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.

 Dr. Mills wrote:


Granted, it will eventually have 3 Armageddon pattern Medusa artillery, but they look cool tho!

Same reason why i keep looking at the Armageddon Basilisks over the standard ones....

Kdash wrote:
Same reason why i keep looking at the Armageddon Basilisks over the standard ones....

They look cool, although if I got some basilisks I think I would have fun modelling the crew loading it or braced for firing. I only have 2 manticores and 2 fw hydras now though.

One thing about all of this "op-ness" that is getting thrown around, I am having an easier time fitting the less good units like hydras and vanquishers into my lists.

 Trickstick wrote:

Kdash wrote:
Same reason why i keep looking at the Armageddon Basilisks over the standard ones....

They look cool, although if I got some basilisks I think I would have fun modelling the crew loading it or braced for firing. I only have 2 manticores and 2 fw hydras now though.

One thing about all of this "op-ness" that is getting thrown around, I am having an easier time fitting the less good units like hydras and vanquishers into my lists.

To be fair, i'm all but set on the idea of running 2 FW vanquishers as part of my list as standard now. Couple of things need clarification, but if all goes the way i think it'd be 2 of them outflanking in a Tallaran spearhead.

I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good, especially when massed.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.

Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.

Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."

I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.

Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

These aren't mutually exclusive statements.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

These aren't mutually exclusive statements.

I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...

E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

These aren't mutually exclusive statements.

I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...

E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

And people are talking about you bringing less baneblades that happen to be more expensive.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

These aren't mutually exclusive statements.

I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...

E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.

And people are talking about you bringing less baneblades that happen to be more expensive.

There's a few problems with bringing fewer tanks:

1) It's unfluffy. If a Baneblade company is being fielded, it is 3-5 tanks strong, unless the entire regiment (22 vehicles in my case) has been wiped out down to 2 (or 1), which is not something I want to have in my fluff for obvious reasons. You can read the Baneblade series of novels for details, but the commanders will always form scratch companies of 3-5 tanks until they literally have less than 3-5 tanks left in the whole regiment. The only time 1 or 2 tanks will be fielded separately is if they're not in a company at all and have instead been split off and deployed to support another regiment (and I am always happy to play team games with other guard commanders to form such a battlegroup, only bringing 1 or two tanks!)

2) It means I don't get regimental doctrines. While I'm okay with this, generally, it's kind of sucky. I would like to have my regiment know some neat tactic or strategy or whatever to differentiate them. Armageddon fits the fluff pretty well, as does Vostroyan, Tallarn, and Catachan. I've not decided yet.

3) It reduces my CPs that I get, which are pretty important and vital this edition, though I'd still field 3 tanks even if they had to be in 3 Auxiliary detachments and the Super Heavy Detachment didn't exist, per item 1.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."

Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?

Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.

Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.

Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."

I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.

Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.

I think the problem is assuming they want your list to still be viable. If you instead consider that they want your list to stop existing, then demanding that you have to bring other stuff while simultaneously making that other stuff unaffordable makes sense.

There is something odd I've noticed about the whole elite vs horde thing though: the assumption that each army would be trading 100% of its firepower every turn while spreading wounds across 100% of their wound pool every turn.

That's just not how real games play out unless both sides consist entirely of artillery and both players have zero sense of target priority.

An elite army's small board footprint can be a strength if you play it right. A horde army basically has to use all the space in their deployment zone, but an elite army can deploy in one corner and push that lane. Set up your deep strikers first so your opponent has to do some deployment before seeing which corner you'll commit to, deploy all of your offensive units in one corner, then when the game starts push that corner with everything you have to turn that flank.

You'll be using (close to) 100% of your army to engage 30-50% of theirs, depending on a variety of factors like board footprint, weapon ranges, and how well your opponent can respond to your deployment once you run out of deep strikers and he sees what you're doing. If you can turn that flank before they can reposition the rest of their army (which with those points ratios you should only need one or two turns if you can engage on turn 1) you'll have secured a potentially decisive points advantage that you can leverage on the rest of the board.

Frankly, I'm not here to go over in detail the issues you're having with your army, and I also don't much care, to be blunt. Your own thread is fine for that.

All that I'm saying is that people asking you to bring less baneblades and have them cost more are not, in any way shape or form, mutually exclusive statements.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.

I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).

I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.

Well if this were honestly the case those lovely Berserker Marines from 6th edition would've been used more often in tournaments, or are tournament users just netlisters that don't know what they're doing?

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.

The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.

The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.

Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.

Boom, just won the game right there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Frankly, I'm not here to go over in detail the issues you're having with your army, and I also don't much care, to be blunt. Your own thread is fine for that.

All that I'm saying is that people asking you to bring less baneblades and have them cost more are not, in any way shape or form, mutually exclusive statements.

I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.

Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".

Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.

The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.

Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.

Boom, just won the game right there.

Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.

Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go.
This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.

The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.

Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.

Boom, just won the game right there.

Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.

Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go.
This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.

That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, there's a thread in this very forum where a CSM player tabled an Eldar player top of turn 1.

This really isn't just a problem with guard, so acting like it's the guard codex's fault is just ... asinine. It's not.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.

The first page alone in your superheavy thread had multiple people saying you could bring less than 3.

Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".

Which doesn't change the fact that people wanted you to bring less of them.

Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.

You seem to be conveniently missing the incredibly obvious solution of bringing less baneblades in order to bring more other non-baneblades.

Which again, as I have stated, means the statement of increasing their cost and you bringing more non-baneblades are not mutually exclusive.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.

The first page alone in your superheavy thread had multiple people saying you could bring less than 3.

Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".

Which doesn't change the fact that people wanted you to bring less of them.

Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.

You seem to be conveniently missing the incredibly obvious solution of bringing less baneblades in order to bring more other non-baneblades.

Which again, as I have stated, means the statement of increasing their cost and you bringing more non-baneblades are not mutually exclusive.

I think you missed my post where I gave a whole variety of reasons why bringing less than 3 doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective or a rules perspective.

So, to reiterate:
1) It breaks my army's fluff and nerfs my army's rules to bring less than 3, so I won't. (incidentally, it's also bad form to tell someone how to play their army).
2) People are bored with just 3 superheavies.

Conclusion: I bring 3 superheavies and also a bunch of other neat and cool things.

BUT WAIT, we have to make those superheavies more expensive! Then we'll complain that he doesn't bring enough OTHER THINGS! That way, he's forced to drop a baneblade if he wants to play games! Yes, we have successfully broken his fluff, damaged his rules, dictated his army composition, and made the game thoroughly unenjoyable for him! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.

Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army. Their range makes it nearly impossible to counter-deploy against or hide from, their screens make it impossible to assault and tie up.

(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.

Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.

(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)

It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.

And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.

The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.

None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.

You just don't want to.

And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.

But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.

To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.

 Blacksails wrote:
None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.

You just don't want to.

And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.

But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.

To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.

I think you forgot the purpose of the game, blacksails. I am physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of fighting in a war, or jumping out of a plane, or something. That doesn't mean that I want to. And we do this for fun, remember?

I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.

The best way to do that is to bring stuff that isn't baneblades, at least if my takeaway from that thread is any indication. Making their price go back up just means the ones that didn't change price (e.g. stormsword) become my choice again, and restricts my army composition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.

Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.

(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)

It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.

And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.

The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.

How, pray tell, did he get that close to your Baneblade with (I'm assuming since the numbers don't make sense otherwise) 10 Hellblasters and a unit of (I don't know what 'Assault Devestators are supposed to be). Did you not have any screens?

Also: 4d6 damage is, on average, just 14 wounds. (It's also the result of firing two full squads of Lascannon Devestators buffed by Guilliman - A metric ton of points into dedicated anti-tank fire.) That 'Smattering of other sources' should have, on average, dealt almost half the damage needed to kill it.

@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.

You just don't want to.

And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.

But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.

To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.

I think you forgot the purpose of the game, blacksails. I am physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of fighting in a war, or jumping out of a plane, or something. That doesn't mean that I want to. And we do this for fun, remember?

I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.

The best way to do that is to bring stuff that isn't baneblades, at least if my takeaway from that thread is any indication. Making their price go back up just means the ones that didn't change price (e.g. stormsword) become my choice again, and restricts my army composition.

I know its for fun. That's why the next line I wrote specifically said that it was fine.

Its also fine if you take not 3 baneblades.

But making the price go down didn't make baneblades any more fun to play against (quite the opposite) nor make your fundamental army composition much better either. Frankly, the only way to address the issues people have with your army composition is to address the composition of your army by not taking as many baneblades.

Alternatively, we lower the cost of baneblades dramatically, but in turn massively nerf durability and firepower to match, which has a certain appeal to me, now that I think about it. Never was fond of the intro of superheavies, but the cat's out of the bag meow.

I get your attachment to your army, and you seem to have a good grasp on how people may (or do) react to it. Lowering the prices was an unnecessary buff for a solidly performing set of units (especially the shadowsword, even before the gun buff too).

If people are simultaneously lamenting the price cut and your army composition, rest assured they are not mutually exclusive. That's all I'm saying. You're more than welcome to play the way you want and I respect that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.

"And I only have fun if i stomp face with 3 baneblades. Commander Periwinkle of the Tears & Beers Brigade, who rides in his Shadowsword with his faithful cat Mittens MUST join in the battle when General Fethwizzle twirls his mustache and proclaims, 'Nyehhhh!' Oh, it's too bad you stand no chance of victory. I need my fun, after all."

This is how your posts are coming across in response to blacksails. I dunno man. Give your opponents a break maybe? I mean jeeze.

I liked playing Celestine in 7th edition but i stopped altogether because she crushed my local meta and made games un-fun for my opponent.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.

Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.

(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)

It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.

And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.

The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.

How, pray tell, did he get that close to your Baneblade with (I'm assuming since the numbers don't make sense otherwise) 10 Hellblasters and a unit of (I don't know what 'Assault Devestators are supposed to be). Did you not have any screens?

Also: 4d6 damage is, on average, just 14 wounds. (It's also the result of firing two full squads of Lascannon Devestators buffed by Guilliman - A metric ton of points into dedicated anti-tank fire.) That 'Smattering of other sources' should have, on average, dealt almost half the damage needed to kill it.

Sorry, Assault Centurions.

And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.

And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.

"And I only have fun if i stomp face with 3 baneblades. Commander Periwinkle of the Tears & Beers Brigade, who rides in his Shadowsword with his faithful cat Mittens MUST join in the battle when General Fethwizzle twirls his mustache and proclaims, 'Nyehhhh!' Oh, it's too bad you stand no chance of victory. I need my fun, after all."

This is how your posts are coming across in response to blacksails. I dunno man. Give your opponents a break maybe? I mean jeeze.

I liked playing Celestine in 7th edition but i stopped altogether because she crushed my local meta and made games un-fun for my opponent.

Marmatag, I've played 3 Baneblades since they became a legal army in 5th.

They've been bad every single edition since then till now. I still played them then, when they got stomped. I don't particularly care about 'stomping' one way or another.

I didn't ask for them to be good. Now they are, and people don't want to play them. I ask how to help, they say bring other things that aren't baneblades. That tells me that sure, I'll bring more that isn't baneblades.

The way you seem to read it, you're saying "don't bring your army. Build a new one."

Oh, okay. Thanks for the advice.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.

Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.

(He WAS a decent opponent, though. Super nice guy, also.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sorry, Assault Centurions.

And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.

And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.

So it WASN'T Ultramarines?
Also: I'm still confused how he managed to assault you, get within 12" of your Baneblade, and hit your tanks with SMITE, a power that targets only the closest unit. Conscripts, or just regular Guardsmen, and even a remotely decent deployment should have prevented this.

Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.