ARMOUR OF CONTEMPT
Each time an attack is allocated to an Adeptus Astartes,
Sanctic Astartes, Heretic Astartes or Adepta Sororitas
model, worsen the Armour Penetration characteristic of
that attack by 1.
This rule does not apply to any of the following:
• Models equipped with a storm shield, a relic shield
or a combat shield (or a Relic that replaces one of
these shields).
• Models with either the Sacresant Shield or Force
Shielding ability (Celestian Sacresant and Nemesis
Dreadknight units).
• Models that are under the effects of any other rule
that worsens or reduces the Armour Penetration
characteristic of an attack.
‘Hammer of the Emperor:
If every <Regiment> unit in your army is drawn from the same regiment, then
each time a <Regiment> model from your army makes a
ranged attack, an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically
wounds the target. Note that units listed as Advisors
and Auxilla do not prevent other Astra Militarum units
from your army from gaining this rule, but Advisors and
Auxilla units never benefit from this rule.’
Both are unnecessary bloat that only exists to address the fact that GW would rather pile band-aid patches onto things rather than admit that they've been handing out far too many buffs and might need to start backing off on the statlines.
AnomanderRake wrote: Both are unnecessary bloat that only exists to address the fact that GW would rather pile band-aid patches onto things rather than admit that they've been handing out far too many buffs and might need to start backing off on the statlines.
This will not become a GW bash thread there are several of those, I want to know which one do you think is stronger and why?
6s to-hit autowounding adds one extra wound per 36 shots for each pip of the die that wounds FAIL on.
Wounding on a 2+ adds 1 per 36.
Wounding on a 3+ adds 2 per 36.
So on and so forth.
Armor Of Contempt is a flat AP reduction. Math is easier to figure out on that.
I think Armour of Contempt represents a massive power shift which is likely to completely alter the competitive meta. "Power armour" lists saw a sharp decline in players through 2022 and I think this will bring them back - which alters how tournament progression looks and the weighting of these matchups versus your total win percentage.
I don't know what the "best" faction will be to take advantage of this but I'd be incredibly surprised if there isn't a good combo there.
Hammer of the Emperor is harder to call because it kind matters in certain situations and doesn't in others. We've seen the laments of lasguns into tanks for instance. But tanks have not really been an overwhelming feature of the meta. You go shoot some T3 elves - with lasguns or battle cannons, and it doesn't make that much difference because you were wounding on 4s, 3s or 2s anyway.
With that said, its hard mentally to imagine what 20ish guardsmen squads, all with a complement of special/heavy weapons and efficient order allocation looks like.
People say "just kill them lol" - but if they are doing 50%~ more damage than they were... that's significant. Those units that would be killing them and holding objectives will die so aren't there next turn. If Armour of Contempt forces the meta to become more dedicated anti-Marine (rather than getting there by default) these chaff carpet lists where you have more bodies than they have attacks may start to gain ground. Especially when they are not toothless.
With my IG army, I have played two games this weekend, both against different marine lists. The first was 2k, the second 1.5k.
We used the new 'balance' datasheet rules, with the Armour of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor rules. I have to say, I feel the Armour of Contempt rules to be far and above the more powerful rule.
I managed to score a few autowounds in both games but it did not make up for or even come close to matching the drop in effective firepower due to the reduction in penetration which all my heavier weapons faced.
Marine armoured vehicles passing saves against Lascannons on a 4+, heavy bolters and autocannons shrugged off and even plasma guns nowhere near as threatening as they were before.
Ignoring the balance side of things, one almost feels that if the marines needed to be tankier, it would have been easier and less clunky to play with if they were just given 2+ armour.
One only matters for a single faction I never played against and that is considered one of the weakest factions in the game, the other applies to a pretty wide range of the most popular factions.
One is a minor offense boost, the other a defensive boost that applies to most units in the respektive factions and works against most weapons. For me it's pretty clear.
Armour of contempt will have an impact in every game, hammer of the emperor & the other IG changes combined will only make a difference if you build around it by either spamming foot guard or finding a cheap high rate of fire platform and spamming that (gatling taurox prime if scions also count as a regiment?). Armour of contempt is stronger by a mile.
Insularum wrote: Armour of contempt will have an impact in every game, hammer of the emperor & the other IG changes combined will only make a difference if you build around it by either spamming foot guard or finding a cheap high rate of fire platform and spamming that (gatling taurox prime if scions also count as a regiment?). Armour of contempt is stronger by a mile.
Scions do get it. Militarum Tempestus is their <Regiment>.
Insularum wrote: Armour of contempt will have an impact in every game, hammer of the emperor & the other IG changes combined will only make a difference if you build around it by either spamming foot guard or finding a cheap high rate of fire platform and spamming that (gatling taurox prime if scions also count as a regiment?). Armour of contempt is stronger by a mile.
Scions do get it. Militarum Tempestus is their <Regiment>.
If your army is all Scions. If you bring a single Scion squad with your Cadians (or whomever), nobody gets it. But yeah. You can do things at the listbuilding stage to max it out.
But contempt pretty much affects everyone who plays the game (barring 'I only play with Bill and Ted and none of us play those factions' outliers). Hammer only matters if you've got a local guard player who's been holding on for one more day. Every single day of 9th.
And you get to feel sad when Hammer's 6-fishing autowounds still run into successful armor saves.... while Contempt is busy handing out more successful armor saves. Insult to injury there, I feel.
AnomanderRake wrote: Both are unnecessary bloat that only exists to address the fact that GW would rather pile band-aid patches onto things rather than admit that they've been handing out far too many buffs and might need to start backing off on the statlines.
You are 100% correct of course, but that doesn't really answer the OP's question.
AnomanderRake wrote: Both are unnecessary bloat that only exists to address the fact that GW would rather pile band-aid patches onto things rather than admit that they've been handing out far too many buffs and might need to start backing off on the statlines.
This will not become a GW bash thread there are several of those, I want to know which one do you think is stronger and why?
AoC. Making lasguns auto-wound does squat because of AP-/D1, and the to-wound roll isn't usually where special and heavy weapons struggle. That said the fact that one is stronger than the other doesn't change the fact that neither should exist.
AoC is both a more powerful buff and much more distorting on the game. Bypassing the wound roll doesn't do much besides raising DPS in a relatively static way. AoC vastly changes the math and relative value on a wide range of attacks.
Armour of contempt, hands down. That's an armywide buff, to armies that were already mid tiers, with a significant impact on the meta while hammer of the emperor gives some units from the worst army in the game a boost that doesn't really change anything in terms of meta or even the tier for the AM, which remains pretty low.
Man it's really funny seeing how everyone's attitudes have changed comparing mahrieens getting +1 Armor Save (basically) versus orks getting the old dakka dakka dakka
And for the record, Armor of Contempt is probably the strongest speshul rule that Games Workshop has ever not-printed but given out.
I can't wait until Spike uses Armor of Contempt but doesn't tell Timmy it also applies to his purple marines.
Eonfuzz wrote: Man it's really funny seeing how everyone's attitudes have changed comparing mahrieens getting +1 Armor Save (basically) versus orks getting the old dakka dakka dakka
I think it's another attempt at "Dakka said this, and now Dakka is saying this thing that contradicts their previous statement" which attempts to paint Dakka as some sort of hive mind.
Attacks that automatically hit or wound do not benefit from Hammer of the Emperor.
For attacks hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,04/1,1/1,2/1,4/2.
For attacks hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,05/1,125/1,25/1,5/2,25.
For attacks hitting on 4+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,07/1,17/1,33/1,67/2,67.
For attacks hitting on 5+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,1/1,25/1,5/2/3,5.
For attacks hitting on 6+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,2/1,4/2/3/6.
Armour of Contempt does not benefit models with storm shields or in cases where the invulnerable save is more than good enough or where the save is more than good enough (1+ Sv vs AP-1 or any Sv vs AP- weapons).
+1 to Sv multiplies damage taken for 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/7+ by 1/0,5/0,67/0,75/0,8/0,83.
If you attack Space Marines with a 3+ Sv with an AP-1 weapon you go from a 4+ Sv to now a 3+ Sv because of the rule, so you multiply damage by 0,67.
My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful. Those weren't the only changes made in the balance dataslate so I don't feel confident making any predictions.
vict0988 wrote: ...My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful...
Carry it through. You're multiplying damage by large values in some cases, sure, but the damage you're multiplying is tiny. Consider a lasgun against a Rhino. You're tripling your odds of doing damage, sure, but your odds of doing damage were 2.7% in the first place (1/2*1/6*1/3). Bumping that up to 7.4% (1/3*1/6*1/3 + 1/6*1/3) isn't going to make a lasgun a more meaningful anti-tank weapon.
AoC is by far the stronger rule. HotE would have been a great buff to Guard, and would have actually got Guard back into the game. Then AoC came along and knocked Guard back down. So overall, Guard is flat-to-down with this dataslate.
AoC was actually a great buff. It puts powered armor marines right back where they need to be in terms of durability for their points with all the codexes that have been released over the past year. The sad thing was that this kind of buff was required, when it was actually the ridiculous power creep over the past year that caused PA armies to need this buff in the first place.
Another other choice would have been to reduce the AP and/or damage of almost every other weapon in the game by 1, but that in turn would require a complete points rebalance as well. Another option would have been to just adjust the points values of every PA unit in the game, but GW is really reluctant to change points values. (Case in point, a Guard Basilisk is only worth 40 points compared to any modern codex units, but remains at 115).
So, the next effect is that armies will be pushed (like in 7th edition) to spam higher AP weapons, like plasma guns and melta guns, or weapons with tons of AP0 shots. But this isn't a game problem, this is a player problem trying to kill everything with 100% efficiency 100% of the time.
The next problem that is readily apparent is that Tyranids are already poised to displace Eldar as the latest boogeyman, and it's unclear if the AoC change will have any impact on the nigh-unkillable Flyrant & Fexes. I just watched a Custodes army get tabled in 3 turns because of MW spam. PA armies just aren't going to stand up to that kind of output.
brainpsyk wrote: AoC is by far the stronger rule. HotE would have been a great buff to Guard, and would have actually got Guard back into the game. Then AoC came along and knocked Guard back down. So overall, Guard is flat-to-down with this dataslate.
AoC was actually a great buff. It puts powered armor marines right back where they need to be in terms of durability for their points with all the codexes that have been released over the past year. The sad thing was that this kind of buff was required, when it was actually the ridiculous power creep over the past year that caused PA armies to need this buff in the first place.
Another other choice would have been to reduce the AP of almost every other weapon in the game by 1, but that in turn would require a complete points rebalance as well. Another option would have been to just adjust the points values of every PA unit in the game, but GW is really reluctant to change points values. (Case in point, a Guard Basilisk is only worth 40 points compared to any modern codex units, but remains at 115).
So, this is a simple but inelegant fix.
Erm... 40 points for a Basilisk?
Look, I don't deny Guard are bad. But that's less than 4 points per T7 3+ wound. You could strip the guns off it and it'd STILL be worth bringing 9 at 40 PPM.
Seriously-that'd be more durable per point than anything I can field as a Nurgle player. And I'm assuming you meant to keep the gun at 40 points.
Look, I don't deny Guard are bad. But that's less than 4 points per T7 3+ wound. You could strip the guns off it and it'd STILL be worth bringing 9 at 40 PPM.
Seriously-that'd be more durable per point than anything I can field as a Nurgle player. And I'm assuming you meant to keep the gun at 40 points.
Yep, it's T6, not T7, @BS4 that does d3 damage. With 2d6 pick highest for number of shots, that comes out to *one* shot that hits/wounds/penetrates a Onager Dunecrawler (T7, 3+/5++). A DB PBC, even after AoC & the indirect nerf has almost 4x the output and 25% more durability per point than the Basilisk.
The Basilisk is in contention for the worst unit in the entire game. It's got 1 job, it's overly expensive for that job, and it can't even do that job.
Look, I don't deny Guard are bad. But that's less than 4 points per T7 3+ wound. You could strip the guns off it and it'd STILL be worth bringing 9 at 40 PPM.
Seriously-that'd be more durable per point than anything I can field as a Nurgle player. And I'm assuming you meant to keep the gun at 40 points.
Yep, it's T6, not T7, @BS4 that does d3 damage. With 2d6 pick highest for number of shots, that comes out to *one* shot that hits/wounds/penetrates a Onager Dunecrawler (T7, 3+/5++). A DB PBC, even after AoC & the indirect nerf has almost 4x the output and 25% more durability per point than the Basilisk.
The Basilisk is in contention for the worst unit in the entire game. It's got 1 job, it's overly expensive for that job, and it can't even do that job.
Right, it's not good at its artillery job.
But making it 40 points makes it so durable for its points, it'd have the new job of just body-blocking stuff and existing. Firepower is just a bonus.
JNAProductions wrote: Right, it's not good at its artillery job.
But making it 40 points makes it so durable for its points, it'd have the new job of just body-blocking stuff and existing. Firepower is just a bonus.
So you're saying at 40 points a Basilisk still wouldn't be worth shooting? I agree with that
Look, I don't deny Guard are bad. But that's less than 4 points per T7 3+ wound. You could strip the guns off it and it'd STILL be worth bringing 9 at 40 PPM.
Seriously-that'd be more durable per point than anything I can field as a Nurgle player. And I'm assuming you meant to keep the gun at 40 points.
Yep, it's T6, not T7, @BS4 that does d3 damage. With 2d6 pick highest for number of shots, that comes out to *one* shot that hits/wounds/penetrates a Onager Dunecrawler (T7, 3+/5++). A DB PBC, even after AoC & the indirect nerf has almost 4x the output and 25% more durability per point than the Basilisk.
The Basilisk is in contention for the worst unit in the entire game. It's got 1 job, it's overly expensive for that job, and it can't even do that job.
Are you comparing a PBC hitting with its other weapons or something? It's out of los firing 3.5 shots, hitting 1.75, wounds ~once of which half are saved for 1 damage mathematically. That outs it squarely in contention with a Basilisk at best But pbc can do other stuff which I fully expect them to do and not be an oolos battery.
JNAProductions wrote: Right, it's not good at its artillery job. But making it 40 points makes it so durable for its points, it'd have the new job of just body-blocking stuff and existing. Firepower is just a bonus.
So you're saying at 40 points a Basilisk still wouldn't be worth shooting? I agree with that
It'd be worth shooting.
Just over 2 hits on average. With the new rule, 1 and a quarter failed saves against a Marine, for a reasonably consistent one MEQ dead per turn.
In other words, ignoring the Heavy Bolter or Flamer, it'd make its points back in shooting in just two turns against a common opponent. Toss in the Heavy Bolters for an extra chance of bopping another model-not great, but certainly not impossible.
And your opponent still has 11 T6 3+ wounds to chew through.
Hell, you said to compare to Onager-let's do that.
Spoiler:
We'll give it a Neutron Laser, the perfect weapon for killing a Basilisk. 120 points, so 3 Basilisks.
Each round, the Onager does 2 shots on average with the big gun. 4/3 hits 20/18 or 10/9 wounds 10/9 failed saves 50/9 damage
And 4 shots with the Stubber. 8/3 hits 8/9 wounds 8/27 failed saves 8/27 damage
Total damage is 158/27, or 5.85. It kills a Basilisk every other shooting phase.
The three Basilisks do with the main gun... 17/4 shots 17/12 hits with no autowounds, 17/24 with autowounds 17/24 plus 34/36 or 17/18 wounds, for 119/72 wounds total 238/216 or 119/108 failed saves 238/108 damage
And the Heavy Bolter does... 3 shots 1 hit with no autowound, 1/2 with autowounds 1/2 plus 1/3 wounds, for 5/6 wounds total 5/12 failed saves 5/6 damage
Total damage is 328/108 or 82/27, or 3.04. Per Basilisk. At full wounds, at least.
So, even if the Onager doing 6 wounds to a Basilisk is considered enough to remove it from the fight, and the Onager's degradation is ignored, it still loses.
This, of course, ignores that Basilisks can fire from out of Line of Sight, meaning that the Onager might not be able to fire while the Basilisks still deal more than 2/3rds of their damage.
AoC is going to be really bad for the game overall, even if it addresses an immediate problem. It's just such a lazy change. The problem was that high AP was becoming too common, but the fix mostly impacts AP 1, by making it literally worthless vs half the armies in the game. And the biggest impact is going to probably be on AP 2 shooting into terminators in cover, where they'll still get their 2+ save. Needing AP 3 to realistically hurt terminators in cover (or AP4 with indirect) is going to fundamentally change the game. It's not quite the screamer-star from 7th, but it is going to have similar impacts.
It also makes storm shields pretty worthless on terminators, which is dumb from a game design point of view AND dumb from a fluff point of view. And what possible sense does it make that normal space marine terminators have better armor than allarus custodians? This is what happens when you put this kind of band-aid into the game, it warps all sorts of things in dumb and unjustifiable ways.
It's just a really badly designed rule, and people are going to start realizing it once the initial euphoria wears off.
The solution to AP being dolled out too generously was to go back and retune AP values, not to just make AP1 worthless. But that would have taken work. This just takes 5 minutes. It's a classic GW band-aid solution that ends up making things worse in the long run in favor of an easy short-term solution.
Attacks that automatically hit or wound do not benefit from Hammer of the Emperor.
For attacks hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,04/1,1/1,2/1,4/2.
For attacks hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,05/1,125/1,25/1,5/2,25.
For attacks hitting on 4+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,07/1,17/1,33/1,67/2,67.
For attacks hitting on 5+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,1/1,25/1,5/2/3,5.
For attacks hitting on 6+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,2/1,4/2/3/6.
Armour of Contempt does not benefit models with storm shields or in cases where the invulnerable save is more than good enough or where the save is more than good enough (1+ Sv vs AP-1 or any Sv vs AP- weapons).
+1 to Sv multiplies damage taken for 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/7+ by 1/0,5/0,67/0,75/0,8/0,83.
If you attack Space Marines with a 3+ Sv with an AP-1 weapon you go from a 4+ Sv to now a 3+ Sv because of the rule, so you multiply damage by 0,67.
My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful.
Your math might tell you HotE, but in the end you're wrong.
Because HotE only comes into play when the Guard are involved in a game. AoC? Overall there's alot more people playing SM/GK/SoB/CSM type armies than there are Guard. Local metas might vary of course, but your odds of dealing with -1ap are far greater than being auto-wounded by the IG....
And Guard aren't likely to be competitive even with it. Whereas there are going to be a lot of armies that can leverage the AoC cheese to win a lot of matchups just on the power of brute math.
Attacks that automatically hit or wound do not benefit from Hammer of the Emperor.
For attacks hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,04/1,1/1,2/1,4/2.
For attacks hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,05/1,125/1,25/1,5/2,25.
For attacks hitting on 4+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,07/1,17/1,33/1,67/2,67.
For attacks hitting on 5+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,1/1,25/1,5/2/3,5.
For attacks hitting on 6+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,2/1,4/2/3/6.
Armour of Contempt does not benefit models with storm shields or in cases where the invulnerable save is more than good enough or where the save is more than good enough (1+ Sv vs AP-1 or any Sv vs AP- weapons).
+1 to Sv multiplies damage taken for 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/7+ by 1/0,5/0,67/0,75/0,8/0,83.
If you attack Space Marines with a 3+ Sv with an AP-1 weapon you go from a 4+ Sv to now a 3+ Sv because of the rule, so you multiply damage by 0,67.
My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful.
Your math might tell you HotE, but in the end you're wrong.
Because HotE only comes into play when the Guard are involved in a game. AoC? Overall there's alot more people playing SM/GK/SoB/CSM type armies than there are Guard. Local metas might vary of course, but your odds of dealing with -1ap are far greater than being auto-wounded by the IG....
But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.
The issue as I see it is that most IG players have ditched the hobby - or if not, aren't in position to run some guardsmen horde that would really optimise this rule.
Its a bit like you are seeing reviews online to the tune of "I brought my random grab bag of [bad marine faction] and played Tau or Custodes, and I still lost, but you know it was closer". Which is sort of a "yeah... okay. but... how about you play the good versions of Marines pls?"
Math isn't what matters in 40k fundamentally, what matters is how that math translates to the table. Guard getting a damage bonus that still isn't enough to remove key targets doesn't actually help much, no matter what the mathematical increase is. If you need to deal 10 damage to win games and this gets you from 4 to 6 it doesn't actually get you where you need to go even if it's a 50% increase.
My sense is that AoC is going to change the outcome of games, and that HotE isn't. AoC on terminators in cover is going to bring back marines lists that win by simply existing IMO, especially with the nerfs to indirect that make it basically totally irrelevant against them.
IG player here. I've only left anything relatively competitive. My stuff is in storage mostly, thanks to move complications, but I'll still be collecting and painting stuff.
We're the Imperial Guard. We hold the line, and die standing.
AoC is definitely the stronger rule, because it benefits more of the army, most of the time. HotE isn't that useful for low ROF high strength weapons, as those 6s will come less often, and have less effect. But Marines and SoB will see the benefits of reducing AP all of the time in most games, and it's a significant bonus for Marines especially, because the better the armour save, the greater the benefit, and most of their units are packing 3+ and 2+ armour saves.
I think it's another attempt at "Dakka said this, and now Dakka is saying this thing that contradicts their previous statement" which attempts to paint Dakka as some sort of hive mind.
Not at all. The same people posting about how they needed AoC are the same people that were heavily against Dakka^3.
I just find it funny, that's all.
I think it's another attempt at "Dakka said this, and now Dakka is saying this thing that contradicts their previous statement" which attempts to paint Dakka as some sort of hive mind.
Not at all. The same people posting about how they needed AoC are the same people that were heavily against Dakka^3.
I just find it funny, that's all.
There's no correlation between the two? People disliked dakka^3 because it slowed the shooting phase to a crawl and I've witnessed first hand the stupidity of shine shot weapons splitting into multiple shots somehow etc. It wasn't a good rule to interact with. Conversely I aren't sure on AoC either, I feel the game needs to be brought down an AP, not just when firing at marines/sisters.
But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.
I disagree. AM got a nice buff but I don't think it doesn't put them on par with most solid mid tiers, let alone the best armies. Factions benefitting from AoC are straight near the top builds IMHO instead. If not close to the top tiers at least pretty on par with the most solid mid tiers or superior.
And since lots of factions will benefit from it most changes will change because of that. I'm starting to consider dropping several AP-1 shots from my lists to increase the higher qualities shots now. No one would change their lists to counter or to get the highest benefits from hammer of the emperor instead.
But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.
I disagree. AM got a nice buff but I don't think it doesn't put them on par with most solid mid tiers, let alone the best armies. Factions benefitting from AoC are straight near the top builds IMHO instead. If not close to the top tiers at least pretty on par with the most solid mid tiers or superior.
And since lots of factions will benefit from it most changes will change because of that. I'm starting to consider dropping several AP-1 shots from my lists to increase the higher qualities shots now. No one would change their lists to counter or to get the highest benefits from hammer of the emperor instead.
Probably because you can't build to counter hammer of the emperor directly. AoC is a very straightforward maths equation, it looks better because it affects more armies, some of which were mid-tables and it might bump them up. Likewise its easy for you to counter draft it as its common and it has a very visible and obvious impact on your list.
Guard aren't as common as you note, they're bottom of the barrell but the buff applies to their output, which you can't directly influence or control, the same way you can to work around -1ap. That's the biggest strength of hammer, but like I said it isn't going to make them win events, but is a bigger step up, relative, than AoC imo.
When I first read it I thought that HotE was far too good. Guard shouldn't be getting auto wounds considering the amount of small arms fire they can put out. But then after thinking about it, it's not as bad as I first thought because saves are still there. It's a small boost for the army. Meanwhile... as a space marine player I am really pleased with AoC as marines needed something and this has helped make us more durable without being overpowered.
Since the balance document dropped I have played two games so far (a third tonight) using the new rule. The first was a 2K game against Necrons. In this game it didn't help me all that much but I put that down to my opponent bringing primarily 2 damage plus weapons. When i did fail a save it was a dead marine. The second was a 3K game against Tyranids (last game of the old codex) and in that game AoC performed so much better for me and for only the second time in nearly twenty years I've beat a competitive Tyranid list. Close game but AoC kept my marines alive so I could stay in the game.
In my opinion the benefits of both help their respective armies but it does depend on what army and list they are playing against. AoC is slightly stronger.
Played the first round of a guard (Emperor's blade assault company) vs craftworld (a silly list made to max out the number of farseers) last night (it's on TTS, so we plan on continuing throughout the week as we have time). My rolls were hilariously good, so HotE came up most times I shot (plus I was first turn). It also came in handy when firing overwatch with an empty chimera (2/9 shots from multilaser+heavy bolter+pintle mounted heavy stubber). Actually, HotE feels like it's made pintel mounts worth the points again (maybe they always were but I never realized it?). My opponent was having more average rolls with his dice, so a fair few of the wounds made it through his saves. I ended up losing an infantry squad that I dumped onto the center objective to concentrated shooting and lost a chimeria to eldritch storm while I almost wiped one guardian squad (thanks to a demolisher tank commander), took another to just over half power (manticore), and picked off a single ranger (center objective guard squad).
Will it make a difference in win/lose? No clue. Will it make a difference in my enjoyment...well rolling 6s is a lot more exciting, so absolutely. Will it decrease the enjoyment of my opponent? Doubtful (probably makes it more enjoyable because now he has to care about my infantry squads at least nominally, providing more meaningful interactions across the board)
I'm curious about a Lambdan Lions (whatever force that adds +1 to AP) with max taurox prime punishers and hot shot volley guns on everyone and everything.
I took AM to a game at the FLGS this weekend. Hammer of the Emperor did generate some autowounds against some high toughness Ork units, but it didn't seem game changing. Lasguns are still AP0. Not having to roll to wound on the odd Lascannon/Battlecannon shot was nice. The "free" upgrades to squads were, perhaps, more impactful. I did find, though, that HotE made Overwatch more effective.
I think that Armour of Contempt is a more impactful change.
Between the two? AoC is way better. HB are basically useless once again.
But both rules were created because of the flawed system of the rending AP and the removal of template.
All or nothing AP system created a ground where you had to bring specific weapons to deal with specific threat levels, it had its flaws but it was more robust then the rending system we have now. In fact, we are repeating the mistakes already made in 2nd ed, not to the same extent or degree, but we are seeing heavy infentry being useless once more.
Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates, for cheap, where the only roll you really had to worry about was landing a hit, or not scattering enough. Before the exhcage of fire between a basalisk and a target was the scatter roll, the wounding roll, then if applicable a saving roll. On average you dealt with 3 total rolls. Now, its roll for number of shots, roll for number of hits, roll for wounds, roll for saves. its leaves way to much up to cahnce.
A much better fix for guard would have been, "Any weapon that has xd6 hits doubles results of 1 and 2. Any weapon that fires xd3 hit, doubles a result of 1."
Guard rely on large number of hits that is tempered by their low BS, the game has to many chances to roll a low number of hits with their multi hit weapons.
Backspacehacker wrote: All or nothing AP system created a ground where you had to bring specific weapons to deal with specific threat levels, it had its flaws but it was more robust then the rending system we have now.
Eh. All-or-nothing combined with a plurality of armies on tables being 3+ across-the-board meant that you didn't generally take a varied mix of weapons; you took the ones that were AP3 or better and the rest was only good if you could mass it. We still see this in Heresy. Mauler bolt cannons, yes please. Lightning guns, eh, might as well roll for that one shot I guess.
In a game with more varied armor saves I think I'd like it a lot more.
The AP modifier system allows for more graceful degradation of saves, but it also has odd behavior due to the math involved. A single point of AP on something like a Heavy Bolter is far more useful against Marines than against Guardsmen. The main problem with GW's current implementation is that giving out AP like candy devalues armor altogether, but a more restrained system (eg reducing all AP by 1) would have side effects like plasma guns no longer cutting through Marine armor as they should.
Something in between the two would probably work better, but that would mean a AP-vs-save table (boo, hiss), or at least a more elegant ground-up implementation like Dust Warfare's baked-in firepower system.
So I don't really see AP modifiers going anywhere, but scaling back a bit would be nice versus clunky solutions like Armour of Contempt.
The current AP system is fine, if GW made Ork choppas and Tau pulse rifles AP4 in 5th or introduced a Troops choice fully equipped with AP3 guns (AP2 turn 1) it'd have caused problems as well.
Backspacehacker wrote: ... Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates...
Why was AMOP in 8th and UP in 7th? Your hypothesis is not supported by historical evidence. The only thing that matters is pts-efficiency, that's the only reason why people don't just spam titans to fill up their entire deployment zone and why people take Intercessors instead of Centurions.
The current AP system is fine as a base rule, GW just did what GW always does and couldn't resist stat inflation. Which made the system fall down. And then of course they chose the laziest, worst possible solution with AoC, somehow managing to pile even more distortion on top of the existing distortion by devaluing low AP even further than they already had via the stat inflation.
vict0988 wrote: The current AP system is fine, if GW made Ork choppas and Tau pulse rifles AP4 in 5th or introduced a Troops choice fully equipped with AP3 guns (AP2 turn 1) it'd have caused problems as well.
Backspacehacker wrote: ... Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates...
Why was AMOP in 8th and UP in 7th? Your hypothesis is not supported by historical evidence. The only thing that matters is pts-efficiency, that's the only reason why people don't just spam titans to fill up their entire deployment zone and why people take Intercessors instead of Centurions.
Because in 8th you took them for CP spam and farm IE the loyal32 being the top tier list because it let you spam CP for knights. On top of that the game generally was less lethally in 8th so their tanks were not being vaporized across the board so that T8 russ was a much bigger threat.
7th it was underpowered because of the sheer about of lethality that existed in the game as well, the main cluprit there being psyker power, which, guess what the most popular power was? Invis, guess what invis did? Could only snap shot the target, guess what could not shap snot? blast weapons. Womp womp. IE guards main gimmick was negated.
vict0988 wrote: AM were good outside CP batteries in 8th and blaming 1 psychic power for AM being bad in 7th is silly since most lists were not deathstars.
Yeah and i said they were as well, dont ignore that part, i said every took them for CP farm, AND because the game was less lethal, so a T8 sv3 model was a lot more scary.
I dont know what game you were playing then, because almost EVERY list at the competitive level was running death stars, that would capitilize on psyker power stacking
Some of the best lists where Eldar spamming psyker powers that would gut the BS of things shooting at them while also being able to jink and cover save, Demon flying circse was a thing which again, flying, gutted the ability for AM to be able to hit them AND also took out their ability to hit them with templates as well.
7th they were underpowered BECUASE of psyker powers and because the entire meta was centered around untouchable death stars that guard suffered the most from because templates did not do anything to them.
It was not just one singular thing that prevented guard from being good in 7th, there is a long list, at the top of it was psyker powers crippling Guard before they could do anything.
Changing the level of lethality in the game means nothing, both glass cannons and tanky units have been competitive in 9th, no matter where on the sliding scale AM find themselves they'd be competitive with low enough pts costs and because their prices have not been low enough on most units in 9th they have been uncompetitive. The most competitive AM build in 9th involved Death Rider spam, I wonder what part of the core rules or meta made them so good and what changed to make it less viable?
Competitive 7th edition armies that were not deathstars: Necron Decurion, Tau Triptide, Flyrant spam, White Scars grav spam, Thousand Sons, Drukhari Talos spam and AdMech Warconvo.
I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.
Marin wrote: I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.
Marin wrote: I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.
It benefits all AM weapons...
Right, but a Battlecannon goes from doing 10 instances of d3 damage per 36 shots to MEQ out of cover, to only doing 8 instances of damage.
Marin wrote: I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.
It benefits all AM weapons...
Right, but a Battlecannon goes from doing 10 instances of d3 damage per 36 shots to MEQ out of cover, to only doing 8 instances of damage.
Net loss.
Oh for sure, but that wasn't the point. Marin seemed to misunderstand what hammer of the emperor does. Or is poorly wording "the weapons it greatest benefits are"
He is not wrong though, the weapons the benifit the most from this are massed high volume low STR weapons.
Las guns, multi las, punisher cannon, things like that. However it does not REALLY benefit them.
All the benefits that everyone is talking about here assumes that the game rolls perfectly average. Which we all know this is not the case, im sure every one of us has been through their share of games only rolling maybe a handful of 6s.
So even if you are rolling statistically average by some strage force of the universe, you have to hope those 6s appear in the to hit potion of your game, not else where.
The hammer of the emperor buff can best be explained by the old saying "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Yeah, the two in the bush are better, but you are assuming you are actually going to be able to grab two of them.
Yeah the hammer of the emperor is better, buts thats assuming you roll 6s when you need to.
Backspacehacker wrote: He is not wrong though, the weapons the benifit the most from this are massed high volume low STR weapons.
Las guns, multi las, punisher cannon, things like that. However it does not REALLY benefit them.
All the benefits that everyone is talking about here assumes that the game rolls perfectly average. Which we all know this is not the case, im sure every one of us has been through their share of games only rolling maybe a handful of 6s.
So even if you are rolling statistically average by some strage force of the universe, you have to hope those 6s appear in the to hit potion of your game, not else where.
The hammer of the emperor buff can best be explained by the old saying "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Yeah, the two in the bush are better, but you are assuming you are actually going to be able to grab two of them.
Yeah the hammer of the emperor is better, buts thats assuming you roll 6s when you need to.
AoC doesn't matter because I only roll 1s for saves /s..
Backspacehacker wrote: He is not wrong though, the weapons the benifit the most from this are massed high volume low STR weapons.
Las guns, multi las, punisher cannon, things like that. However it does not REALLY benefit them.
All the benefits that everyone is talking about here assumes that the game rolls perfectly average. Which we all know this is not the case, im sure every one of us has been through their share of games only rolling maybe a handful of 6s.
So even if you are rolling statistically average by some strage force of the universe, you have to hope those 6s appear in the to hit potion of your game, not else where.
The hammer of the emperor buff can best be explained by the old saying "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Yeah, the two in the bush are better, but you are assuming you are actually going to be able to grab two of them.
Yeah the hammer of the emperor is better, buts thats assuming you roll 6s when you need to.
AoC doesn't matter because I only roll 1s for saves /s..
I too know that feeling, roll ones for my 2+ saves, and roll 2s for my 3+ saves.
It being random doesnt mean it's not GOOD. Let's break down a few things here. Math wise, it nearly doubles the average damage of infantry squad lasguns against t4 and 5, nearly triples it against t6+, and Armor of Contempt and t5 orks have no effect on lasgun fire. FRFSRF can be AREA ordered now.
And while it's an unreliable benefit (mitigated by huge numbers of dice) that works both ways, getting lucky and rolling multiple 6s can be a big deal, anything that procs on 6s has the potential for getting "critical" rolls.
Multiple squads firing rapid fire 2, auto wound on 6s isn't bad at all, and it's put guardsmen in a place where they can be one of the better options for taking on Astartes or Orkz.
What? He is right. Lasguns are just as effective against Marines as ever (moreso with Hammer of the Emperor) and T4 Orks and T5 Orks make no difference.
This is why I went with the hammer in the poll, though it is random and not given like armor of contempt, because it works with everyone while the armor is protecting imperials only… though this assessment may be objectively wrong, that lasguns now can much more easily wound things that they imho should not makes the rule more absurd, so that motivated my response.
brainpsyk wrote: Another other choice would have been to reduce the AP and/or damage of almost every other weapon in the game by 1, but that in turn would require a complete points rebalance as well. Another option would have been to just adjust the points values of every PA unit in the game, but GW is really reluctant to change points values. (Case in point, a Guard Basilisk is only worth 40 points compared to any modern codex units, but remains at 115).
The Basilisk is 125 points currently. If it was 115 it’d actually be viable.
Remember if the Russes should be roughly valued at:
- Vanquisher: 110 points
- Eradicator / Exterminator: 115 points
- Executioner: 120 points
- Battle Tank: 125 points
- Demolisher / Punisher: 130 points
Then the Basilisk should be around the 115 mark as well. In terms of raw output, the Earthshaker is twice as good as the Vanquisher. It’s also slightly better than the Exterminator against Armour of Contempt units, but slightly worse than the Eradicator.
You just have to figure out how much to weigh their durability, the fact that the Basilisk can fire indirect, and that the Imperial Guard as a whole was spared from the indirect fire nerf. Though I would argue 115 is a good spot for it.
jeff white wrote: This is why I went with the hammer in the poll, though it is random and not given like armor of contempt, because it works with everyone while the armor is protecting imperials only…
They're both random. One has a 1/6 chance turn an attack into an autowound, the other has a 1/6 chance to save you from an AP weapon wound.
And they both also work with everyone. Armor is protecting Astartes and Sisters only, but Hammer is enhancing guard only too. I feel like you're attributing greater significance to one being a defensive buff and one being an offensive buff, they both still only come into play when a faction that uses them is on the table.
Think about it this way: hammer can hurt anyone, and contempt can protect you from (nearly) everyone, and they both have the potential to make a big difference or no difference at all. Contempt is actually closer to being the non-given here since it does nothing against AP0
brainpsyk wrote: Another other choice would have been to reduce the AP and/or damage of almost every other weapon in the game by 1, but that in turn would require a complete points rebalance as well. Another option would have been to just adjust the points values of every PA unit in the game, but GW is really reluctant to change points values. (Case in point, a Guard Basilisk is only worth 40 points compared to any modern codex units, but remains at 115).
The Basilisk is 125 points currently. If it was 115 it’d actually be viable.
Remember if the Russes should be roughly valued at:
- Vanquisher: 110 points
- Eradicator / Exterminator: 115 points
- Executioner: 120 points
- Battle Tank: 125 points
- Demolisher / Punisher: 130 points
Then the Basilisk should be around the 115 mark as well. In terms of raw output, the Earthshaker is twice as good as the Vanquisher. It’s also slightly better than the Exterminator against Armour of Contempt units, but slightly worse than the Eradicator.
You just have to figure out how much to weigh their durability, the fact that the Basilisk can fire indirect, and that the Imperial Guard as a whole was spared from the indirect fire nerf. Though I would argue 115 is a good spot for it.
I agree with you on the value of the LRBTs ( just about, I think we should still be ~20% cheaper because of the LRBT 5" movement to get those numbers), but compare the Basilisk to the Vanquisher against an Onager Dunecrawler (which I pick because it's a middle-of-the-road unit):
The Basilisk does 0.9W, Vanquisher does 2.2W. Then the Basilisk is T6/AV3, the LRBT is T8/AV2, which translates to about half the durability per point when the Onager shoots back.
And yet both of them just utterly fail in comparison to the Tau Broaside at 75 points.
Played against guard using hammer. Wow how the internet blows things out of proportion. He got three extra las gun wounds from it the whole game. It was more effective for the tanks etc however it really wasn’t worse than if he got a good roll. And he rolled hot a bunch of times. To bad hammer doesn’t do anything for ap and guards ap is still crap. And their damage is still crap. It might be punishing against low save armies (sorry Orks you draw the short straw again) but anything with decent saves it is a small power up at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit; his free weapons in all of the troop squads was a much bigger deal. Still did not save him though. Oh and I have elder so not super resilient
The Basilisk does 0.9W, Vanquisher does 2.2W. Then the Basilisk is T6/AV3, the LRBT is T8/AV2, which translates to about half the durability per point when the Onager shoots back.
How are you getting that? Basilisk should be getting around 4.5 shots, 2.25 hits, 1.5 wounds, 1 unsaved, for average of 2 damage against a Dunecrawler. As I said above the hardest thing to consider is the Basilisks ability to indirect fire. Which makes durability irrelevant if it's behind obscuring, and with the latest balance dataslate it's getting a 2+ save against enemy indirect fire weapons.
brainpsyk wrote: And yet both of them just utterly fail in comparison to the Tau Broadside at 75 points.
I think this is more telling of Imperial Guard simply needing a new codex than roughly what things should cost in points. Broadsides also just lost Core, which will reduce their damage output significantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xeen wrote: Played against guard using hammer. Wow how the internet blows things out of proportion. He got three extra las gun wounds from it the whole game. It was more effective for the tanks etc however it really wasn’t worse than if he got a good roll. And he rolled hot a bunch of times. To bad hammer doesn’t do anything for ap and guards ap is still crap. And their damage is still crap. It might be punishing against low save armies (sorry Orks you draw the short straw again) but anything with decent saves it is a small power up at best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit; his free weapons in all of the troop squads was a much bigger deal. Still did not save him though. Oh and I have elder so not super resilient
Completely agreed. It should be considered a reliability buff, not a damage one. It brings up the average. That's why people were more excited about Scions getting it. Cause with FRFSRF that's roughly 7 AP-2/AP-3 autowounds, which actually is pretty massive. That's basically 2-3 dead marines even after the armour of contempt buff. Though sadly, it's probably also why GW quickly changed the balance dataslate to remove that.
Leaning into the free wargear will be the way forward for Guard players competitively. There's already pure infantry players who were taking 18 infantry squads. That's the equivalent of 540 points of free upgrades, after taking the 5 point rise into account.
I've played a couple of games with Hammer of the Emperor. It is useful, to be sure, but I have not seen it be game breaking. While some folks are really angsty about Lasguns, I think it is theoretical angst. Where I have really appreciated HotE has actually been with heavy weapons.
I've been running Catachans, and perhaps next week I will field Cadians to really lean into Lasguns and try out the AP strat from Octarius.
Early days, but I concur with the findings that the "free" weapon upgrades to each Infantry Squad are more impactful than HotE.
Between hammer and armor, veterans now do the same damage to out of cover space marines as scions, with guardsmen only a bit behind. You guys are saying it would be better with AP weapons but thanks to AoC AP isn't quite as good as it used to be.
Lasguns' job is to pile on wounds until they slip through the saves.
Your one guy only got 3 more wounds in a game from it? In my test rolling I'm getting around 3 more wounds on target per squad firing 18 shots just about every time. And sometimes more. Against orks, necrons, anything with t4 or 5 it's a big difference. It makes heavy bolters and autocannons and both missile launcher profiles better than before.
DeadliestIdiot wrote: Played the first round of a guard (Emperor's blade assault company) vs craftworld (a silly list made to max out the number of farseers) last night (it's on TTS, so we plan on continuing throughout the week as we have time). My rolls were hilariously good, so HotE came up most times I shot (plus I was first turn). It also came in handy when firing overwatch with an empty chimera (2/9 shots from multilaser+heavy bolter+pintle mounted heavy stubber). Actually, HotE feels like it's made pintel mounts worth the points again (maybe they always were but I never realized it?). My opponent was having more average rolls with his dice, so a fair few of the wounds made it through his saves. I ended up losing an infantry squad that I dumped onto the center objective to concentrated shooting and lost a chimeria to eldritch storm while I almost wiped one guardian squad (thanks to a demolisher tank commander), took another to just over half power (manticore), and picked off a single ranger (center objective guard squad).
Will it make a difference in win/lose? No clue. Will it make a difference in my enjoyment...well rolling 6s is a lot more exciting, so absolutely. Will it decrease the enjoyment of my opponent? Doubtful (probably makes it more enjoyable because now he has to care about my infantry squads at least nominally, providing more meaningful interactions across the board)
An update:
We finally had the chance to finish our game. I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear that I lost. I conceded after the second turn as I was down to a single guard squad and had been pushed off all my objectives (and thus was waaay behind on primary points). My opponent and I both agreed that HotE was a really nice buff to guard that gave them some extra teeth across my army. For my heavy weapons team in each infantry squad, I ran a lascannon (which never fired), a mortar,and two missile launchers. As a side note, I feel like HotE has given frag rounds a nice buff without making them OP (although I didn't have any sort of rerolls or anything for them).
Overall, I feel like it's given guard a solid buff to offense, but the fragility of guard still makes it hard to hold the line (although I was up against a pretty hefty psychic phase, so that might have skewed my perception).
yukishiro1 wrote: AoC is going to be really bad for the game overall, even if it addresses an immediate problem. It's just such a lazy change. The problem was that high AP was becoming too common, but the fix mostly impacts AP 1, by making it literally worthless vs half the armies in the game. And the biggest impact is going to probably be on AP 2 shooting into terminators in cover, where they'll still get their 2+ save. Needing AP 3 to realistically hurt terminators in cover (or AP4 with indirect) is going to fundamentally change the game. It's not quite the screamer-star from 7th, but it is going to have similar impacts.
It also makes storm shields pretty worthless on terminators, which is dumb from a game design point of view AND dumb from a fluff point of view. And what possible sense does it make that normal space marine terminators have better armor than allarus custodians? This is what happens when you put this kind of band-aid into the game, it warps all sorts of things in dumb and unjustifiable ways.
It's just a really badly designed rule, and people are going to start realizing it once the initial euphoria wears off.
The solution to AP being dolled out too generously was to go back and retune AP values, not to just make AP1 worthless. But that would have taken work. This just takes 5 minutes. It's a classic GW band-aid solution that ends up making things worse in the long run in favor of an easy short-term solution.
Storm Shields are better against AP0, which is technically more useful against AoC if you can bring sufficient shots to counter not taking higher AP weapons.
People here are complaining about the increases in AP on weapons. If GW had simply cut an AP off all new weapons wouldn't we be in the same position ( aside from boosting all the other armies by proxy ) except no one would be complaining about it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The current AP system is fine as a base rule, GW just did what GW always does and couldn't resist stat inflation. Which made the system fall down. And then of course they chose the laziest, worst possible solution with AoC, somehow managing to pile even more distortion on top of the existing distortion by devaluing low AP even further than they already had via the stat inflation.
Like this. If they hadn't inflated the stats then what exactly is the difference beyond simply more words to deal with?
yukishiro1 wrote: AoC is going to be really bad for the game overall, even if it addresses an immediate problem. It's just such a lazy change. The problem was that high AP was becoming too common, but the fix mostly impacts AP 1, by making it literally worthless vs half the armies in the game. And the biggest impact is going to probably be on AP 2 shooting into terminators in cover, where they'll still get their 2+ save. Needing AP 3 to realistically hurt terminators in cover (or AP4 with indirect) is going to fundamentally change the game. It's not quite the screamer-star from 7th, but it is going to have similar impacts.
It also makes storm shields pretty worthless on terminators, which is dumb from a game design point of view AND dumb from a fluff point of view. And what possible sense does it make that normal space marine terminators have better armor than allarus custodians? This is what happens when you put this kind of band-aid into the game, it warps all sorts of things in dumb and unjustifiable ways.
It's just a really badly designed rule, and people are going to start realizing it once the initial euphoria wears off.
The solution to AP being dolled out too generously was to go back and retune AP values, not to just make AP1 worthless. But that would have taken work. This just takes 5 minutes. It's a classic GW band-aid solution that ends up making things worse in the long run in favor of an easy short-term solution.
Storm Shields are better against AP0, which is technically more useful against AoC if you can bring sufficient shots to counter not taking higher AP weapons.
People here are complaining about the increases in AP on weapons. If GW had simply cut an AP off all new weapons wouldn't we be in the same position ( aside from boosting all the other armies by proxy ) except no one would be complaining about it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The current AP system is fine as a base rule, GW just did what GW always does and couldn't resist stat inflation. Which made the system fall down. And then of course they chose the laziest, worst possible solution with AoC, somehow managing to pile even more distortion on top of the existing distortion by devaluing low AP even further than they already had via the stat inflation.
Like this. If they hadn't inflated the stats then what exactly is the difference beyond simply more words to deal with?
There's certainly something to be said about reducing rules bloat. If the changes are made on the weapons profile, then there's never a question of whether or not a rule applies to a model or not as the rule would never need to exist.
(I would also imagine reducing rules bloat would make for easier balancing, but I'm not game dev, so that's just a guess.)
There's certainly something to be said about reducing rules bloat. If the changes are made on the weapons profile, then there's never a question of whether or not a rule applies to a model or not as the rule would never need to exist.
(I would also imagine reducing rules bloat would make for easier balancing, but I'm not game dev, so that's just a guess.)
By reducing weapon AP you then "buff" all factions. Do Tau, Nids and Eldar need to be taking less AP? ( DE and Custodes don't really care ) While this is bloat it is still a targeted change that doesn't also up-end the rest of the game.
People here are complaining about the increases in AP on weapons. If GW had simply cut an AP off all new weapons wouldn't we be in the same position ( aside from boosting all the other armies by proxy ) except no one would be complaining about it?
They absolutely should have gone this route but instead of just blanket -1AP to everything, they should have done their jobs and analyzed what needs the AP and what didn't.
I always go back to this but here it is again.
In 4th a Boy was 6ppm and a Marine was 15ppm. To kill 1 Marine in CC on the charge the orkz needed 12 attacks. 12 attacks = 6 hits = 3 wounds = 1dmg. 12 attacks = 3 boyz. 18pts to kill 15 on the charge.
In 9th a boy is 9ppm and a Marine is 18ppm. To kill 1 Marine in CC on the charge the orkz need 12 attacks. 12 attacks 8 hits, 4 wounds, 2dmg. That assumes AP-1. 12 attacks = 4 boyz now, we lost +1 attack on the charge. So now to kill 1 Marine its 36pts to kill 18pts. The math went from 1.2ppd (Points per Damage) to 2ppd. Which is a decrease in combat effectiveness of about 40%. Strip that AP-1 from Choppas...like they already did with AoC and the math becomes 18 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds 2dmg and to get 18 attacks you need 6 boyz so its 54pts to kill 18pts of Marine and the math is now 3ppd which is a massive decrease in dmg output against Marines though it translates basically across the board to all Power armored factions thanks to AoC.
My general rule for ranged units is that for them to be even remotely ok they need to do at least 1/3rd their points cost in dmg a turn to their desired unit, that is the LOW end of the dmg output they should be doing, it can go higher depending on how glass cannon they are but as a general rule its 1/3rd. A CC unit on the other hand needs to do at a minimum 50%. That is because they have to get into CC to even inflict that dmg in the first place. And for some CC units its harder than others. So if a unit against its most common target is only averaging a 1/3rd return rate in CC its drastically under powered for its job.
Some weapons/units need AP to stay relevant or at least somewhat functional. Others it was just another added buff to make them even better than before. GW needs to stop being lazy with these "buffs" and re-design certain units/weapons/rules to make them significantly more balanced.
Picking and choosing weapons doesn't work, because if your goal is to make marines more durable then you win up pushing down other factions and then marines are themselves unfettered.
Choppas are still relevant in context of the opponent. Obviously there are still problems. The game is not fixed, but it feels better.
It will be interesting to see if GW rolls back some of the Ork and Admech nerfs with the next CA.
Marines just need to accept that they play the most popular faction, and their design is to be generalists, and just deal with the fact that they have the negatives that come with both.
There's certainly something to be said about reducing rules bloat. If the changes are made on the weapons profile, then there's never a question of whether or not a rule applies to a model or not as the rule would never need to exist.
(I would also imagine reducing rules bloat would make for easier balancing, but I'm not game dev, so that's just a guess.)
By reducing weapon AP you then "buff" all factions. Do Tau, Nids and Eldar need to be taking less AP? ( DE and Custodes don't really care ) While this is bloat it is still a targeted change that doesn't also up-end the rest of the game.
Oh, for sure. This wouldn't be a one step fix. And isn't the issue woth Tau, Nids, amd Eldar that they're too killy not that they're too tanky? Again, not a game dev or anything, but I feel like making things easier to kill is not the best way to balance something that has a really strong offense (at least not in a turn based game like 40k). My thought would be to increase survivability across the board then start taking the nerf bat to stat lines, abilities, and specific rules while trying to minimize the number of new rules when possible.
Picking and choosing weapons doesn't work, because if your goal is to make marines more durable then you win up pushing down other factions and then marines are themselves unfettered.
Choppas are still relevant in context of the opponent. Obviously there are still problems. The game is not fixed, but it feels better.
It will be interesting to see if GW rolls back some of the Ork and Admech nerfs with the next CA.
Picking and choosing weapons absolutely works.
As far as Choppas being relevant...yes, but they lost their entire 9th edition buff against about 50% of the meta, and it is only going to get worse as AoC really kicks off and more people go back to playing Power armor. Last big major was the Bristol GT which had 191 players. Ready for this? Armor of Contempt armies and armies that don't give a damn about -1AP (Harlequins/Daemons) 81 armies. 81 out of 191. And that didn't include custards who have -1AP on a lot of their stuff.
ok, so last week i played a tsons vs guard game at 1500points. the full report is in the tsons tactics thread if anyone wants to read it.
anyway, based on my experince in that game, the AoC is MUCH more powerful than HotE. Hammer did generate a steady slew of auto-wounds, but they paled in contrast the massive increase in survivability my rubrics and scarabs got from the Armour. During the game, my scarabs were never saving at worse than 4+, dispite the concentated efforts of multiple tanks, and absorbed about 6 to 8 tank-rounds of fire before finally dying. my 10 man rubric unit, sat in cover and with a 4++ buff, was literally untouched in the centre and was able to keep him off the objectives and win me the game.
its not unbeatable, and his list wasnt built to optimise hammer wounding, but still, very fun and intresting game.
Gonna clarify that even though I think Hammer is good, I think Contempt is better because it protects marines against the weapons that used to be the hardest counters against them. My biggest complaint about marines used to be their durability/point was bad when faced with their counters, and not very impressive against weapons that aren't.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Marines just need to accept that they play the most popular faction, and their design is to be generalists, and just deal with the fact that they have the negatives that come with both.
Marines players aren't going to be able to handle that. Or, more accurately, GW doesn't want them to have to handle that, as they're worried it will negatively affect the privileged players.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Marines just need to accept that they play the most popular faction, and their design is to be generalists, and just deal with the fact that they have the negatives that come with both.
For that to be true, they would have to have generalists rules and generalists army builds. But that is not the case. Both historically and in 9th, a marine army that does everything is going to do very bad. Plus melee marines can do okeyish with at least some units. Engaging in firefights is something marines are really bad at in 9th.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Marines just need to accept that they play the most popular faction, and their design is to be generalists, and just deal with the fact that they have the negatives that come with both.
I don't see how popularity should shape a faction's design at all. Should Orks suddenly become generalists if they explode in popularity? Should Tau suddenly get Pyskers and good melee if they reach a certain threshold of fans? Space marines are probably popular partly due to being generalists, but they certainly don't have to be generalist because they are popular. An idea like that would mean any faction that becomes popular should abandon in design ethos in favor of being more general. Do you see how silly that is?
Space Marine player should probably accept they are the faction more players are going to list tailor against their faction...including other space marine players* Which is fine when you have a popular faction like space marines. Especially when MEQ isn't what it used to be. In early 9th, my two most common opponents were Death Guard and Thousand Sons. Both marines, but had durability done in different ways partly counter to each other. Even now, I can build a space marine army with nary of T:4 unit if I wanted to.
I'm personally a big fan of 40k moving away from, 'take ______ weapon(s), it's good at killing everything'. I am really enjoying the increasing rarity of those highly efficient attacks in favor of less efficient gear making due as fewer factions exist to allow for perfect counters. It takes the game out of list building and onto the table.
*Of course, one's actual meta shapes this more, as gaming groups are homogenized microcosms of faction popularity percents. And top player should probably focus of upper tier factions that merely countering space marines.
I mean orks are a sort of generalist faction, historically they’ve been able to do melee, shooting, or a bit of both. I’m including popularity as a factor of “if 50 percent of the players bring high armor, elite models, im going to bring things to counter them.”
You’re entirely misinterpreting my argument here.
I don't see how popularity should shape a faction's design at all. Should Orks suddenly become generalists if they explode in popularity? Should Tau suddenly get Pyskers and good melee if they reach a certain threshold of fans? Space marines are probably popular partly due to being generalists, but they certainly don't have to be generalist because they are popular. An idea like that would mean any faction that becomes popular should abandon in design ethos in favor of being more general. Do you see how silly that is?
Space Marine player should probably accept they are the faction more players are going to list tailor against their faction...including other space marine players* Which is fine when you have a popular faction like space marines. Especially when MEQ isn't what it used to be. In early 9th, my two most common opponents were Death Guard and Thousand Sons. Both marines, but had durability done in different ways partly counter to each other. Even now, I can build a space marine army with nary of T:5 unit if I wanted to.
I'm personally a big fan of 40k moving away from, 'take ______ weapon(s), it's good at killing everything'. I am really enjoying the increasing rarity of those highly efficient attacks in favor of less efficient gear making due as fewer factions exist to allow for perfect counters. It takes the game out of list building and onto the table.
*Of course, one's actual meta shapes this more, as gaming groups are homogenized microcosms of faction popularity percents. And top player should probably focus of upper tier factions that merely countering space marines.
Marines are/were a generalist faction. They do have specialized builds though, Blood Angels for assault, White Scars for biker/speed lists, DA for traitor lists etc. But they don't suffer because they are generalists, they suffer because they are POPULAR. And yes, if Orkz suddenly became the most popular faction in the game they would suffer as well because everyone would build their lists to combat the most likely defensive profiles and builds IE orkz. With Marines its never going to happen where they aren't the most popular faction though because you now have over a dozen independent armies that are basically the same faction. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Iron Hands, Salamanders, Grey Knights etc etc etc. Even the chaos Marines share the same profile for all intents and purposes so it just makes sense to build an army that can target that more than any other build, at least from a generalist standpoint. When the tournament meta was like 60% Ad Mech/Drukhari people were list building against those 2 armies as well
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I mean orks are a sort of generalist faction, historically they’ve been able to do melee, shooting, or a bit of both. I’m including popularity as a factor of “if 50 percent of the players bring high armor, elite models, im going to bring things to counter them.”
You’re entirely misinterpreting my argument here.
Which I wouldn't think is a contentious idea worth saying, but I apologize regardless. I do think an army tailored toward fighting marines and a marine army may knock each other out, opening up the field or other players to win the majority of the time. Which I think quite possibly makes up the bulk of more wins than losses in a tournament player. Classic gatekeeping army type stuff. I have just accepted that as the way things are.
Even when marines are kinda bad, I figure the natural inclination is for an opponent to build their army to combat marines outside an obvious faction. I kinda like it. It means I am likely not to win through a kind of mismatched skew, and more so; I'll have to overcome an army somewhat purpose built to take mine down. That's a good win if I can get it.
I don't even know if it is really all that necessary. I might be in an anomalous area, but I found the majority of Codex: Space Marine players to either fairly new, fairly seasoned (read: long time player) or fair weather (they break out their marine collection when SM rules are good). New players generally don't require list tailoring to beat (even with coaching), seasoned players know most opponents build their army lists with MEQ in mind and adjust or just play for the love of the game, and fair weather players mean most other faction players aren't showing up to game night or are ravenous for a non-marine opponent. But that may hardly be universal.
Results are in from post-dataslate tournaments. Imperial Guard are sitting at 26%, the "buffs" barely changed anything.
This is what I believe Impy Guard really need to bring us to at least a 40% winrate:
1) Improve Army Wide Abilities:
- Allow custom regiments to take 3 doctrines. - Allow named regiments to take 1 custom doctrine in addition to their own.
- Allow Commissars to gain the Militarum Tempestus keyword, and as a result the <Tempestus Regiment> keyword, if taken in a Militarum Tempestus detachment.
This would add another layer of customisation in list building. For example Catachan's could take Slum Fighters for exploding 6's in melee to make them better in close combat. Vahallan's could take Gunnery Experts which could stack nicely with their better damage brackets on vehicles.
While Commissars are a thematic bonus. In lore they train in the same schools as Scions, as well as belong to the same organisation the Ordo Tempestus.
2) Give Militarum Tempestus the Hammer of the Emperor ability without breaking it for regular Guard.
This also opens up more list building options. Now you can have pure Guard, pure Scions, or a mixture of the two.
3) Massive point costs reduction, for example:
- Vanquisher: 110 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 115 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Executioner: 120 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Battle Tank: 125 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Demolisher and Punisher: 130 points (with hull heavy bolter)
These costs are heavily compared to the Dunecrawler. Which is strikingly similar statistically to the Leman Russ in both durability and firepower. Then just internally balance the other codex vehicles around these costs.
This is only for fixing the current codex. Not wishlisting the next codex.
Jarms48 wrote: Results are in from post-dataslate tournaments. Imperial Guard are sitting at 26%, the "buffs" barely changed anything.
This is what I believe Impy Guard really need to bring us to at least a 40% winrate:
1) Improve Army Wide Abilities:
- Allow custom regiments to take 3 doctrines. - Allow named regiments to take 1 custom doctrine in addition to their own.
- Allow Commissars to gain the Militarum Tempestus keyword, and as a result the <Tempestus Regiment> keyword, if taken in a Militarum Tempestus detachment.
This would add another layer of customisation in list building. For example Catachan's could take Slum Fighters for exploding 6's in melee to make them better in close combat. Vahallan's could take Gunnery Experts which could stack nicely with their better damage brackets on vehicles.
While Commissars are a thematic bonus. In lore they train in the same schools as Scions, as well as belong to the same organisation the Ordo Tempestus.
2) Give Militarum Tempestus the Hammer of the Emperor ability without breaking it for regular Guard.
This also opens up more list building options. Now you can have pure Guard, pure Scions, or a mixture of the two.
3) Massive point costs reduction, for example:
- Vanquisher: 110 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Eradicator and Exterminator: 115 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Executioner: 120 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Battle Tank: 125 points (with hull heavy bolter)
- Demolisher and Punisher: 130 points (with hull heavy bolter)
These costs are heavily compared to the Dunecrawler. Which is strikingly similar statistically to the Leman Russ in both durability and firepower. Then just internally balance the other codex vehicles around these costs.
This is only for fixing the current codex. Not wishlisting the next codex.
Kanluwen wrote: Commissars belong to the Officio Prefectus, which is their own schtick.
Tempestus could use an Elite level bit.
The Ordo Tempestus is what the Commissar belong to, the Officio Perfectus is what oversees the Commissars. The Officio Perfectus is now the answer to the question "who watches the watchmen?" Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
Spoiler:
The Militarum Tempestus, also known as the Ordo Tempestus, is amongst the most rigidly codified of all Imperial organisations, for its troops form the elite backbone of the Astra Militarum, serving as its special operations units.
Though the Ordo Tempestus is technically a sub-faction governed by the Adeptus Administratum, it enjoys a far greater amount of autonomy than the Imperial Guard regiments that often fight alongside it.
The Ordo Tempestus' ranks are primarily comprised of Commissars and the special forces troops known as Tempestus Scions or "Storm Troopers" in Low Gothic, though they have often included specialist factions mysteriously absent from Imperial records.
In every theatre of war across the galaxy, the Ordo's men work alongside the incalculable might of the Astra Militarum, their elite training complementing the sheer manpower of the Imperial Guard.
If the Ordo provides the rigid skeleton of discipline that holds the Astra Militarum together, it is the Commissars who are the minds of the operation. The Officio Prefectus governs and controls the regiments of Tempestus Scions and Imperial Guardsmen alike, ensuring that their military force is put to the right use in the Emperor's name.
All Commissars are trusted to improvise new orders on the battlefield, a rare privilege in the rigidly-controlled structure of the Imperial war machine. But it is only the most senior of their number, known as Lord Commissars, who are truly independent.
They are warriors of great personal charisma, and they will often inspire the men by leading from the front rather than from behind the barrel of a Bolt Pistol.
Spoiler:
Commissars are special Imperial officers assigned to Imperial Guard regiments and Imperial Navy ships, whose purpose is to enforce discipline and devotion to the Emperor of Mankind. Independent of the conventional Imperial Guard Hierarchy, Commissars are instead attached to the Departmento Munitorum's Commissariat and are formally part of the Militarum Tempestus.
Being "formally attached to" is not the same as being "a part of".
Also, you left off the entire other set of paragraphs that talks about how the Scions are a training ground for the Schola Progenium that decides whether you go to Commissar school.
Kanluwen wrote: Being "formally attached to" is not the same as being "a part of".
Also, you left off the entire other set of paragraphs that talks about how the Scions are a training ground for the Schola Progenium that decides whether you go to Commissar school.
In the Cain novels at least, the storm troopers (now militarum tempestus as I understand it) are those trained to be inquisitorial troopers,but who didn't make the incredibly high cut. If memory serves, this comes from one of Amberly's footnotes in response to Cain wondering why the munitorium (or whoever) bothers training them as they're not really worth it as you can't combine understrength squads effectively (I believe this was from the Simia Orichalcae story). Not sure how well that meshes with other fluff (but given that it got the black library stamp, I assume there's at least some level of fluff consistency checking...but that is an absolute guess on my part). I missed everything between 5th and 9th, so maybe there's a subtle distinction that I'm missing regarding the militarum tempestus.
Kanluwen wrote: Being "formally attached to" is not the same as being "a part of".
Also, you left off the entire other set of paragraphs that talks about how the Scions are a training ground for the Schola Progenium that decides whether you go to Commissar school.
Scions are trained at the same school as Commissars and Adepta Sororitas.
Spoiler:
Graduates of the Schola are known as Progena, and because of the loyalty their training has instilled in them, they are frequently sent for further training and service within other Imperial organisations. Progena are often earmarked for roles that call for the most rigorous dedication to the Imperium, these roles can include, Tempestus Scions, Commissars of the Imperial Guard, officers of the Imperial Navy, Imperial Assassins and even budding Inquisitors. Female Progena often join one of the Orders of the Adepta Sororitas while males often join the ranks of the Tempestus Scions.
GW changed the lore when they released the stand-alone Militarum Tempestus codex back in 6th edition. You could maybe argue that Officio Perfectus and Ordo Tempestus Commissars are different. That the Commissariat deals with the Guard and Navy, while Ordo Tempestus Commissars deal with the Militarum Tempestus.
Kanluwen wrote: Being "formally attached to" is not the same as being "a part of".
Also, you left off the entire other set of paragraphs that talks about how the Scions are a training ground for the Schola Progenium that decides whether you go to Commissar school.
Scions are trained at the same school as Commissars and Adepta Sororitas.
Negative.
Scions are trained at the Schola Tempestus, Commissars are trained by the Schola Prefectus.
Spoiler:
Graduates of the Schola are known as Progena, and because of the loyalty their training has instilled in them, they are frequently sent for further training and service within other Imperial organisations. Progena are often earmarked for roles that call for the most rigorous dedication to the Imperium, these roles can include, Tempestus Scions, Commissars of the Imperial Guard, officers of the Imperial Navy, Imperial Assassins and even budding Inquisitors. Female Progena often join one of the Orders of the Adepta Sororitas while males often join the ranks of the Tempestus Scions.
GW changed the lore when they released the stand-alone Militarum Tempestus codex back in 6th edition. You could maybe argue that Officio Perfectus and Ordo Tempestus Commissars are different. That the Commissariat deals with the Guard and Navy, while Ordo Tempestus Commissars deal with the Militarum Tempestus.
They didn't change the lore all that much, because literally before then nobody really talked about how a lot of this worked beyond Black Library novels.
Also, it's not "female progena" anymore. It's much, much more specific.
Female cadets who show both physical aptitude and a burning faith in the Emperor will be sent to the Adepta Sororitas via one of the bodies that govern their ancient orders--the Convent Sanctorum or the Convent Prioris.
Males who evidence the same are taken by the Adeptus Ministorum.
I voted for Armor of Contempt as being the stronger of the two buffs. AoC works in both the Shooting and Melee phases. Hammer of the Emperor only works when shooting.
