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.

I'd love to see infantry assume a larger portion of the "power pie", just because it was thus when I started many years ago and we've been inundated with vehicles for years. But... come what may, I'll roll with it.

Considering I'm starting Death Guard in 6th, I really hope infantry is better.

That could be interesting to see, im still making my army so i can change the build yet.

Being a Tyranid player, this would make me happy.

Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

That's kind of the problem.

Some armies don't have the tools to 'deal with it' effectively, which they should have from a game balance perspective.

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

With the rumoured nerf to coversaves i have a hard time seeing how pure infantry armies would become better.

I got a ton of half built Grey Hunters lying around, so bring on Infantryhammer!

My list right now only has three rhinos and two dreads. I don't run a single razorback.

I wouldn't mind a more inf based game if I had more options for troops... Suck and suck slightly less arn't great options.

Well the cover save point is interesting maybe we see a more cheap models, as by the rumours are going I think everything is just becoming easier to kill, so you won't want to buy that landraider anymore as it's too many pts/ kp/vp/investment for it to just die to a couple of glances, so clearly this is the hordehammer edition .

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

oldone wrote:Well the cover save point is interesting maybe we see a more cheap models, as by the rumours are going I think everything is just becoming easier to kill, so you won't want to buy that landraider anymore as it's too many pts/ kp/vp/investment for it to just die to a couple of glances, so clearly this is the hordehammer edition .

Considering their default cover is now 5+ I think we can call it Killhammer instead

The Shadow wrote:As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

That can happen now. Stubborn Sgt (or Commissar?).

To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Most things that can outnumber tend to have a chance to be stubborn or fearless (nids, daemons, guard). I do like the leadership method better.

I just wish leadership was a singular test and not split up.

n0t_u wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

That's kind of my point.

rigeld2 wrote:

n0t_u wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TedNugent wrote:Modern warfare involves a lot of AFVs. IMO deal with it.

Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

That's kind of how it used to be...

That's kind of my point.

And that's why nobody used to use them except for the skimmerspam armies that were very difficult to shoot down and you couldn't inflict an "explodes" result against.

Not sure this is factual given the rumors:

-5+ cover means it's more dangerous to be outside and weapons like plasma, Whirlwinds, havoc launchers and other strong stuff can wipe out walking infantry.

-FNP nerf also means being outside a vehicle means death by crossfire.

-The change in the fire-assault order means you can no longer pop a vehicle and then assault the passengers. Therefore, you suffer an extra round of shooting on the way to CC. Transports become invaluable to guard your shooty units on the way to the objective.

Sephyr wrote:Not sure this is factual given the rumors:

-5+ cover means it's more dangerous to be outside and weapons like plasma, Whirlwinds, havoc launchers and other strong stuff can wipe out walking infantry.

-FNP nerf also means being outside a vehicle means death by crossfire.

-The change in the fire-assault order means you can no longer pop a vehicle and then assault the passengers. Therefore, you suffer an extra round of shooting on the way to CC. Transports become invaluable to guard your shooty units on the way to the objective.

i'm hoping what i've read about "reactions" are true, because otherwise the assault phase would be even more outclassed by the shooting phase, even with the rumored contested shooting. if the "reactions" are included in the rules, where for instance upon obliterating a transport you get a charge reaction to assault the passengers, then chainfists become a lot more desirable.

otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

pratell wrote:
otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

That's a poor comparison.
The potential damage output of a specialised meleé unit is far greater than that of a specialised shooting unit. A unit of Death Company with a Reclesiarch will cause far, far more damage in a single assault phase than many shooting units could manage in an entire game.

Testify wrote:

pratell wrote:
otherwise i think assault units are just going to be less valuable than shooters, for the simple fact that you can blow up a transport and kill its passengers in the same shooting phase, whereas the same is not true for the assault phase.

That's a poor comparison.
The potential damage output of a specialised meleé unit is far greater than that of a specialised shooting unit. A unit of Death Company with a Reclesiarch will cause far, far more damage in a single assault phase than many shooting units could manage in an entire game.

Yep, reliably killing a unit through shooting is really hard without disproportionate amounts of firepower.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles. Bring back the old vehicle damage charts that made it riskier to put stuff n transports.

Horrible idea. This was the reason they were called "metal boxes of death." NO ONE used them because they were death traps. If the rumors are true, I believe it will be a nice balance. Same damage chart but "hull points" limit how many times a tank can stand being pinged by glancing or ineffective pens.

As someone who has nearly 100 Black Templar tactical marines, 20 scouts, and a buncha other stuff...I would love to see the rise of InfantryHammer

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles.

Swarms of vehicles are tedious, but swarms of infantry aren't? Seems little more than a personal whim to me. I can say for certainty that I've had opponents roll their eyes at me when they see the 100 guardsmen I'm unpacking.

As for vehicles being invincible, you're not building a good enough foot list. That or not playing it right. That or you're really unlucky.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Right, with the tiny caveat that you can't mind war or vindicare snipe or gifts out a single model and have the whole squad lose their ability.

Still, I agree that it probably wouldn't matter much for guard (other than that I might drop the commissars).

Ailaros wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But for those people who run hordes, it is rather tedious to play against a swarm of invincible vehicles.

Swarms of vehicles are tedious, but swarms of infantry aren't? Seems little more than a personal whim to me. I can say for certainty that I've had opponents roll their eyes at me when they see the 100 guardsmen I'm unpacking.

As for vehicles being invincible, you're not building a good enough foot list. That or not playing it right. That or you're really unlucky.

Testify wrote:To be fair stubborn works all the time, wheras steadfast is only if you outnumber them, so it's actually worse. Although if blob guard aren't outnumbering their enemies in CC, something is going horribly wrong.

Right, with the tiny caveat that you can't mind war or vindicare snipe or gifts out a single model and have the whole squad lose their ability.

Still, I agree that it probably wouldn't matter much for guard (other than that I might drop the commissars).

I'd be all for having some sort of steadfast rule applied to platoons. I'd still bring commissars for stubborn, LD bonus, and the extra PW, but having a way to keep your guardsmen around even after someone picks off your commissar would be nice. My store has so many SW players I hardly even bother unpacking them anymore, because I know they're getting picked of the first turn they're in LOS of a priest...

As for foot hordes being tedious, my store has mixed reactions. They love seeing a guard army that doesnt have 30 chimeras, but hate watching me unpack my army. What kills me is that even though their initial deployment is quick, whenever i blow up a transport it takes them 5 minutes to dig out 10 guys, and dont expect me to get annoyed in return. It's gotten better now that I can eyeball my spread better and am much faster at moving, but it's still tedious at times. And that's from my point of view, I'd imagine my opponents get sick of it much soner.

I've found that guard armies in general, regardless of what build, generally take a long time to unpack, deploy, and re-pack, anyone who has any real experience with the army should realize and understand this. If they don't, they're daft. Hell, my mechanized guard routinely has twice the infantry most of my SM opponents have, and that's with nearly 20 tanks on the field. That all takes time to set up and re-pack.


It *really* sucks at tournaments where they have no space to put dead/reserved/embarked models off the board

The Shadow wrote:As long as it's not like Fantasy's steadfast.

You charge your Greater Deamon/Trygon/Whatever Character into an IG Platoon of 20 or whatever (not too familiar with IG), kill 6, suffer no damage whatsever in return and then the IG get to test on their normal Ld because there's more of them.

The Imperial Guard already have a rule for this. It's called "stubborn" in 40k. It's also why I've always spent those extra 35-45 extra points to slap a lady commissar in my blob. Keeps the men fighting at leadership 9 despite taking 30 wounds in combat...

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because 40k is so much like modern warfare.
Heck - lets go with that though.
As long as everything inside dies with no save on an explodes result.

You down?

Ok. Explodes result is 1 of 6 on the damage table. Generally if your tank catches fire and you can't escape the latch, you're now trapped in a pressure cooker.

But you should know that otherwise tankers have escaped disabled, wrecked, or otherwise burning tanks alive.

Tanks don't usually "explode," unless you hit the ammunition storage or the gasoline. More often then not the projectile pierces the body of the armor, producing a small explosion in the interior from the HE charge and then bouncing around in the interior of the tank, killing crewmen and variously dealing damage.

Might be worth noting that just because of the advent of Power Armor, I don't see why everyone would forgo the use of tanks, particularly when missile launchers are only capable of glancing them and you have to hit a tank upwards of six times on its frontal armor with a Lascannon.

PS, I'm talking about tanks. Typically troop transports are not actually involved in front line combat, they're used for transport and usually lightly armored and have a tendency to explode in flames when a tank so much as looks at them. They're used to get to the combat zone, not to advance to the front lines as an assault vessel.