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.

aka_mythos wrote:Are you telling me that two guys standing about a foot apart would not be hit by the same general spray of fire, say 1/3 of 1000 shots?

As I just said, you're using fluff to justfy a rules abstraction, and it doesn't hold up. It's like when GW tried to explain away how Blood Rage did not make Daemon Princes with Daemonic Flight fly any faster by saying 'Being angry doesn't make a Jump Pack move faster', odd when most people modelled wings into their DP's, something that could conceivably flap faster if you were more agitated. It doesn't explain it, nor does it explain similar situations where it should happen.

If your reasoning why a HW Team can be wiped out by a single S6 shot is 'they're standing near one another', then the same should apply to all Guardsmen. I can put them base-to-base and have them coser together than the two guys mounted on the 60mm base, and I won't lose multiple men to a single S6 Multi-Laser hit. If your claim is that the base they're on represents a 3 foot radius, then how much of an area does a 60mm base cover? A lot more, and they can be further apart than Guardsmen on two bases touching one another. So that line of thinking doesn't hold up either.

So, again, using a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction doesn't hold up. 'They stand near each other' doesn't hold up, especially when everyone else in the squad can stand near (or nearer) to one another as well.

BYE

aka_mythos wrote:The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?

I wouldn't pay anything. Why? Because they shouldn't be multi-wound models in the first place, that's why.

They're cheaper because their HW's are being costed correctly (rather than 25 points for a damned BS3 Lascannon, it's 15, and so on), not because they are becoming pissweak T3 W2 models.

BYE

The thing that frustrates me the most in reading this thread is that we still don't know what rules are involved here.

What if they are immune to instant death?

H.B.M.C. wrote:If your reasoning why a HW Team can be wiped out by a single S6 shot is 'they're standing near one another', then the same should apply to all Guardsmen. I can put them base-to-base and have them coser together than the two guys mounted on the 60mm base, and I won't lose multiple men to a single S6 Multi-Laser hit. If your claim is that the base they're on represents a 3 foot radius, then how much of an area does a 60mm base cover? A lot more, and they can be further apart than Guardsmen on two bases touching one another. So that line of thinking doesn't hold up either.

I agree a 60mm base is too large but I think that is a separate issue. The models being required to be modeled on a 60mm large base is silly. The idea of them being a single 2 wound model I'm fine with. Operating a heavy weapon two individuals would be close enough to be hurt by single volleys of larger weapons fire and there weapon would restrict their ability to avoid it.

We lose a lasgun and we die a little easier, that's less than a 20+ point decrease.

H.B.M.C. wrote:So, again, using a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction doesn't hold up. 'They stand near each other' doesn't hold up, especially when everyone else in the squad can stand near (or nearer) to one another as well.

There are only two ways to justify anything. As a matter of fairness in balancing rules or as abstraction of fluff. From a fairness vantage we gain far more than we've lost. From an abstraction we have what I've previously said. You seem to want things both ways and neither all at the same time.

I would rather have them on two 25mm bases, just because modeling terrain to accomodate a 60mm base is kind of annoying. I try to make impassible corridors/catwalks to limit terminator/dreadnought access for things, and these giant bases put them in the latter category.
Now, I agree that 60mm bases make for cool mini dioramas, but from a game play perspective, I think a man with a giant gun and a man with reloading stuff on their own 25mm bases is not too much to ask. Or even a gun on a seperate base like the Eldar weapons.

aka_mythos wrote:
...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

The problem is I think the missile Launchers look cooler on their own bases, like the old Tallarn figs, it has nothing to do with basing issues.
All my Lascannons, Autocannnons and Heavy bolters where on the big bases anyway. Mortar I had one fig and Mortar on the large base. Although I can live with Mortars on the big one. I just like my Missile launchers free of big bases, especially when in a Hardened vet squad or something similar where you'd imagine them poking out from behind a wall to fire on the fly.

My mortars are on 40mm bases along with the gunner, the loader is on his own base.

This just in: "Fluff arguments for rules are stupid!"

You may now go back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

The problem is I think the missile Launchers look cooler on their own bases, like the old Tallarn figs, it has nothing to do with basing issues.
All my Lascannons, Autocannnons and Heavy bolters where on the big bases anyway. Mortar I had one fig and Mortar on the large base. Although I can live with Mortars on the big one. I just like my Missile launchers free of big bases, especially when in a Hardened vet squad or something similar where you'd imagine them poking out from behind a wall to fire on the fly.

I agree with all that. I have mine based the same way. I'm just going to magnetize my current bases on to larger bases so I can just put them off and on as appropriate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?

I wouldn't pay anything. Why? Because they shouldn't be multi-wound models in the first place, that's why.

They're cheaper because their HW's are being costed correctly (rather than 25 points for a damned BS3 Lascannon, it's 15, and so on), not because they are becoming pissweak T3 W2 models.

I'm looking at the squad as a whole because it isn't just a matter of two models. This is an all or nothing prospect. You have to compare what is with what it will be. While you might not like the two wound model you get that and a squad for 40pts and all the new rules to boot; as opposed to what it is now. For me this just comes down to the fact that all the benefits we gain greatly outweigh the down side of a 9 model squad. I asked the question I did because the simple fact is without this I'm sure the cost our infantry would be a bit higher.

From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Necros wrote:I know I'm in the minority but I actually like the HW teams being on one big base. For modeling reasons only though. I think it's cool how you can build em like a mini-diorama. I'd still prefer it was counted as 2 models instead of 2 wounds though...

Thanks to True LOS, overly scenic bases cause problems. You can't take your own terrain with you, but what if you can't see someone's body? I already have arguments with people about the fact that a jumppack can also be "wings" but when you are shooting someone from behind you have to now figure out if the head would be visible through the wings/pack...

I'm not explaining it well but I'm tiring of everything claiming cover and not being able to shoot half the stuff I can "see" but for somereason also can't...

Also why I hate that new ratling model leaning against a post like he is hiding.

On a different subject:

With the new vehicle damage table and subsequent reduction in power of long range AT weapons, coupled with the increase in LR side armor, the lumbering behemoth rule, and all the armor busting goodies that IG will get (vanquisher cannons, HH variant melta cannons, etc) what effect do people think this may have on the overall metagame? It honestly looks like the Russ is now exactly what it's supposed to be, the hardest hitting, most killy MBT and that IG armor heavy lists (assuming no squadron rule, since we haven't seem anything on that recently) consisting of 3 leman russ tanks of some variant, 3 hellhound variants, and a buttload of infantry may become extremely taxing for some armies, needing large amounts of either heavy anti-tank weapons, mobile hard hitting CC weapons to get into the tanks, and a tremendous amount of anti-infantry capability as well.

I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts?), 3 meltacannon HH's (assuming 120pts?), and 120something infantry without simply being overwhelmed by firepower and model count. My tau would seem to be in a very similar situation, having great anti-tank firepower, but maybe not enough, and nowhere near enough anti-infantry capability.

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

Vaktathi wrote:On a different subject:

With the new vehicle damage table and subsequent reduction in power of long range AT weapons, coupled with the increase in LR side armor, the lumbering behemoth rule, and all the armor busting goodies that IG will get (vanquisher cannons, HH variant melta cannons, etc) what effect do people think this may have on the overall metagame? It honestly looks like the Russ is now exactly what it's supposed to be, the hardest hitting, most killy MBT and that IG armor heavy lists (assuming no squadron rule, since we haven't seem anything on that recently) consisting of 3 leman russ tanks of some variant, 3 hellhound variants, and a buttload of infantry may become extremely taxing for some armies, needing large amounts of either heavy anti-tank weapons, mobile hard hitting CC weapons to get into the tanks, and a tremendous amount of anti-infantry capability as well.

I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts?), 3 meltacannon HH's (assuming 120pts?), and 120something infantry without simply being overwhelmed by firepower and model count. My tau would seem to be in a very similar situation, having great anti-tank firepower, but maybe not enough, and nowhere near enough anti-infantry capability.

Mechanized Guard were already a problem for many armies in non-KP missions. A few more weapons options for the (now cheaper) Chimerae will increase the number of hulls on the table, while also increasing the "parking lot" problems such armies are prone to have.

Really, it boils down to this: either there's a fix for KP issues in the new codex, or there's not. If the former, people will have to squeeze in a few more Autocannons to their lists. If the latter, then Guard will have no impact on the (tournament) metagame, as you can't take an army with "auto-loses KP missions" as a special rule, and expect to do well.

Janthkin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

It simplifies it in the way that the core rule actually covers the rules for multi-wound models so your opponents don't need to look at your rules.

aka_mythos wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:From a rules stand point here's the simple justification, all other rationale aside: it simplifies and standardizes the IG to the core rules.
In the edition of one stop shopping for core rules we've USRs and this is no different.

Simplifies? It adds a multiwound model to a squad of single-wound models, with all of the complicated implications that has for wound allocation, and the attendant arguments about "You have to remove whole models," vs. the actual wound allocation rules.

Yeah, if that's "simple," I'll take the old way any day.

It simplifies it in the way that the core rule actually covers the rules for multi-wound models so your opponents don't need to look at your rules.

They didn't before. The only complication arose out of modeling two men on a 60mm base, which is a modeling issue, rather than a rule issue. Otherwise, per 5e rules, it's just a squad with four wound allocation "buckets" - 6 grunts, sergeant, special weapons guy, and 2 HW guys. Allocate and move on.

You honestly think fewer people will be confused by this two-wound "single guy modeled as two guys on one giant base," than by the current rules? You honestly think there will be fewer requests to look at the codex when you allocate a wound to that two-wound entity, as opposed to just pulling the loader as a casualty?

(But as for complicated - who else remembers getting a save from the blast shield on heavy bolters & autocannons?)

The Lascannon in 2nd Ed counted as Heavy Cover for the crew, but that was it as far as odd 2nd Ed special weapons.

BYE

The more I think about 2 wound heavy weapon teams, the more sense it makes.

- One less attack in close combat makes sense for a team carrying heavy equipment

- The loader shouldn't really be firing a lasgun if he's meant to be loading the gun

- High strength attacks could hit the heavy weapon itself (this is 40k, the weapon is bigger than the crew), effectively neutralising the team (or causing an ammo explosion killing the team).

As long as the point costs reflect the nerf, I'm fine with the change from a fluff perspective.

I do prefer the look of ML teams on 25mm bases, though. I was planning to have mostly missile launchers in my new guard army, too. So from a modelling perspective I'm unhappy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Lascannon in 2nd Ed counted as Heavy Cover for the crew, but that was it as far as odd 2nd Ed special weapons.

BYE

Upon further reflection, I believe you're right. Something to do with it being a separate model, instead of a go-kart.

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure how my Chaos would deal with 3 Executioner LR's (assuming say 225pts)

Is this with or without the Plasma Cannon Sponsons? (Assuming they get them.)

15 Plasma Cannon shots a turn...help!

Though on second thought, theoretically with the Manticores, you could get nine Str 10 Ap 4 large blasts...that are barrage...that's just not right.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote:i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

I'd say that that probably didn't even cross their minds.

BYE

Yet no one complains when a krak missile kills a dozen rippers. Just desserts I say!

They should just make Guard Squads T3 W10 models that can fire multiple weapons in a turn. Much simpler.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:They should just make Guard Squads T3 W10 models that can fire multiple weapons in a turn. Much simpler.

BYE

till a single krak gernade kills that entire squad,huh?
lol this is just too rich.

BoxANT wrote:What it if it is an intended nerf?

Did you hear the part about guardsmen being only 4 points?

And this is supposed to justify this how?

Guard should be 4 pts each because as it stands they are the same points as an ork who by the way is better stat wise in almost every way.

king-newmic wrote:till a single krak gernade kills that entire squad,huh?
lol this is just too rich.

Yahuh, that's right. Then we can go out and buy War of the Ring bases for all our Guard squads, making deployment and casualty removal much easier and quicker.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yahuh, that's right. Then we can go out and buy War of the Ring bases for all our Guard squads, making deployment and casualty removal much easier and quicker.

BYE

While saying Stelek's name three times doesn't do anything I think we need to be real careful about repeating this one.

I dont worry about the tanks in a imperial guard army I worry about the fact hat if guard really are 4 points a model then I can possibly face a army taht can infliltrate with 400 models.


4 points is just way to low it seems seriously.

Chiming in for the hell of it. IF the Heavy weapons bases work out as discussed, oh well. I like Large bases, they give me flexibility on the deep strike. They allow me to get more guard squads into combat on the counter charge, and they have better modelling potential.
I play with both sets and frankly I prefer the one base rule.

Either way with this new dex, I'm going to have a lot more Tanks on the field, heavy weapons? they'll play a roll but only once they've reached their objective.

If they fix kill points, give me cheaper troops and a whole lot of new vehicles, then I'm a happy Camper...

So far things are looking good.


Cheers,
A

HBMC
Actually, I like the idea of W2 models and let me explain why:
Obviously IG are a weapons army. In 5th it is VERY easy to take out a Heavy weapon, special weapon or sergeant, special character simply by inflicting a lot of wounds. IG are low toughness and will consistently see 6/8 wounds from shooting. That means that you can get really lucky in shooting at an IG and effectively kill the HW crew and no one else. Its kinda like ork nobs who always seem to survive even when the rest of the unit is wiped out.

I think this is a smart move for 5th, and makes the HW crew more resilient in game play terms. Now, cost might be an issue but I do think they will live longer.

I'm more annoyed at it from a modelling perspective. Some of us don't have any of the newer models, and soem of us have more old than new (I have 4-full platoons of metal Guardsmen, and only two of plastic). Most of my Heavy Weapons are not on bases, and all the crew are on regular bases (except the newer plastic ones, but even the loaders are on standard bases).

Making what is very much a distinct set of models into a single model is annoying for those of us who have never used them in that manner and don't base them like GW does.

BYE

not that it helps people with current armies, but i magnetized the loaders
on 28mm Bases. and the firer is glued on the 60mm base with the weapon.