Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay - Mkoll again speaks to Dakka:
Just a final note on the Plasma issue that seems to have some Dakka members up in arms.

Plasma is rare. It really is. Ryza is the leading Plasma Weapon producing Forgeworld. There are others but it is still a small amount. Flamers and Grenade Launchers are easy to create and most worlds can create their own. Meltaguns are again more rare but they use a fission microwave effect that is for some reason fluffwise easier to make and maintain.

I agree that uping the point of a rare weapon is not the way to do it, because then it appears more point costly not rare. However the only other way to do this is to remove Plasma Guns from a number of entries in the codex. This in turn would make you whine more probably because you cannot field your plasma at all. As such GW has to find a way to let you field you plasma and still make it more likely to be less numerous then other special weapons. That is their point system. You may hate it and curse it but get over it really, because this way you can still have your weapons.

That is all I am going to say on the subject. I enjoy trying my best to aid members from your forum but I am not going to argue with them over logistics of Plasma weapons. I hope you can get over one thing like this and just enjoy a new codex for our favourite army.

He does have a point there about what players would do if GW did actually limit plasma in other ways to truly fit the rarity of its fluff. I mean, really, just how pissed would folks be if only Storm Troopers or Vets could have them? There'd be quite a few, IMHO. Granted, there are others for which these are the only squads that they use plasma in and so don't see that as a viable argument. But it's a good point.

That would be kind of slowed for Guardsment units to be a base cost of 40 points per 10 guys.


Im ean seriously that is way to low of a point cost.


For I mean 1000 points you could have 200 something guardsmen and still have like a good portion of points to buy tanks.


I mean that is really really low point cost.

When you compare them to what else is out there, it really isn't.

Ozymandias wrote:So today that's two threads now where HBMC and DD are agreeing and saying the same points...

I think it's time I stocked up on bottled water and canned foods...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Consider your self siged

Death By Monkeys wrote:1) The weapon costs are roughly balanced. Grenade Launchers and Flamers are both 5 Points while the Melta is 10 and sadly yes the Plasma is 15(Fluffwise Guard regiments often lack these weapons) The Heavy Weapons weigh in at Heavy Bolter and Stubber at 5, Mortar and Autocannon and Missile Launcher at 10 and Lascannon at 15.

15 point plasma is a ridiculously stupid idea. Utterly indefensible. Units and upgrades should be priced based on their in game effectiveness instead of based on their fluff. A plasma gun isn't worth 15 points on a BS 3 model with a 5+ save. Especially since 5th Ed. involves your opponents getting a lot of 4+ cover saves.

Dropping 5 plasma guns down to Grenade Launchers frees up enough points for a full HB / GL squad. There's no reason to take plasma, they'll just be too expensive.




...Other than that, these rumors mean that instead of an extra 200+ points in 1.850 games, I'm looking at an extra 250+ points. Crazy stuff. Honestly, it seems a bit overpowered.

Last time Heavy Stubbers were available to Guard infantry (via the PDF Militia at the back of Codex Armageddon), they replaced a special weapon rather than taking a heavy weapon slot. Makes sense since they are single man portable. I used to run gangs with Heavy Bolter/Heavy Stubber.

I just know that what ever happens my wallet will stay empty this year.

Hollismason wrote:That would be kind of slowed for Guardsment units to be a base cost of 40 points per 10 guys.


Im ean seriously that is way to low of a point cost.


For I mean 1000 points you could have 200 something guardsmen and still have like a good portion of points to buy tanks.


I mean that is really really low point cost.

but exactly how effective would these 200 butt naked guardsmen be? Statistically thats only enough lasgun to kill 11.1 (ish) marines a turn. In no way will you be focusing all that firepower in one place either. A guardsman on its own is cheap because it's a bit crap.

Am I work thinking that the new codex seems extremely unfair?

In 5e killing vehicles is quite difficult and now every non-IG army is going to have to retool their lists to take on THAT much armor at least in a tournament setting. All these rules on the 15+ vehicles that are coming out makes me REALLY not look forward to the codex. Am I wrong by thinking this or do other people understand where I am coming from?

The Grundel wrote:Waaaah!

I'm just kidding ya!

It could be their competitive edge. Orks get the numbers and sheer CC deadliness, Nids get the big guys, IG get lots of guys and lots of Tanks.

It's the rock-paper-scissors competitive matrix.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The Grundel wrote:Am I work thinking that the new codex seems extremely unfair?

In 5e killing vehicles is quite difficult and now every non-IG army is going to have to retool their lists to take on THAT much armor at least in a tournament setting. All these rules on the 15+ vehicles that are coming out makes me REALLY not look forward to the codex. Am I wrong by thinking this or do other people understand where I am coming from?

Well, let's be accurate: Killing vehicles with long range shooting is extremely difficult. Killing through close combat is easier than ever, thanks to always fighting versus rear armor. Plus, free Krak grenades for many models, and defensive grenades are now Str. 4.

I agree with your larger worry that everything getting cheaper may be a bit much, but keep in mind that a lot of recent codecies have significantly reduced the cost of a lot of stuff (transports, Ork Boys, etc.) I think 5th Ed. contains an across-the-board point reduction, albeit not as obvious a reduction as the 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed. crossover. This is cold comfort for armies that won't be receiving a codex update for a while, but their day in the sun will arrive....

Plus, most people suspect that Guard are going to lose some of their most effective options (drop troops, close order drill, etc.) So it's not as cut as dried as saying "everything is better now!"

Ozymandias wrote:It's the rock-paper-scissors competitive matrix.

But Rock's broken!! You said so already.

Actually I don't see the big deal with cheaper Guardsmen. Once upon I time I thought the idea of a 200+ model Guard horde would be impossible to defeat, but then the 6 point Ork came along, and suddenly it didn't matter any more.

People are getting used to Ork hordes that advance with cover saves... this is just the same thing except their damage is caused from afar rather than in HTH, they're not Fearless, and they have no Biker Nobz or Lootas.

BYE

LOL @ Ozymandias

Dave, that is very true about the vehicles in close combat. That is the one thing that kept me from feeling well.... "waaaah" about the codex haha. I noticed that a good deal of the tanks need to be within 24" to be effective thus hopefully giving units that weren't destroyed by them room to get into CC to blow stuff up. And now that CSM and SM get krak grenades that should help even more.

I've played 3-4 guard armies and look forward to the new codex to build a nurgle IG army from but I can't help but feel like some of these new rules are going to really push some buttons. I understand the concept of having a TON of crappy toughness units with awesome armor to support, and I know that its that quality that makes the IG unique but some of these rules you guys.... they just don't seem right. I wouldn't blink if they made guardsmen 3-4 points but these tanks sound like someone got a little too excited over at GW...

The Grundel wrote:LOL @ Ozymandias

Dave, that is very true about the vehicles in close combat. That is the one thing that kept me from feeling well.... "waaaah" about the codex haha. I noticed that a good deal of the tanks need to be within 24" to be effective thus hopefully giving units that weren't destroyed by them room to get into CC to blow stuff up. And now that CSM and SM get krak grenades that should help even more.

I've played 3-4 guard armies and look forward to the new codex to build a nurgle IG army from but I can't help but feel like some of these new rules are going to really push some buttons. I understand the concept of having a TON of crappy toughness units with awesome armor to support, and I know that its that quality that makes the IG unique but some of these rules you guys.... they just don't seem right. I wouldn't blink if they made guardsmen 3-4 points but these tanks sound like someone got a little too excited over at GW...

It's pointless to get upset before you see the point values and how the codex is built.



The 15 point plasmagun is a blow, but not a major one imho. Las/Plas will run you 70 points now, that's **25** points cheaper!

I would assume the HS will be TL, which is cool, it would make them excellent at taking out infantry. I am also really excited about taking 2 special weapons in an infantry squad

Tanks are strong against shooting, but die extremely quick to melee. Of course that is where all of the meat shields come in

BoxANT wrote:I would assume the HS will be TL, which is cool, it would make them excellent at taking out infantry.

Not really. Even with the twin-linking, you're probably better off taking a Heavy Bolter instead of a TL Heavy Stubber. The extra point of strength, and the AP 4 instead of AP 6 makes a big difference. The TL Heavy Stubber is better versus Marines Orks and Necrons. The Heavy Bolter is better against Tau, Tyraninds, IG, and both flavors of Eldar. (And also specialty units like SM Scouts, Daemons, etc.) The weapons are equally good against T5 units like Plague Marines, Immortals, and Nob Bikes.

Plus, in a pinch, the Heavy Bolter can do something to light vehicles, so it's not worthless if you don't have LOS to infantry.

While 15 pt plasma makes me a sad panda I can see why they did it.

If the point costs were flamer 5 GLauncher 5 melta 10 plasma 10, well I would be picking plasma all the way. The utility of the gun just makes it such a great option. However 5 vs 15, well I have to think a little harder about my army build

Why would we pick plasma 'all the time' if it was the same cost as Melta? It's the same cost now and we still have units with plasmas and units with Meltas. They're two weapons with completely different roles, and neither can fill in for the other. Besides, 5th Ed isn't the era of the AP2 gun any more. Flamers and Heavy Bolters are where its at, and there's no better anti-tank weapon than a trusty Melta.

The reason no one takes Grenade Launchers now is because fo 2 points more you get a Plasma. If the difference between the two is 5 points, well that adds up. But the difference between a Melta and Plasma isn't 5 points because there is no difference between them. They're not designed to be compared to one another.

No, weapons should be priced based on their worth, or their worth should be based on what they cost. Pricing four weapons that have utterly different roles on a comparative basis makes no sense.

You don't a Lascannon more expensive than a Heavy Bolter because it's 'better' than a Heavy Bolter, do you? You make it more expensive than a Missile Launcher though, because it's better at killing tanks than the Krak Missile is.

BYE

I still have my fingers crossed for rear armor of 11 or 12 on the Russies. I can't even count the auto penetrating melee attacks that have killed 1/2 my army in turn 2 or 3. Maybe our new psyker can have a ld battle to stop the waagh...

Any word on the composition and options for the Special Weapon Squad? Will they still have the option to take 3 special weapons, including a demo charge?

I can't imagine it'll be much different except maybe they might bring the special weapon prices down. Never made sense for them to pay more for weapons when BS4 H-Vets didn't.

Good news is rumours seem to indicate a Chimera as a transport option for them, something they could only get in a Mechanised Doctrine army before.

BYE

The only reason Plasma is "rare" is that the Impeium doesn't arm every Guardsman with one as their standard weapon.

IMHO Plasma is overrepresented in Guard anyways. If its so rare that SM's the elite of the imperium, the guys who get all the good stuff cause they don't suck out loud can only get one per ten men? I don't think a guard army should have any at all. Period. But that would royally piss off too many players. So GW doesn't do it.

Wait...why shouldn't they have plasma? Guard are closer tied to various worlds than any Space Marine chapter is generally speaking. Plus being that they work closer w/ the adeptis mechanis more than space marines they shoudl be more inclined to get said weapons....being close to where refineries and other such goodes are. Why is Plasma so rare? it is used to fill up ships engines and other such things NOT just guns.

Kungfuhustler wrote:I still have my fingers crossed for rear armor of 11 or 12 on the Russies.

I don't see this happening. I think GW has pretty well settled on 14/12/10 for long-range Russes and 14/13/11 for Demolishers.
____

Ratbarf wrote:

The only reason Plasma is "rare" is that the Impeium doesn't arm every Guardsman with one as their standard weapon.

IMHO Plasma is overrepresented in Guard anyways. If its so rare that SM's the elite of the imperium, the guys who get all the good stuff cause they don't suck out loud can only get one per ten men?

SM get 1 Plasma per 5 Men - they can take 5-man squads as Troops. This is basically the same ratio as Guard, at 20%.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
SM get 1 Plasma per 5 Men - they can take 5-man squads as Troops. This is basically the same ratio as Guard, at 20%.

Said 5-man squads cannot take Plasmaguns (but curiously can take the rarer combi-plasma).

(Assuming we're talking about vanilla)

Ratbarf wrote:

The only reason Plasma is "rare" is that the Impeium doesn't arm every Guardsman with one as their standard weapon.

IMHO Plasma is overrepresented in Guard anyways. If its so rare that SM's the elite of the imperium, the guys who get all the good stuff cause they don't suck out loud can only get one per ten men? I don't think a guard army should have any at all. Period. But that would royally piss off too many players. So GW doesn't do it.

Umm.... This same argument can be used on every heavy and special weapon.

"If Space Marines, the guys with all the good stuff, can only get one Heavy Bolter per squad, then Imperial Guard should only get one Heavy Bolter per army!"

...Or we can realize that the fluff and rules rarely match up, and stop acting like this particular instance of that trend is so much more offensive than all the other times.

Dave47 wrote:

BoxANT wrote:I would assume the HS will be TL, which is cool, it would make them excellent at taking out infantry.

Not really. Even with the twin-linking, you're probably better off taking a Heavy Bolter instead of a TL Heavy Stubber. The extra point of strength, and the AP 4 instead of AP 6 makes a big difference. The TL Heavy Stubber is better versus Marines Orks and Necrons. The Heavy Bolter is better against Tau, Tyraninds, IG, and both flavors of Eldar. (And also specialty units like SM Scouts, Daemons, etc.) The weapons are equally good against T5 units like Plague Marines, Immortals, and Nob Bikes.

Plus, in a pinch, the Heavy Bolter can do something to light vehicles, so it's not worthless if you don't have LOS to infantry.

Against MEQ
HS TL: 3/4 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 3/1 = 9/24 = 0.375
HB: 1/2 * 2/3 * 1/3 * 3/1 = 6/18 = 0.333

Against OEQ
HS TL: 3/4 * 1/2 * 3/1 = 9/8 1.125
HB: 1/2 * 2/3 * 3/1 = 6/6 = 1.0

You would be slightly better off with a HB against 5+ saves and 4+ saves, if they are in cover the HS TL has the advantage. My point is that for Guard players like me, who really wish they could have a bolter free IG army, TL HS sound great

My major beef with this codex is shaping up to be that it apparently focuses on armor, and yet there are no vehicles released this year, the "next wave" is coming out in 2010 or what have you. The Valkyrie will be fun, but it will also be overcosted, easy to destroy and expensive to buy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You mean there isn't a Captain Thor Norse special character (due Q3 2028, Wave 11.2) who allows you to take a 'Flight of the Valkyries' army where Guard squads can take Valks as standard?

You know, even "In Soviet Russia" jokes are more fresh than you repeating that inane quip time and again. Yes, we bloody get it. I might even agree with you sometimes if you weren't an donkey-cave. Still not funny.

Love you too Aggy.

Your problem, of course, is that you take me too seriously. I'm not a donkey... cave... (took me a moment to figure out what the board software was censoring there) at all. Just blunt. And opinionated. And grumpy (in an intentionally verbose and over-the-top fashion). But (most) of what I do is done in a good spirit.

When I'm actually being a cave which donkey's presumably dwell in, it's usually quite clear.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Your problem, of course, is that you take me too seriously. I'm not a donkey... cave... (took me a moment to figure out what the board software was censoring there) at all. Just blunt. And opinionated. And grumpy (in an intentionally verbose and over-the-top fashion). But (most) of what I do is done in a good spirit.

Anything worth taking is worth taking seriously. I play 40k (incredibly badly), and I take it completely seriously. Anything else is just taking the mickey.

Besides, the problem is, that repeating an inane joke seriously and repeating an inane joke in a good-spirited, jolly-old-boy fashion results in the same amount of inane chatter. Your motivations don't make your actions any less annoying.

You seem to care a lot more than the others. I find that odd. Why do I concern you so much? I really shouldn't. This is the internet after all.

BYE