage, wounds and saving throws" system.

Spoletta wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?
No. Because there's a difference between concealment and cover.

Concealment makes you harder to hit. Cover makes you harder to damage. A volcano cannon doesn't care about the ruined building you're in. You can certainly conceal yourself from the volcano cannon (this rules does not abstract that), but nothing short of another vehicle or the curvature of the planet itself should be able to block a volcano cannon shot.

And if there is a commander giving him instructions about the nature of the attack, that instruction should be "JOHNSON! GET OUT OF THERE! IT'S A VOLCANO CANNON!", or, y'know, something like that.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:51:28


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoletta wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that an experiencd soldier deep in cover, with a commander giving him instructions about the direction and nature of the attack, SHOULD actually be a much harder target to nail than a tank when firing with a very huge cannon?

I don't understand where the problem is honestly.


What you are missing is that this doesn't apply to all experienced soldiers deep in cover with a commander giving him instructions.

It applies only to Cadians, and does so whether or not a commander is even on the battlefield, whether or not the Cadians are in cover, and whether or not they are literally crawling down the barrel of the cannon.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:54:01


Post by: Kanluwen


Yes, and for some reason only Steel Legion seem to know how to fire and reembark upon their transports..despite Cadia having famed Armored Fist regiments.

What's your point?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:56:12


Post by: epronovost


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would wager that depends on the troop. Guard squads don't clear up anything by themselves, and also only capture objectives in the most pedantic sense (running forwards and evaporating as soon as the enemy is permitted to act).


Neither should they really be able to do such a thing. They are supposed to be one of the poorest quality troop in the game. Their ability to perform should come their ability to help others perform, be a distraction, provide supporting fire once in a while and be annoying to remove when in a defensive position and of course abundant. I think those new stratagems and rules will help Cadians do just that.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:56:30


Post by: H.B.M.C.


That's a doctrinal thing. Within the granularity possible within this game, the Steel Legion's training on a large scale is represented via their mechanised warfare training in a way that let's them do that, where as giving that to a single squad type in an army doesn't really cover the same thing.

This isn't a doctrinal thing. This is avoiding damage because memes.

epronovost wrote:
They are supposed to be one of the poorest quality troop in the game.
Are they?

Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.

Gretchin are poor quality troops. Conscripts are poor quality troops (other than Cadian ones, who are more durable than some things in the whole game! ). Guardsmen are not "poor quality".


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 03:57:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, and for some reason only Steel Legion seem to know how to fire and reembark upon their transports..despite Cadia having famed Armored Fist regiments.

What's your point?


That none of this any makes any damn sense from a narrative perspective.

And you seem to agree! I too wish Cadians could field armored fist regiments as good as Armageddon's! Just like they could in every edition until 8th!


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:03:18


Post by: Sledgehammer


epronovost wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Tell me why I'd want to buy, paint, and then play with them, when their role is that boring?


I mean, you can absolutely use infantry, even basic troop choice, to capture objective, clear up enemy squads without using even a single special weapons. If you include special and heavy weapons they can be used to snipe tanks or hard hitting stuff. If you can't use infantry and basic troops to achieve objective in 40K, you are basically doomed to be a very mediocre player.

PS: securing, clear, and hold objectives is basically basic troops entire shtick. That's what Objective Secure actually represents as a rule. Almost all troop choice in the game can do this. With Space Marines, being probably the best at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.
By clearing an objective I mean killing, injuring, or causing an opposing force to flee from a position or a target. Not stand around an arbitrary marker until you die.

I mean, just look at the cadian regimental trait, it activly discourages you from moving up.

In 7th edition veterans could reliably get 2+ cover saves with camo cloaks and getting down. That got ignored due to the profliration of ignores cover though.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:11:02


Post by: epronovost


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.


Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:14:53


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Right.

Guard squads are the helpers.

The ones who pin the enemy down to allow faster elements who maneuver - or the ones who maneuver when heavier elements pin the enemy down.

They deploy smoke/obscurants to cover the assault conducted by dedicated units.

They provide weight of fire with high-ammo-capacity weapons, fixing a foe and then suppressing them.

Oh wait, pinning, obscurants, and suppression are largely absent from 40k...


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:15:25


Post by: epronovost


 Sledgehammer wrote:
I mean, just look at the cadian regimental trait, it activly discourages you from moving up.


As it should be. It would be ridiculous for the Regiment most famed for holding a fortress against impossible odds to favorize moving out of cover and running at the enemy. Cadians are supposed to be great at holding the walls not storming them. If you are clever, you want to move swiftly your Cadians around a hard point and then force your enemy to get you out of it and struggle to eliminate your unexpectedly tough and high moral troops. You do not gain by playing a high mobility game with a subfaction designed for defensive play and with a fluff that consist as holding the mother of all fortress against the mother of all foes.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:17:48


Post by: Kanluwen


Ehhh...the misrepresentative trick of Guard is that not every Guardsmen is "comparatively worse than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game".

Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).

A Guard infantry squad, currently, is always supposed to be able to count on a special or heavy weapon at least. Some of their weapons aren't shown in our game, unfortunately.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:18:35


Post by: epronovost


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right.

Guard squads are the helpers.

The ones who pin the enemy down to allow faster elements who maneuver - or the ones who maneuver when heavier elements pin the enemy down.

They deploy smoke/obscurants to cover the assault conducted by dedicated units.

They provide weight of fire with high-ammo-capacity weapons, fixing a foe and then suppressing them.

Oh wait, pinning, obscurants, and suppression are largely absent from 40k...


No, but the capacity to plink wounds off everything is a mechanic of 40K. As is literally serving as meat shield and distraction. Every squad of guardsmen can carry some special and heavy weapons to add some punch here and there and even the humble lasguns can help weaken or finish off damaged units. That represents, albeit not ideally such kind of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).


Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison and that's why Aspect Warriors consider guardsmen as cannon fodders. Their training is minuscule comparatively speaking and the human body inferior to that of an Aeldari, let alone their weapons and armor.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:21:38


Post by: H.B.M.C.


epronovost wrote:
Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.
Ok, fair enough, I can get behind that.

I guess I just want to avoid the flandersation of the Guard, where their infantry are portrayed as bunch of scarcely organised inexperienced idiots with an average life expectancy if 7 nanoseconds and that have to double check which end of the gun the shots come out of before charging a unit of Stompas with bayonets fixed because the Commissar said so (ie. everything we get the Regimental whatevieritscalled* tends to say about the Guard).


*Basically GW's in-house equivalent of Text-to-Speech.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:25:42


Post by: Kanluwen


epronovost wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).


Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison.

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:27:23


Post by: Sledgehammer


epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Guard represent the highly trained front line military might of the Imperium. The force that overwhelmingly fights their wars and smashes aside all the foes that face them. The fact that they have to contend with Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Marines and Dark Eldar Wyches doesn't change that fact.


Yes, it's called "perspective". You can't expect guardsmen to perform like Space Marines, Eldars, Tyranids, Orks, Necrons and even Tau. Guardsmen are comparatively worst than any of their equivalent in every faction in the game. The Imperial Guard is the main military of the Imperium, not the Guardsmen. The Imperial Guard triumphs because of its massive size, its powerful artillery, tanks and other assets, not because its infantry can match that of the opposition. Guardsmen are competent, but expecting a squad of them to flush out of an objective a squad of Necron Warriors by themselves is ridiculous, especially if they can't count on special and heavy weapons. Guardsmen aren't supposed to be capable of doing that. They can mop up the squad of Necron after a Russ opened up on them, and that's precisely what they can do now. More impressive is the fact that these guardsmen will be able to perform better at being annoying to remove when entrenched which is where they were lacking.
first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.

Furthermore the tau are a great examle as well. If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:34:12


Post by: epronovost


 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.


No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.


Yeah, and comparatively speaking the lasgun is poor compared to a thing like a bolter, a gauss weapon or even a shuriken weapon.


If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.


Or you are using Breacher teams and crisis suits to make a "Tau bomb", a staple of the Tau style since their inception (well not with Breachers, but Tau air cavalry was something you could do and make work for a long time).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:37:54


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:40:16


Post by: epronovost


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:48:29


Post by: Voss


epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 04:54:22


Post by: Kanluwen


epronovost wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.


No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

The "they are all psykers" bit is a bit of a misnomer. They all have some level of psychic activity. Unless they're Warlocks, Farseers, or one of the other specialists actually engaged in those Paths it isn't really a big deal.

Worth mentioning that wraithbone is "psychic" plastic. Part of the psyker bit with Aeldari is that they use it to interact with wraithbone.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.

Cadians and Death Korps are basically starting to train at warfare from 7-8 years old up until they're 15-17, when they'll start to be inducted into reserve positions to get put into mainline combat.

Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 05:10:03


Post by: Sledgehammer


epronovost wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.


No it's not. Humans can't live for thousands of years (even with magic rejuvenation drugs, humans seldom live more than a few centuries and guardsmen don't have access to such things), Eldars do. Eldars can dodge bullets with relative ease and have superhuman reflex and run as fast as horses. They have senses sharper than any human. They are all psykers. They are also more intelligent and completely obsessive to a point that humans cannot comprehend unless they are mentally ill.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.


A human can only train for a few years and perform for a few more before age catches up with him. An Eldar can fight and train for centuries continuously. No Guardsmen can do that. Hell most Space Marines or Sisters (thanks to rejuvenat can't do that). The eldest Space Marines isn't considered old by Eldar standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
first off the guard isn't a monolith. Some regiments possess incredible infantry, and the lasgun has incredible variation in its capabilities.


Yeah, and comparatively speaking the lasgun is poor compared to a thing like a bolter, a gauss weapon or even a shuriken weapon.


If your're playing them right all you want to do is sit there in your deployment zone and roll dice.


Or you are using Breacher teams and crisis suits to make a "Tau bomb", a staple of the Tau style since their inception (well not with Breachers, but Tau air cavalry was something you could do and make work for a long time).
You're reinforcing the idea that standard infantry squads should be good for nothing other than staying still in the backline. Under no circumstances should you be able to advance and engage in more dynamic play with them. Get battlesuits or specalized infantry if you want to do that!

That's the whole probelm with standard infantry and why no one runs them. Their role is to sit there and / or die.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 05:10:37


Post by: Jarms48


That Whiteshield stratagem would have been nice pre-DE and Ad-Mech. Now the lethality of the game has increased so much that multiple blobs of 30 conscripts can be killed in a single turn.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 05:37:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Sledgehammer wrote:
You're reinforcing the idea that standard infantry squads should be good for nothing other than staying still in the backline. Under no circumstances should you be able to advance and engage in more dynamic play with them. Get battlesuits or specalized infantry if you want to do that!

That's the whole probelm with standard infantry and why no one runs them. Their role is to sit there and / or die.
That's why I like the Actions system that GW introduced in 9th. I think that should be expanded upon to give things other stuff to do.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 06:31:14


Post by: Racerguy180


H.B.M.C. wrote:This is why the "lose more" morale mechanics should be replaced with a pinning/suppression mechanic.

Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


This would instantly make the game more interesting.

More die cuz some died is a fething lame excuse for morale.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 07:46:18


Post by: WisdomLS


Where does the creep end? The base rules of this edition are great but the continued cycle of upping resilience -> upping damage -> upping resilience -> upping damage is pilling on meaningless rules bloat and making the game a whole lot worse.

Example: This edition has from the start increased wounds on infantry models and also increased the general AP of standard attacks (doctrines, choppas, blade artists etc...) - then they have upped the standard damage of many weapons and given many armies army wide invulnerable saves (Seriously: Sisters, Drukhari, admech, 1KSons, Daemons, Deathwing/Ravenwing, custodes, Harlies, Beast Snaggas and now BT all have access to army wide ++) - then they have given many units -1 damage abilities and are starting to bring in ignore invulnerable save abilities! Where does it end?

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....

Apologies for the salt, I'm not normally negative towards the game but the continuing spiral of this rule trumps the last rule, trumps the previous rule is really sucking the excitement out of new releases.

The base game has a great set of offensive VS defensive rules to play with. Weapons have Str, AP, Damage, hit modifiers and number of attacks - defensively we have T, saves, wounds, hit modifiers and FNP. They should be using these paramitters to make units more deadly/resilient (resilience is the main thing they keep adding bespoke rules for).
Vehicles should have more wounds added and they should explore Toughness higher than 8, this increases survivability but doesnt require remembering any new rules and it doesn't fully negate certain armies rules or weapon choices - adding flat unmodifiable rules that ignore the base rules of attacks (like invuln saves and can't be wounded on less than) is just stupid and very hard to balance as they have the same effect on a bolter as they do a volcano cannon - I haven't even mentioned the new relics that turn all damage into 1 damage for F's sake!


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 07:57:06


Post by: Dysartes


epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit fails a "morale test"? Can't hold an objective! Unit fails a "suppression test"? Can't advance/charge/has to go to ground/whatever.


I got to admit that the moral rules of the game would deserve to gain some depth.

Given there doesn't appear to be a faction in the game with morals - though there are some which you could describe as amoral rather than immoral - the lack of moral rules seems to fit.

The lack of morale rules in a wargame, on the other hand...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 10:28:48


Post by: epronovost


Voss wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.


You forgot transhuman physiology strat which is just a better version of that of the Cadian or the beast snagga equivalent one.
==


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 13:36:33


Post by: Insectum7


 Kanluwen wrote:
epronovost wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Guardsmen range from being equivalent to Aspect Warriors for the Aeldari('career soldiers' who are locked into one methodology of warfare) to the Guardians of the Aeldari('volunteer soldiers' who go to war maybe once in their lifetime, then never go again).


Except that Aeldari are superhumans with a more advanced technology and train for literal millennia while guardsmen for a decade and a half at best. That's not a great comparison.

Ehh..."superhuman" is subjective.

But the comparison is better than you seem to think. Cadians, Death Korps, Steel Legion, or Mordians? They aren't too far off the mark from what the Aspect Warriors are, comparatively: continually training and martially competent.
Sure, both Guardsmen and Aspect Warriors are highly trained proffessional soldiers. Aspect Warriors have always been better though, because they build on a superior base. Truly superior Guardsmen form Veteran squads, which would still probably be inferior to Aspect Warriors in terms of raw ability, Eldar just being faster by nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:


 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.
Yeah, this. Exarchs are functionally Eldar Space Marines. They cannot return to 'normal life' and do nothing but train, pray, and hone their skills wearing millenia-old armor infused with the spirits of dead exarchs.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 13:49:15


Post by: Kanluwen


 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Additionally, Aspect Warriors are considered an aberration not the rule. They can't shed their warmask, and are stuck on their Path. It results in them isolating themselves from Aeldari society at large at the Aspect Temples. The age thing is kind of pointless in that regard.

Aspect Warriors can absolutely move from the Path of the Warrior - it's Exarchs who are stuck. Part of the background for Warlocks used to be that they'd completed the Path of the Warrior before moving onto the Path of the Seer, and were calling on some of their old skills when going into combat, if not to the same extent as when they were an Aspect Warrior.

Fair call! I didn't really feel the need to differentiate between the Exarch and the rest of the Temple under their stewardship.

I still feel like it's a good comparison.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 15:54:30


Post by: vipoid


 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 16:24:16


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 vipoid wrote:
 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.


You obviously know what they meant....


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 16:35:30


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 vipoid wrote:
 WisdomLS wrote:

I think the game would be much better if the codex's stuck with the base rules levels, it would make everything alot easier to balance and take alot less rules that end up just being list design decisions where you can manage to randomly counter an opponents ability - that approach would likely sell less new books to people though.....


As with the people claiming that the core rules are fantastic and that the codices are the only problem, I think those arguing for just playing the "base game" forget just how little content is actually in the "base game".

I sincerely hope, for example, that you don't expect any of your units to have special rules. Don't forget that if you're just playing the "base game" then that means no special rules for anyone. And I don't just mean 'no super-extra-special bespoke rules' because, having removed USRs, every special rule in 40k is now a bespoke special rule.

Expect your character to have an invulnerable save and/or FNP? Sorry, those are exclusively special rules and bespoke ones at that.

Deep Strike? Infiltrate? I see no such USRs in the rulebook.

If you think a game with nothing but dry unit statlines and dry weapon statlines sounds fun (and in a ruleset that only cares about killing and killing more) then I can only say that we fundamentally disagree on what makes a game interesting. To me at least, it sounds like the first draft of a game designed by a man whose head has been replaced by a filing cabinet.
Ah yes, because by taking such a very specific view. We can say that the core book has no units either. The core book has nothing interesting at all to offer since you can't play a game with no unit statlines or units. Seriously this is how you chose to frame things?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 16:50:27


Post by: vipoid


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 16:55:18


Post by: Rihgu


Even if the core rulebook had USRs, unit special rules wouldn't be core rules they'd be codex rules. Since we're apparently ignoring that the core rules tell you exactly how to read a datasheet.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 17:38:39


Post by: Klickor


epronovost wrote:
Voss wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cadians are evidently superhumans. They can survive volcano cannon shots better than any other type of Guardsman.



But not as well as actual tough superhumans like Space Marines, Orks or Necrons unfortunately for them.


Barring special faction traits (like BT vowing to have a 5++, or iron hands having bits of metal stuck on for their 6++), all of those die slightly easier than a cadian does. S16, D2d6 and -5 AP just doesn't care.*


*assuming some random supplement or other hasn't changed the stats again.


You forgot transhuman physiology strat which is just a better version of that of the Cadian or the beast snagga equivalent one.
==
¨

Which only works on half the marines since for some weird reason only Primaris and Deathwing terminators get to be transhuman space marines.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 18:04:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 18:07:21


Post by: Gregor Samsa


to me it has never been clearer that 40k needs to be completely redesigned as a game. i consider 2,000 points to be just a tedious mess of 3 hours. Sometimes amusing to watch a battle report on youtube, but incredibly underwhelming to go through all the effort to set everything up, just for the game to play out in this ridiculous strategem fog of war.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 18:41:56


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 18:54:55


Post by: Sim-Life


 vipoid wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?


I really hate this obtuse way of arguing on the internet. It's so childish.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 19:21:26


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.


This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 19:27:42


Post by: vipoid


 Sim-Life wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
You obviously know what they meant....


I'm astonished that someone who claims to possess the power to read minds across time and space is wasting their time on an internet forum.

Surely you should be out using that power to make your fortune?


I really hate this obtuse way of arguing on the internet. It's so childish.


Well if people are going to claim to know my precise mindset whilst entirely ignoring my point, I'm not sure what you expect.

Know the funny thing?

No, contrary to VladimirHerzog's psychic powers, I actually didn't know what the person I responded to was arguing for. Maybe Index era? Though even that, quite apart from being dull as dishwater, still included stuff well outside of the "base rules".

The point I was trying to make was that people who argue for just using the core rules (or some variation thereof) seem not to appreciate just how shallow and anaemic the base rules are. I gave the example of USRs because the core rules don't have any USRs to draw upon (so it's not like you can argue for basing every faction around the use of those rules).

And if you're going to make the argument (as others already have) that special rules are fine because the core rules allow for their eexistence then that just puts us right back to where we started. The core rules allow for stratagems, thus any number of stratagems is fine. The core rules allow for armies to bloat themselves to death with bespoke special rules (indeed, given that there are no USRs, the use of bespoke special rules is all but mandated), thus armies can just bloat themselves to death with special rules as they are currently.

My point is, the core rules are the problem, not the solution, and any attempt to 'get back to them' only serves to highlight that fact. Because you either accept them for the shallow, lifeless rules that they are (and play Warhammer 40k - A Game of Spreadsheets) or else you accept that any supposed cut-off point between the core rules and the current state of the game is going to be entirely arbitrary. Because if you include not only the core rules but anything technically allowed by the core rules then, by definition, you include absolutely everything currently in the game as it stands.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 19:33:30


Post by: Klickor


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


The problem isn't and has never been the size of the dice. The problem is and has always been GW's insistence on artificially holding certain stats in place while buffing the whole rest of the game around them. If you roll back ten years of stat creep you may find that the game can work perfectly well with a larger range of scales/sizes than GW currently supports, and still using just d6s.


This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?



I think the complain is more along the line that against a weapon designed to destroy super heavy vehicles you shouldnt even be able to buff survivability on a normal human. If you used a D100 2-100 should still wound.

If you made it only work on weapons below str 8 like the new orc version I wouldn't mind as much but for a str 16 gun?

It is like increasing my own chances of surviving a direct missile(nuclear warhead or not) strike by about 100000000%. I would still instantly die. Changing the amount of 0s in the odds(larger dice) changes nothing.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 21:33:28


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Kanluwen wrote:


I do not think that is such a wild set of circumstances to be 100% all the time active. Stop pretending that it is.


I think it’s fairly easily currently using a cheap pysker to get +2 save on a squad (cover or take cover), this new option means I have more tools in order to boost blobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
epronovost wrote:
(and people endlessly complained about it, especially Marines fan who were offended that an army filled with anti-tank weapons would wreck their elite infantry like any random guardsman.


I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/14 22:45:51


Post by: epronovost


The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).


Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 00:31:13


Post by: Las


epronovost wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think there are multiple fixes for that, personally I like making it harder to hit infantry with anti tank weapons (and harder to hit tanks with dedicated anti infantry weapons).


Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.


There are a few ways around it. Many historical games give infantry a better "save" against a round fired from a tank's main turret weapon. This represents the fact that it's actually incredibly difficult to hit a single person who can go to ground, and whose squad can spread out, with a projectile fired from a cannon that's intended to pierce rather than burst. I'd imagine a shot fired from a melta weapon could be analogous to this. You're not letting off a quick succession of shots from a bolter or other semi-automatic or automatic weapon that has a great chance of hitting a single person, but taking one shot from a weapon intended to hit a large target. The truth is that it's actually quite difficult to hit a target at range in a firefight.

That save is then reduced or removed when firing a high explosive round at an infantry unit which is liable to be caught in the shrapnel explosion. Plasma cannons or anti-infantry weapon-launched grenades for example.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 01:46:18


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And it's completely irrelevant unless you really enjoy pointing such a gun at infantry.
It's completely relevant. It's a level of incongruity that shouldn't be in the game.


Unless you want to move to a D12 or D20 system so you accurately reflect how a giant cannon will vaporize a dude then you have to deal with what the system has to work with.


Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 01:51:20


Post by: epronovost


 Las wrote:
There are a few ways around it. Many historical games give infantry a better "save" against a round fired from a tank's main turret weapon. This represents the fact that it's actually incredibly difficult to hit a single person who can go to ground, and whose squad can spread out, with a projectile fired from a cannon that's intended to pierce rather than burst. I'd imagine a shot fired from a melta weapon could be analogous to this. You're not letting off a quick succession of shots from a bolter or other semi-automatic or automatic weapon that has a great chance of hitting a single person, but taking one shot from a weapon intended to hit a large target. The truth is that it's actually quite difficult to hit a target at range in a firefight.

That save is then reduced or removed when firing a high explosive round at an infantry unit which is liable to be caught in the shrapnel explosion. Plasma cannons or anti-infantry weapon-launched grenades for example.


That could be an idea of reducing the strength (or give a "to wound" penalty to anti-tank weapon) to represent the fact they aren't ideal at getting infantry, but that's precisely the thing that some don't like; the idea that a tank can be "wounded" more easily than an infantryman by a massive weapon. That's why I am personally in favor of those "cannot be wounded bellow X threshold" stratagem. They do add survivability to infantry and can be seen to represent their grit, determination, insensitivity to pain, stupid luck, but also tactical reaction to being targeted by intense enemy fire. At that point between a malus to hit or to wound or a save bonus, its only a question of "vehicle", but the result, what especially matter in gameplay in my opinion, remains the same. All three could be use to represent a faction favored tools or "personality", eldar get malus to wound because they are fast, guards to armor because they know how to hug cover, space marines to toughness for their capacity to shrug of nearly mortal wound, etc.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 02:56:52


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:

Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.


+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 03:02:50


Post by: Kanluwen


Easiest solution, IMO, is just to add the "Antimaterial" or "Antivehicle" keyword to certain weapons.

Give it a + to Wound/Hit v Vehicles/Monsters and a - to Wound/Hit v Infantry, Bikers, and Cavalry.

Not like there is no precedent either. We had antiaircraft as a rule for how long?


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 03:07:24


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

Granularity of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with a mechanic clunkily making a tank more vulnerable to immensely damaging weapons than squishy infantrymen.

For the stratagem as a whole, there are lots of ways to model increased durability within a D6 system without Transhuman-style rules. Eg you could write it as giving them +1T and thus make them more resilient to small arms without affecting how they stand up to anti-Titan weapons.

For the core game mechanics, a '4x S = auto wound' mechanic wouldn't be unreasonable either. There's no meaningful difference in how dead a Catachan hit by a Volcano Cannon is versus a Catachan hit by a Volcano cannon- and it'd at least be better verisimilitude than true grit and courage allowing a Cadian to take it on his grizzled chin.

At a very basic level, it's an annoyingly inconsistent way to boost Guardsman resilience that further feeds into wombo-combo design and adds more rules to keep track of, rather than working within the framework established by the core rules.


+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.



Its pure bloat this way too, but at least +1T is less stupid and less wildly inconsistent with the setting.
The window for the best solution has passed: don't do it at all.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 03:10:46


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. Autowound would be ok, I guess? But it just seems kind of pointless to have just to assuage a minor inconsistency -- which I dare say would be considered bloat.


I would argue that a mechanic which serves solely to make infantry more resilient to S6+, meaning generally anti-light-armor weapons, is rather pointless and bloaty to begin with. It's the bonus to armor saves that's far more impactful.

But taking a step back, what's the problem that this is solving? If there's a general issue with Guard durability, allowing a single unit within a specific subfaction to be more durable is the wrong way to fix it. It's not like Cadians are specially known for deflecting autocannon shells with their biceps and thus need this to properly represent their fluff.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 03:53:42


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 CEO Kasen wrote:
All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.

Late to the party but I have to say this is my favorite bit of imagery in the thread.

Disappointed to hear we're getting more stratagem combos to make things more durable. Equally disappointed that we're playing a killy / durable arms race since the only solution is to tack on more layers of rules. I've been enjoying the games of 9th this year, but that's because I've always enjoyed take and hold objectives. I'd enjoy the game a whole lot more without so many bandaids.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 06:20:56


Post by: CEO Kasen


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.

Late to the party but I have to say this is my favorite bit of imagery in the thread.


Thanks! Always do love it when those get appreciated.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 06:22:31


Post by: Jarms48


This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 08:08:11


Post by: Sim-Life


Jarms48 wrote:
This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.


If we had USRs back we could call it something like Instant Death.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 08:34:01


Post by: Slipspace


 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast. They also tend to write rules that flat-out break the basic rules rather than working within them. so instead of changing stats they do things like this.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/15 09:47:22


Post by: The_Real_Chris


epronovost wrote:

Except it would be both a bit strange (why would a cannon struggle to hit infantry or a grenade launcher or a lascannon, a precise beam of light, than a rifle) and also it would leave the problem of weapons clearly designed for twin tasks like plasma guns, autocannons, battle cannon, etc. usually, anti-tank weapons have a low shot count and are thus not ideal for targeting infantry due to the point system. That's a "fix" with its own set of issue that would create its own legitimate gripe. It's a solution that to me makes sense for some weapons like missile launchers or grenade launcher (shooting krak projectiles) or maybe some heavy tank guns like the previously mentioned Volcano Cannon.


Well, having played around with crew served stuff and AT gear it is hard enough to hit vehicles, try hitting an infantryman with a javelin. Though ironically that is changing. While you are still unlikely to hit an infantryman with a tank round (hence the constant development of alternative projectiles to target stuff like crew served weapons that can hurt them), stuff like hellfires that can deal with certain tonnages of vehicles are now used as very expensive ways of hitting individuals.

Still the idea of my melta taking time to focus and being better to hit a hit tank than a crouching, scampering gretchin is fine to me. It would be a trait added to statlines - ie a missile launcher would be
When attacking with this weapon, choose one of the profiles below.
Frag missile 48" Heavy D6 4 0 1 Blast
Krak missile 48" Heavy 1 8 -2 D6 AntiTank (-1 to hit INFANTRY)

Doing things like that makes it easier to do other changes to the game like upping the damage of AT weapons and upping the wounds of vehicles to deal with the issues around that.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 05:21:13


Post by: Jarms48


 Sim-Life wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:
This particular complaint is that infantry can't be buffed otherwise this massive gun doesn't make sense. How exactly are you allowing any such buffs without changing the dice or creating some byzantine rules exceptions?


Mortal wounds were fine. Should have been something like triple your toughness is a mortal wound rather than a regular wound. So a Guardsmen being wounded by a lascannon just turns them into a pink mist. A space marine getting hit by an S12 weapon turns them into pink mist. Could work all the way up to T6.

Which would make super heavy weapons actually feel devastating.


If we had USRs back we could call it something like Instant Death.


It doesn’t need to be instant death. Just make those wounds that are triple strength become mortals.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 06:51:06


Post by: Blackie


No need to. Wounds that are triple strenght typically come from shots with high AP and high D.

They already provide "instant death" to the target.

Consider S9 vs T3 or S12 vs T4. No target would survive a hit that also wounds. Unless invulns, which is the point of having an invulnerable save and used to work against shots that could give instand death even in the past.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 21:23:26


Post by: Jarms48


That’s simply incorrect, with the abundance of transhuman, invul saves, save modifiers, etc.

Something like a Quake Cannon or Volcano Cannon should devastate any unit of Primaris. Except it doesn’t, cause they’ll either pop transhuman or save it on their invul. Even say a Volcano Cannon shooting a unit of Bullgryn, the amount of stacking save modifiers they can receive means they can still save on 4+ armour against AP-5.


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 21:32:52


Post by: jeff white


The flesh is weak… maybe a USR representing the effect of armor crunching energy on living things could solve such problems. To my mind, power armor doesn’t completely stop arms from blowing off given violent enough concussive force, and it cannot be as tough as a tank hull in the face of high energy weapons. The maggot on the inside is turned to gravy, either way…


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 22:41:02


Post by: Voss


Slipspace wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast.


Truthfully, transhuman isn't really fine. The version that other factions got (weapons below S8 still fail to wound on a 1-3 [or 1-2]) is actually fine. It gives a benefit but acknowledges there are limits (and that limit is functionally dedicated AT weapons).

This one wouldn't get nearly as much talk time if it was a general guard strat and it was limited to S5 or below.



Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/17 23:54:16


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

+1T is a nice thought, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.


Well...yes. That's the entire complaint. The effect is too strong and leads to incongruity like the volcano cannon scenario.

One of GW's problems seems to be they try to reuse certain rules concepts rather than come up with something more appropriate. So the "wound rolls of X always fail" is fine for SM (up to a point) but when thoughtlessly expanded to other factions gets weird really fast.


Truthfully, transhuman isn't really fine. The version that other factions got (weapons below S8 still fail to wound on a 1-3 [or 1-2]) is actually fine. It gives a benefit but acknowledges there are limits (and that limit is functionally dedicated AT weapons).

This one wouldn't get nearly as much talk time if it was a general guard strat and it was limited to S5 or below.



Ok, that's fair. Make it like Ramshackle, but for weapons under S7 ( S5 would be pretty useless, I think ). It does make the rule a little harder to remember over ones that get used more frequently ( e.g. Ramshackle ).


Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)! @ 2021/10/18 00:24:18


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I dunno. I wouldn't want to try telling Trajann he can't kill that Rhino with JUST his miseracordia. S5 weapons should still be powerful.