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.

Actually, even at 5pts hardly anybody bought power weapons for their IG characters. Fair Market value is often defined as "what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller with neither having a compulsion to buy or sell and both having a full appreciation of the facts." If you try selling something at a price, and nobody buys, you're asking too much.

Except not all armies should be good in close combat. It's not in their fluff to "take it to the enemy". They stand and shoot. They are fighting giant robots, fungus monsters, giant sword swinging superhumans, and alien close combat super predators from another galaxy. The entire concept of the army is the gunline.

Even then 5 points is too cheap. A guard squad isn't supposed to stand up to a marine squad, its supposed to die. If that power weapon took one marine with it it payed for itself three times over. For the cost of one power weapon on a piddly tactical squad in the marine codex you could have had three squads with power weapons in the IG codex. Three times as many wounds. Three times as many attacks. One less strength, one less weapons skill.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.



As for why no one took them? It's not because they were too expensive, it's because they were redundant and stupid in the guard army. They are not a close combat army, they get rolled over by anything resembling an assault force. The power weapons could be free and they still wouldn't end up doing much of anything because guard are not a close combat army. They shoot their guns, they don't punch with their hands. Their basic rifle has a better profile then they do. There is no "cost" that will make power weapons seem like an attractive offer as opposed to something that shoots.

So if power weapons were bad, stupid, and redundant before, it makes sense to raise the cost of said bad options? What does that accomplish? The few guard players that took them for whatever reason, likely fluff, get penalized even more, and most guard players continue to not take them. Seems like not an improvement to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Actually, even at 5pts hardly anybody bought power weapons for their IG characters. Fair Market value is often defined as "what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller with neither having a compulsion to buy or sell and both having a full appreciation of the facts." If you try selling something at a price, and nobody buys, you're asking too much.

Except not all armies should be good in close combat. It's not in their fluff to "take it to the enemy". They stand and shoot. They are fighting giant robots, fungus monsters, giant sword swinging superhumans, and alien close combat super predators from another galaxy. The entire concept of the army is the gunline.

Even then 5 points is too cheap. A guard squad isn't supposed to stand up to a marine squad, its supposed to die regardless of the total points involved. If that power weapon took one marine with it it payed for itself three times over. For the cost of one power weapon on a piddly tactical squad in the marine codex you could have had three squads with power weapons in the IG codex. Three times as many wounds. Three times as many attacks. One less strength, one less weapons skill.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.

First off, if IG can't take the fight to the enemy, than we lose 2/3 of our games. Seizing objectives is what 5th edition is about. There is also no reason in the fluff to not have humans that can assault, it's just not been done. The army became a gunline with VPs and the cheap weapons in the BBB, and the concept never really strayed.

I don't like the concept that every time any space marine squad hits any IG squad the IG should die. Are you arguing that power weapons on IG squads actually make the squad good in combat? Are you saying that with cheap power weapons, IG would start bullying MEqs through numbers? I'm not sure what your argument here is.

Ok, so you have a space marine with a power weapon, that will hit a space marine twice on the charger, and wound once. One dead marine. 3 IG sgts charge, 9 swings, 4.5 hits, or 1.5 wounds. So, they do almost as much damage. Of course, the SM sgt is a member of a tactical squad that runs about 185pts (base squad plus PW), while the IG sgts all belong to squads that almost assuredly took at least flamer and autocannon, making them 50pts base plus 10 for the heavy, 5 for the flamer, and 5 for a power weapor, for 70pts each or 210pts total.

Swinging on each other, the IG still drop 1.5 marines but the SM sgt drops 16/9 guardsmen, or roughly 1.5 IG. Now, 9 charging marines kill ~6.7, so only 22 of the IG respond, so 19 basic guys charging gives38 attacks, 19 hits, 6.33 wounds, or 2.11 dead marines. So, if one tactical squad and 3 IG squads charged each other the marines would kill about 8 IG, the IG would kill about 3.6 Marines. If the IG charge the marines, the marines still draw the IG with roughly 4 kills a piece.

What's my point? That in a world where a gunline can't simply sit and shoot, the IG will need to flush squads, and power weapons help a bit with that. Pricing them at five points still make IG pt for pt worse at assult than tactical squads (which are a lousy assault unit as it is), and so increasing the cost will further decrease their ability.

This says nothing about the sheer lunacy of increasing the cost of an option that was hardly ever taken at the lower cost.

I can't believe anyone would make the argument that guard with cheap PF/PW would be an unfair advantage, even at 5 pts for a PF its cost is questionable. Large squads cant take fists, small squads don't get to swing.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.

Is this a troll?
A marine with 1 attack will kill ~.3 guard. A guardsman with 1 attack will kill ~.055 marines. 3:1 marines will cause more wounds, and they strike first, and have grenades, and have better morale. Its like you haven't seen a guard line get hit in CC, squads just go away with nothing done to the attackers. Numbers don't help when you still are dying 5:1.


Back to a usefull discussion.
If we are concerned mainly about AV14, a vanquisher with Pask has better a Destroy/Points ratio than a Vendetta. It also has better armor/cover, though at lower target AV its not as good.
Havent done the math on the HH variants yet.

Edit: Marines dont have ccw.

It's also a bullet magnet. Do you think people are going to let the reach-out-and-touch-you Special Character tank stay alive for more than 3 turns?

Are you even listening to yourself talking, or are you just ranting? I'm actually kind of curious, because I find your posts to be... well, a little hard to follow logically.

Clearly I'm a 9000 foot tall rock monster with opinions that are alien to mankind.

First off, if IG can't take the fight to the enemy, than we lose 2/3 of our games. Seizing objectives is what 5th edition is about. There is also no reason in the fluff to not have humans that can assault, it's just not been done. The army became a gunline with VPs and the cheap weapons in the BBB, and the concept never really strayed.

Where exactly is the fluff that supports the idea of a group of imperial guardsman charging out of their trenches to go teach those space marines a good lesson? Or those tyranids? Orks? I'm sorry but all the fluff is pretty consistent in "holding the line" not "Waaaagh". Typically most fluff entries state that when the enemy reaches the lines the lines either fall back, cut them apart with massed close range firepower, or all the guardsman die. They don't throw down their guns and start kicking 700 pound marine ass. Most other armies use imperial guardsman like easily popped flesh balloons in their fluff to make themselves seem strong.

There is no fluff that really supports an assault oriented guard army. As for taking objectives, its called shooting the enemy off of them. You have a giant tank with a flamethrower turret. You have the leman russ demolisher, the things named after its close range supergun. You don't displace the enemy by getting in their grill you displace them by blowing their grill up.

I don't like the concept that every time any space marine squad hits any IG squad the IG should die. Are you arguing that power weapons on IG squads actually make the squad good in combat? Are you saying that with cheap power weapons, IG would start bullying MEqs through numbers? I'm not sure what your argument here is.

I'm saying that the cost of the power weapons themselves are what is being discussed here. The squads will fold and die, but those close combat upgrades will have done their jobs magnificently and payed for themselves well.

What's my point? That in a world where a gunline can't simply sit and shoot, the IG will need to flush squads, and power weapons help a bit with that. Pricing them at five points still make IG pt for pt worse at assult than tactical squads (which are a lousy assault unit as it is), and so increasing the cost will further decrease their ability.

Unfortunately with all your mathammer you just basically said what I had been saying. That the guards power weapons were too cheap and that they were statistically killing more points than the same upgrade in another army. But then thats the crux of the problem. The squad would still die. It would still fold over like a wet paper bag and those few dead wouldn't make up for the cost of the squad. Those weapons could be free and they still wouldn't make the squads cost effective in close combat against something so basic as a tactical squad. This is where the concepts of game balance come into play though. Just because the squad itself is going to fold doesn't mean that the power weapon is too expensive. Just because people don't take it doesn't mean its point value is wrong. You could pay for melta bombs on devastator marines and I bet no matter how much they costed people wouldn't buy them. It's simply not a useful upgrade no matter the points cost. It just doesn't do enough to warrant not spending those points elsewhere.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's also a bullet magnet. Do you think people are going to let the reach-out-and-touch-you Special Character tank stay alive for more than 3 turns?

I doubt the vendettas are going to last long either in fairness. Though really I think the fast/skimming/scouting/flyer base aspects of the vendetta give it better chances then a pasqusher at killing targets. Side armor is hard to protect against something like that.

Gestalt wrote:I can't believe anyone would make the argument that guard with cheap PF/PW would be an unfair advantage, even at 5 pts for a PF its cost is questionable. Large squads cant take fists, small squads don't get to swing.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.

Is this a troll?
A marine with 1 attack will kill ~.3 guard. A guardsman with 1 attack will kill ~.055 marines. 3:1 marines will cause more wounds, and they strike first, and have grenades, and have bolt pistols/ccw, and have better morale. Its like you haven't seen a guard line get hit in CC, squads just go away with nothing done to the attackers. Numbers don't help when you still are dying 5:1.


Back to a usefull discussion.
If we are concerned mainly about AV14, a vanquisher with Pask has better a Destroy/Points ratio than a Vendetta. It also has better armor/cover, though at lower target AV its not as good.
Havent done the math on the HH variants yet.

Tactical marines don't have a CCW and a pistol unless you mean CSM.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's also a bullet magnet. Do you think people are going to let the reach-out-and-touch-you Special Character tank stay alive for more than 3 turns?

I think vendettas are a bigger fire magnet, its huge, harder to hide, and less armor. It costs twice as much, but the vanq is probably at least twice as hard to kill. I wouldn't say its better than the vendettas, but its a viable option.

Avariel wrote:Have a few questions.

1. Can Vanquishers shoot battle cannon shells like they can in Armored Company list? If so they wouldn't be so bad.

From what we know so far, no, they cannot have battle cannon shells. Sucks, doesn't it?

Avariel wrote:2. Are Valkyrie, Leman Russ and Artillery Squadrons constrained by the usual squadron rules (have to stay within 4 inches of each other, immoblized = destroyed etc) or do they operate like Zoanthropes?

Again, as far as we know, they have to abide by standard vehicle squadron rules - 4 inches and immobilized=destroyed. And we don't even get the option of track guards to keep from getting immobilized results/

Avariel wrote:3. Is the VTOL rumor that Valkyries can move and fire all in the codex?

Um. I'm not sure what the VTOL rumor is, but Valks are fast skimmers, so they can move 6" and still fire all their weapons. Move 12" and fire 1.

Avariel wrote:4. Can you put allied Daemon Hunter Inquisitor + 2 mystics in a Valkyrie?

You can, although I'm not sure about the utility of that. I mean, typically, the units you want to protect from deep-strikers are folks sitting in the back field that aren't moving much anyway. If you want to protect them with an Inquis+Mystics, you're probably just as well off sticking them in a Rhino or Chimera (or Land Raider if you really want to make sure they survive). But, yes, if you really want to, there's nothing to say you can't. Valks can transport anything except Ogryns....hey, anything except Ogryns....I wonder if there's a reason that you'd want to stick GKs in a Valk....hmmmm....

Neconilis wrote:

Gestalt wrote:I can't believe anyone would make the argument that guard with cheap PF/PW would be an unfair advantage, even at 5 pts for a PF its cost is questionable. Large squads cant take fists, small squads don't get to swing.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.

Is this a troll?
A marine with 1 attack will kill ~.3 guard. A guardsman with 1 attack will kill ~.055 marines. 3:1 marines will cause more wounds, and they strike first, and have grenades, and have bolt pistols/ccw, and have better morale. Its like you haven't seen a guard line get hit in CC, squads just go away with nothing done to the attackers. Numbers don't help when you still are dying 5:1.


Back to a usefull discussion.
If we are concerned mainly about AV14, a vanquisher with Pask has better a Destroy/Points ratio than a Vendetta. It also has better armor/cover, though at lower target AV its not as good.
Havent done the math on the HH variants yet.

Tactical marines don't have a CCW and a pistol unless you mean CSM.

I'm also talking about the sergeants, not the squads. The power weapon wouldn't make the guard squad kill their points in marines if it gave you 10 extra points to spend every time you took one (i'm talking better than free, negative points.) My whole point is that even though the guard squad itself is a flesh filled wet paper bag that sword statistically is killing more points of enemies on average than power weapons in the chaos/marine codexes. It's doing the job too well even though everyone around it is dying.

Gestalt wrote:I think vendettas are a bigger fire magnet, its huge, harder to hide, and less armor. It costs twice as much, but the vanq is probably at least twice as hard to kill. I wouldn't say its better than the vendettas, but its a viable option.

I don't know that I would call it that when you've got a Chimera full of vets w/ meltas or Devil Dogs that are cheaper and more effective. I mean, if you're saying that it can kill tanks, then yes, it's a viable option. But you can kill tanks will Leman Russ Battle Tanks or Executioners, too. They're less effective, but you could call them viable if you want to.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Where exactly is the fluff that supports the idea of a group of imperial guardsman charging out of their trenches to go teach those space marines a good lesson? Or those tyranids? Orks? I'm sorry but all the fluff is pretty consistent in "holding the line" not "Waaaagh". Typically most fluff entries state that when the enemy reaches the lines the lines either fall back, cut them apart with massed close range firepower, or all the guardsman die. They don't throw down their guns and start kicking 700 pound marine ass. Most other armies use imperial guardsman like easily popped flesh balloons in their fluff to make themselves seem strong.

There is no fluff that really supports an assault oriented guard army.

5th edition rulebook, page 138. "the Imperial guard attacks in endless waves, until victory is won." Also: "the onslaught of the Imperial Guard is akin to a sledgehammer, cumbersome but unstoppable." No army can exist totally defensively. There is no rational reason for an army to not be able to take ground.

I'm saying that the cost of the power weapons themselves are what is being discussed here. The squads will fold and die, but those close combat upgrades will have done their jobs magnificently and payed for themselves well.

Maybe. Three of them, swinging on the charge, kill 1.5 marines, and than the IG still lose to fewer points of Marines.

Unfortunately with all your mathammer you just basically said what I had been saying. That the guards power weapons were too cheap and that they were statistically killing more points than the same upgrade in another army. But then thats the crux of the problem. The squad would still die. It would still fold over like a wet paper bag and those few dead wouldn't make up for the cost of the squad. Those weapons could be free and they still wouldn't make the squads cost effective in close combat against something so basic as a tactical squad. This is where the concepts of game balance come into play though. Just because the squad itself is going to fold doesn't mean that the power weapon is too expensive. Just because people don't take it doesn't mean its point value is wrong. You could pay for melta bombs on devastator marines and I bet no matter how much they costed people wouldn't buy them. It's simply not a useful upgrade no matter the points cost. It just doesn't do enough to warrant not spending those points elsewhere.

But your argument is essentially that IG squads shouldn't just be bad in combat, but they should be as bad as possible? IG squads should be able to buck up for combat, particularly since in the fluff they fight other things far more often than marines. Power weapons would be useful against eldar, tau, and other IG. Why deny them that because you seem to think that IG should have no combat ability at all?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Neconilis wrote:

Gestalt wrote:I can't believe anyone would make the argument that guard with cheap PF/PW would be an unfair advantage, even at 5 pts for a PF its cost is questionable. Large squads cant take fists, small squads don't get to swing.

I'm sorry but one less weapon skill and strength doesn't equate to a three to one advantage in points.

Is this a troll?
A marine with 1 attack will kill ~.3 guard. A guardsman with 1 attack will kill ~.055 marines. 3:1 marines will cause more wounds, and they strike first, and have grenades, and have bolt pistols/ccw, and have better morale. Its like you haven't seen a guard line get hit in CC, squads just go away with nothing done to the attackers. Numbers don't help when you still are dying 5:1.


Back to a usefull discussion.
If we are concerned mainly about AV14, a vanquisher with Pask has better a Destroy/Points ratio than a Vendetta. It also has better armor/cover, though at lower target AV its not as good.
Havent done the math on the HH variants yet.

Tactical marines don't have a CCW and a pistol unless you mean CSM.

I'm also talking about the sergeants, not the squads. The power weapon wouldn't make the guard squad kill their points in marines if it gave you 10 extra points to spend every time you took one (i'm talking better than free, negative points.) My whole point is that even though the guard squad itself is a flesh filled wet paper bag that sword statistically is killing more points of enemies on average than power weapons in the chaos/marine codexes. It's doing the job too well even though everyone around it is dying.

Oh, I understand your points Shuma and that wasn't directed at you either, but Gestalt, he seemed to be thinking normal tac squads got CCW and pistols. Also, for whatever it's worth, I happen to agree with you for the most part. Though I will say that even though H.B.M.C. tends to want point costs cheaper, he feels that way about many prices in many armies, and I think a lot of the time that isn't apparent when he says this is or that is overpriced because in his mind a reduction here would also go along with another one and another somewhere else as well. It's something to think about at least. Of course that being the case if everything is 'overcosted' in the same manner it should work out just as well in the end.

Real quick what do camo nets and vox's do?

Well, the reason to make things cheaper is to make them used more often, or make it easier to justify taking. For IG power weapons, making them cheap would expand the options of the IG: it would make it possible to assault a little more, small beat up HtH squads might suffer if they charge in, etc.

A unit that does something well (like shooting) will only pay a small amount to become sort of better at something else (like assault).

The very nature of IG, in which they're assault is weak and generally avoided, means that making power weapons expensive eliminates any possible reason to take them. Keeping them cheap keeps them on the table.

I, like HBMC, like options. An option that is overly expensive isn't really an option, it's a possiblity. And since every army in the game, including Orks and Khorne heavy CSM, can now build brutal shooting based builds, I simply don't see any reason to condemn IG to HtH futility. It doesn't make sense in the fluff, and it doesn't make sense for game balance.

HBMC, count yourself lucky they didn't up the cost to PW15, PF25. I'd allready braced myself for it..

I think it's a case of they don't want to invalidate any models, but don't want to see power weapons in competitive lists either.

Are Power Weapons in regular infantry squads confirmed?

If so, an Amoeba'd up squad of 50 with 5 power weapons and a commissar with powerweapon costs 345 points. 24 power weapon attacks on the charge. Loses 4 guys and kills.. 4 marines. Plus 4 from the rest of the S3 attacks if no casualties have been taken. Hey, cheaper than ogryns!

Shep wrote:
I think i can answer this one to your satisfaction.

It was never GWs intention for you to be able to fire all 6 of the hull lasguns. You should have only ever had 3 of the 6 in LOS of a unit (with a couple crazy exceptions.)

So thats 3, plus the old chimera allowed for 2 people to fire out of the back hatch, which ends up making 5. It's not an absolute perfect fit, but it is an inspired rule change. Fire points are covered well in the main rulebook and are easily understood, whereas the hull lasguns were not. It might let you fire one more special weapon than before, but it is universally easy to understand, and a nice little bump in power level.

Actually, isn't the Chimera a 2nd edition model? In 2nd edition, facing mattered and squads could split fire if their arcs didn't face the same targets. So 3 could fire left and 3 could fire right back then.

For the record I edited my post about the ccw, and they didnt figure into any of the math so it doesn't change any of the conclusions.

I'm also talking about the sergeants, not the squads.

No, this is a horrible way to balance units. If the sergeant with a PW was 1 point, and it killed a 15 point marine, but you had to take 50 points of guard to take the sergeant, it does not mean the IG are getting a 15:1 return on PW.

Is it just me or does anyone think that the leman russ needs a new model and it needs to be bigger? For a main battle tank, something along the line of an abrams or tiger it's awefully small. I'm thinking something closer to landraider size.

ShumaGorath wrote:

BoxANT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

stonefox wrote:Except your fist is being guarded by those same marines Shuma. The IG fist would be lucky to even get a chance to roll.

Not when its in a 40 man squad... Even then, guess what you just lost with that 15 points? Less than I pay for my most basic (non scout) trooper. It's less likely to get to hit and weaker fore sure, which is why it's considerably less points (percentage wise).

Can't get a PF in a 40man squad (that isn't a IC).

Ameobad squads can't have sergeants?

Sgts can't take PF

If you really wanted a fluff argument for Guard not to have power weapons in squads...there are plenty of examples of when they do. Last Chancers, Gaunts Ghosts, etc. etc. Its characterful and it really won't affect game balance at all to have 5 point powerweapons on a guy that may never get to use it at all anyway. I like the option. I would my lower officers lasguns and the command models powerweapons to represent rank but why should I be punished for it?

Daggermaw wrote:Is it just me or does anyone think that the leman russ needs a new model and it needs to be bigger? For a main battle tank, something along the line of an abrams or tiger it's awefully small. I'm thinking something closer to landraider size.

i'd hope not. the LR is the big daddy of non-superheavy tanks both in fluff and rules. as armor goes, it's the most armored. when it transports, it transports more than anyone. when it shoots, it shoots more heavy weapons than anyone. etc... i agree that they do need to rescuplt the russ but i think a comfortable middle ground between the current russ and LR would be best.

5th edition rulebook, page 138. "the Imperial guard attacks in endless waves, until victory is won." Also: "the onslaught of the Imperial Guard is akin to a sledgehammer, cumbersome but unstoppable." No army can exist totally defensively. There is no rational reason for an army to not be able to take ground.

Yeah, that tac squad is going to maul that squad of guardsman. Unfortunately for them there's probably another three to four hundred behind them. According to the fluff my marine army should land somewhere in your back lines, kill your commander, break your roads, and blow up all of your landed ships. Then it will leave. The fluff representation of guardsman meat grinding their way to victory is still accurate, it's simply not something that they do by punching bitches in the face. Guardsman have rapid firing laser weapons, why would they ever put those down and draw a knife on a space marine?

Taking ground has nothing to do with close combat capability. The U.S. marines don't run around stabbing people to death, they use their guns. You can take ground when you've killed the people standing on it.

The very nature of IG, in which they're assault is weak and generally avoided, means that making power weapons expensive eliminates any possible reason to take them. Keeping them cheap keeps them on the table.

Yes, but there's an inherent disconnect there between what is balanced (macro level capability of the upgrade) and what seems to "make sense" (keeping close combat weapons in the hands of the ranged army). People will never take the power weapons on their guardsman because if they are using them then they are doing it wrong. They are failing. Something has gone horrifically wrong with the plan.

The power weapons don't salvage the fight. At no cost would power weapons make it any less of a situation that the guard army should not be in. The only way they would see general use is if they were free. At even 2 points they wouldn't be worth their cost in the overall scheme of how the army fights and how it best spends its resources.

Does that mean that the upgrade should be that cheap?

I, like HBMC, like options. An option that is overly expensive isn't really an option, it's a possiblity. And since every army in the game, including Orks and Khorne heavy CSM, can now build brutal shooting based builds, I simply don't see any reason to condemn IG to HtH futility. It doesn't make sense in the fluff, and it doesn't make sense for game balance.

Unfortunately it's not a question of "tasteful" expense, and it isn't a question of possibly army builds. Power weapons will not create a combat centric guard force. Free power weapons wouldn't give them teeth in close combat. If you are basing your idea of what something should cost on what it would take to see play in an army then it is impossible to make power swords that would be cheap enough without just giving them to the squads at no cost. Given that, they might as well cost what they statistically should given their ability to kill roughly 150% of points more what a power sword does in the same role in other armies. That being basically a 100% increase in cost, making it roughly equivalent point for point to what everyone else spends for the same level of effectiveness.

No, this is a horrible way to balance units. If the sergeant with a PW was 1 point, and it killed a 15 point marine, but you had to take 50 points of guard to take the sergeant, it does not mean the IG are getting a 15:1 return on PW.

Umm... Except it does. If the power weapon was one point and it killed a single tac marine thats 15 times a return on its investment. It's not like it's making a difference to the squad whether its there or not. They are going to die. However That is one point out of your army that you used to kill 15 points in another. It's not the "way" to balance upgrades and units, but its one of the many things you have to take into account when doing so.

Railguns wrote:If you really wanted a fluff argument for Guard not to have power weapons in squads...there are plenty of examples of when they do. Last Chancers, Gaunts Ghosts, etc. etc. Its characterful and it really won't affect game balance at all to have 5 point powerweapons on a guy that may never get to use it at all anyway. I like the option. I would my lower officers lasguns and the command models powerweapons to represent rank but why should I be punished for it?

the only power weapons in my army are now in the company command squad and on the commissars i will almost never field. my two regular platoon command squads have been hit hardest by the recent economic downturn in segmentum ultima and have lost funding for their junior officer power weapons and medics. also, the cadian 667th regiment can no longer afford to subcontract close combat to ogryns as well as subsidize their lunches; they're being sent back to the home office. it'll be a bland 5 years for the cadian 667th infantry regiment with the equipment/unit prices in the upcoming codex... :(

i'd hope not. the LR is the big daddy of non-superheavy tanks both in fluff and rules. as armor goes, it's the most armored. when it transports, it transports more than anyone. when it shoots, it shoots more heavy weapons than anyone. etc... i agree that they do need to rescuplt the russ but i think a comfortable middle ground between the current russ and LR would be best.

Maybe not exactly the size of a landraider but it needs to be bigger than it currently is. Based on the model I just don't get the "lumbering behemoth" rule it's supposed to have.

Especailly since people will be able to have 9 now, if they were a little bigger it might balance out armies like that, as there could be a traffic jam in deployment zones.

Well, I know better than to keep arguing here.

warboss wrote:

Railguns wrote:If you really wanted a fluff argument for Guard not to have power weapons in squads...there are plenty of examples of when they do. Last Chancers, Gaunts Ghosts, etc. etc. Its characterful and it really won't affect game balance at all to have 5 point powerweapons on a guy that may never get to use it at all anyway. I like the option. I would my lower officers lasguns and the command models powerweapons to represent rank but why should I be punished for it?

the only power weapons in my army are now in the company command squad and on the commissars i will almost never field. my two regular platoon command squads have been hit hardest by the recent economic downturn in segmentum ultima and have lost funding for their junior officer power weapons and medics. also, the cadian 667th regiment can no longer afford to subcontract close combat to ogryns as well as subsidize their lunches; they're being sent back to the home office. it'll be a bland 5 years for the cadian 667th infantry regiment with the equipment/unit prices in the upcoming codex... :(

I know what you mean warboss. My Cadian 108th has had to introduce a new policy of issuing officers lasguns only. It has gone a long way in strengthening the relationship between Officers, NCOs and the enlisted men (well... "enlisted" is an oxymoron in Cadia).

I am hoping with the release of the new codex, perhaps my Commanding Officer will be able to purchase one of those fancy new HotShot Laspistols for his sidearm. Hopefully the Munitorum (in their infinite wisdom) will see fit to make such a transaction reasonable.

Polonius wrote:Well, I know better than to keep arguing here.

Why? All you seem to have been stating is that you want a point cost that would make the weapon a good enough alternative to "more guns" that it would see play. What is that point cost? 5? 3? How valueless is a power weapon and how much better point for point in a guardsman's hands does it need to be than in a marines to be worthwhile? I mean, you also seemed to want a guard force with close combat teeth, and given the cost of ogryn (which we aren't discussing) thats just not going to happen. Even with them it wasn't going to happen. Even with them, better rough riders, AND free power weapons for all your sergeants it wasn't going to happen.

People would just take the guns because your basic statline is too poor to field as a close combat centric army.


But then you've quit the argument and while you've said what you've said "power weapons should cost what they would need to to see play" you still haven't given a number. Nor have you supported the idea that any number other than free would accomplish that goal.

Daggermaw wrote:Is it just me or does anyone think that the leman russ needs a new model and it needs to be bigger? For a main battle tank, something along the line of an abrams or tiger it's awefully small. I'm thinking something closer to landraider size.

I like the current model for many reasons, so I hope not. It's already a big ol' akward tank if you run an armored list! Running 3 russ, 4 chimera and 2 HH's as I do you don't want any of them to get bigger as traffic jams already happen on alot of maps.
And how did this thread turn into a discussion about guard in CC while I was away?! They will always lose CC against anything but TAU and that's how it should be! The day my guardsmen seem even remotely effective against space marines I will smile from ear to ear and wonder what the hell the designers were thinking.

The only close combat guard should get are ogryns, which I now have 6 of because they will be lulzy and fun to play with so I'm painting them right now, and RR's which I will am converting very soon to ride customized spess marine bikes.