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.

tag8833 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

Here is some math to illustrate my point:

Spoiler:

All math is done unbuffed with an acknowledgement that Knights have superior access to buffs. Baneblades are assumed to have 4 lascannon / heavy bolter sponsons.

Knights shooting at baneblades
Castellan does 30.40 unsaved wounds to a baneblade chasis in one round of shooting. (12pts more than baneblade as equipped above)
Valiant does 26.71 (9pts LESS)
Crusader (RFBC, MG, Stormspear) does 10.91 (49pts LESS)
Crusader (Thermal, MG, Stormspear) does 12.67 (87pts LESS)

Baneblades shooting at T8 knights (5+ Invul)
Shadowsword does 25.62 unsaved wounds to a knight chaises in one round (52 pts less)
Baneblade does 14.17 (0 points different)
Banehammer does 8.77 (52 pts less)
Banesword does 11.83 (52 pts less)
Doomhammer does 11.83 (22 pts less)
Hellhammer does 14.17 (20 pts more)
Stormlord does 10.06 (4 pts less)
Stormsword does 10.49 (52 pts less)

So the Shadowsword is basically twice as good at killing knights as all other variants. It's pretty similar (like 80% as good) at killing small stuff like infantry and bikes, so maybe it should cost the most. Meanwhile Dominus knights are extremely more points efficient at killing baneblades (and other knights) than any of the Baneblade variants. They are also better at killing medium vehicles like rhinos and small stuff, and they are more durable, and have better buffs all for about the same price.

The Stormlord and the Crusader are roughly comparable but the Crusader runs significantly cheaper.

Knights and Baneblades aren't costed on the same scale at all. Either Knights generally need a 20-40% points boost or baneblades need about a 20-40% decrease to be comparable.

What are you basing your maths on a no-one runs Melta Guns on knights like seriously a 12 inch assualt weapon you having a laugh if you think thats getting in range of a shadowsword.

I picked the melta gun because it was the most expensive option. I was doing what I could to compare apples to apples because knights are so much cheaper than baneblades for comparable damage output.

Ice_can wrote:
Also are you compairing mono knights or souped?

The 1st sentence of my section on math: "All math is done unbuffed with an acknowledgement that Knights have superior access to buffs"

Ice_can wrote:
Also what does you points less relate to you havn't explained any of your maths.

The 1st points comparison explains that: 12pts more than baneblade as equipped above

Ice_can wrote:
Also you say knights have acess to better buffs but Guard LoW can be any regiment and given astropath buffs.

Sure. Knights have a good list of regiments as well, and there is definitely a spell if it goes off can get a Baneblade down to a 2+ armor save with no invul. Knights have a warlord trait that does that for free. Also they have a warlord trait that gives a knight a 4++ invul (I've played a dozen castellans, and I've never seen one without that trait). And a strategem that gives them +1 invul. So we are talking a 3+ invul. Which is what makes them not terribly threatened by baneblades (or realistically any shooting). In the dozen or so games I've play against a Castellan or Vallient, and the dozen or so more that I've watch at tourneys, I've only ever seen one die to shooting, and that was killed by another castellan in a mirror match.

Ice_can wrote:
Castallans are probably 50 points undercosted..

I'd say we can agree to disagree on that point. Since they put out roughly twice as much offense as a baneblade, and are significantly more durable, and cost about the same, my theory is 50 points probably isn't enough. You could probably bump it 50-100 points if you took away the 4++ WL trait and the House Raven Strategem.

Ice_can wrote:
The other thing to remember in balance is they will feel unbalanced as to be balanced they need to table an opponent to win as they loose on objectives etc every time.

My experience is that they are always surrounded by 60-90 guardsmen. Sometimes 3-6 hellhounds. 15 blood angels scouts, and 5-10 characters. So usually they have pretty good board presence.

They put out about twice as much firepower as a baneblade and cost about the same. So think of this, next time you are facing an Imperial guard gunline give your opponent a free Baneblade on top of his 2,000 points. See how likely it is that you still have board control after 6 turns. How many times have you seen a Castellan fielded where one player wasn't tabled or close enough to it?

So castellans in Soup are your issue. That makes sence, it's very much like slamguinius its an ok unit that gets silly once you plow 2 pregame and 5/6CP per turn into it, most unit which can have that amount of CP spent on them do get silly.

A Mono Knights list is going to top out at 9 CP at 2K

Also slamguinius can one round a knight and he is only 129 points if he can one round a knight he can certainly do that to a banblade chassis except mono knights dont have enough models to screen out the deepstrike guard do.

I was basing my points increase on mono knights as points costing it for soup will just create a new marine codex of it onlu being casually playable with one mono build.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Armored Fist squads - where its cheaper than taking a Infantry Squad + a Chimera, but they have to remain together on the battlefield.

This is a bit harder to do. You can't really play around too much with the points costs without them affecting everything in my opinion.

Why? That's how 5th edition Codex BA worked - assault marines got discount on transports if they dropped jet packs. It worked excellently, too, probably the only edition where mechanized SM were viable and fun (no, Gladius was not fun for anyone, TYVM).

That's great for 5th edition.

That's not how things work now.

Kanluwen wrote:I think it's important to realize that some of the complaints here aren't that the Guard codex is bad but that people would like the book to be viable without soup being a factor.

That is actually pretty easy to do - take a look at modern mechanized division, say Soviet one from 80s, or current Russian one (as they have doctrine closest to IG from all 'real life' units), make a note how units are organized (because centuries of thinking and millions of dollars went into developing something that works, and works without assistance of Custodes or SM, I might add), try to convert that into IG units. Done, you have got something realistic, featuring combined arms on all levels, something based on mountain of both practice and theory no Codex writer can match to even a fraction of thought. It would even allow for some really non-obvious combos employed in RL that would make you feel you're playing a real army, not an angry mob standing around with little purpose.

Alas, it's sad to see so many people think combined arms and actual, working tactics are unrealistic and need to be killed (which really won't help the objective of making IG stand-alone army...).

Nobody gives a crap about what the Soviets did.

Saying "look at a modern mechanized division"(which has what to do with the book being viable without soup being a factor again?) and then touting the crap about Soviets/Russians "having doctrine closest to IG from all 'real life' units" is just exposing that you actually haven't paid attention to the fluff.

The doctrines for the various Regiments are as wildly varied as any in current doctrines. Cadians don't act like Russians, Catachans don't act like Russians, Mordians don't act like Russians, Valhallans don't act like Russians, Vostroyans don't act like Russians, etc.

There might be a world somewhere with a doctrine similar to modern Russian/1980s "we just botched Afghanistan so hard" Russia but it ain't any of the big ones.

You realize the he was just using Soviets/Russia as an example right? The main gist of his argument was look at real world armies, how they are composed, what sort of kit they use, what sort of support weapons they might bring around, the types of air support they may bring (Imperial Navy auxilia) and so on. Frankly, looking at how real world armies function and how all the parts move could make for rather interesting insights on things to include for guard come the next round of updates. Mind you, WWI, the Interwar Period, and WW2 would probably be better places to look considering the aesthetics of such mainlines as the Leman Russ.

Polonius wrote:Hmm, what would I change if I could revise the guard codex?

Rebalance the heavy weapons. Mortars are super good, so I'd like to see a price bump here, I think you can argue that heavy bolters should be 5pts, Autocannons 10pts, MLs 15pts, and lascannons 20.

Radically rebalance special weapons. BS4+ plasma and melta at 10pts, Flamers at 5pts (at most, but flamers need a game wide rebalancing), snipers stay put, and keep grenade launchers 5pts but finally make them assault 2.

Fix the multi-laser. I wrote a lengthy take down of this garbage weapon, but I think I have a simple solution: make it 5pts, and make it Assault 3. It's now a nice little harassment gun.

Price drop on the Chimera. I think it works fine, it's just too expensive for what it does, especially in a world with Move! Move! Move! Likewise, price drops on other bits of kit that work fine, but cost too much, like the Wyvvern, Banewolf, Ogryns, and medic/standard command squads. (I say create a new "honor guard" squad that cannot take special or heavy weapons, and has a standard, medic, vox, and power weapon option, all with the character keyword)

Buff the hydra. I say make the guns S8 and D3, but anything that makes it actually useful as an anti-air option will be appreciated.

Balance the LRBT main guns. IMO, the battle cannon, executioner, and punisher are fine. The demolisher is okay but overcosted, bring it in line with the others and it's got niche use. The Vanquisher needs to be two shots, S9, Ap-3 2d6 damage, pick the highest. The nova cannon technically has the anti-cover niche, but -1 to hit is the new cover. I'd make it a super long range hellhound. Heavy d6, 48" range, S5 AP1 D1, always hits. Finally, I say make the exterminator Heavy 6.

Give wyrdvanes a purpose. Primaris are general use, and astropaths are support, so I say make Wyrdvances smite machines. Allow them one cast with two dice, but you get an extra dice if the squad is five or more.

Finally, veterans. I say either open up the tool kit, and all vets to become a huge range of things, or include a regiment specific veteran squad for each regiment (minus MT). For example:
Cadians: Kasrkin. Heavy armor and hotshots, but no deepstrike.
Catachan: Catachan Devils: +1 Attack, WS3+
Tallarn: Desert Tigers - Gain +1 to hit and to wound the turn they deploy by Ambush
Vostroyan: Eldest Sons - 4+ saves, Heavy Lasguns (30", rapid fire, S4)
Mordian: Drill Team - May issue themselves one order, in addition to any order given by an officer
Armageddon: Steel Dragoons - While within 6" of a Chimera, they reroll all failed wound rolls, and all rapid fire weapons may shoot one extra shot.
Valhallan: Frost Guard - squad size 10-20, may ignore wounds on a 5+

All of these ideas I could get behind. I feel the individual veteran units you propose would need different point costs though - a 6 point model with 4+ save and a -2AP weapon sounds much, as does a 6 point model with a 5+ invulnerable save. It would probably be much simpler to give back the toolkit of the old veteran doctrines. Give a pool of options along with a point cost, so that you can get some weirdly specialized squads in action. Make the +1 attack option an upgrade open to all that costs 1ppm extra, or give a cost of 1ppm for heavier armor, etc.




On a somewhat unrelated note, what is the hatred of having a heavy weapon in Infantry Squads? I like the idea of having the squad support weapon over a specialized unit solely for carrying the weapons.


My main personal wishlist is for the Chimera to get a reasonable buff - either reduce its point cost or make it worth its points, fix the garbage Leman Russ options, make Ogryn more viable, and provide a reason to actually take Veteran Squads. I'm fine with light nerfs on some of the codex's stronger units (Mortars, Plasma spam, Indirect Fire in general, etc) as well if the weaker stuff gets brought up, I'd just like everything to be viable really.

kurhanik wrote:

On a somewhat unrelated note, what is the hatred of having a heavy weapon in Infantry Squads? I like the idea of having the squad support weapon over a specialized unit solely for carrying the weapons.

That goes to category "I hate IG. Nerf 'em to death' and wanting to make sure IG has no worthwhile infantry heavy weapon besides HWS mortar teams.

Actually more of a wishlisting to represent differing kinds of Regiments. What would you think of upgrades for guard squads and veterans:

For exemple:
Grenadiers, 2ppm (more likely 3) per modell on top of a guardsmen: Gains a 4+ armor and is allowed to throw 3 frag / krak greanades per turn with an additional 2" on the grenade range. (frag greanades change their stats to 3+d3 hits. this also influences nade launchers, because when was the last time you saw one)

Light Infantry: gains a 6+ armor, instead gains +2 on their armor save when in cover, gain an additional movement before the game starts like scout sentinels. Gains the options for Sniperrifles. +1 ppm.

Same goes for Veterans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

On a somewhat unrelated note, what is the hatred of having a heavy weapon in Infantry Squads? I like the idea of having the squad support weapon over a specialized unit solely for carrying the weapons.

That goes to category "I hate IG. Nerf 'em to death' and wanting to make sure IG has no worthwhile infantry heavy weapon besides HWS mortar teams.

The actual problem is not the fact that HWS are Op, the problem is that certain Weaponoptions are underpriced, alot and it is not soley a IG problem. R&H faces the same, especially with mortars this time only with double the ammount of mortars per squad. Same goes for DE and some of their infamous weaponry. Plasma Guns are still, well plasma guns.They did some good with the rebalancing of cost with CA (mainly in regards to autocanns but those also have had a ressurgence because they can deal reliably with DE). Meltas, Nade launchers, webbers for GSC, flamers are however still in a spot where they might aswell not exist.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The actual problem is not the fact that HWS are Op, the problem is that certain Weaponoptions are underpriced, alot and it is not soley a IG problem. R&H faces the same, especially with mortars this time only with double the ammount of mortars per squad. Same goes for DE and some of their infamous weaponry. Plasma Guns are still, well plasma guns.They did some good with the rebalancing of cost with CA (mainly in regards to autocanns but those also have had a ressurgence because they can deal reliably with DE). Meltas, Nade launchers, webbers for GSC, flamers are however still in a spot where they might aswell not exist.

HWS's are pretty much junk EXCEPT for mortar teams. Mortars are only ones that are a) cheap b) actually can survive. Others are expensive 3 models that need LOS and are about as tough as wet paper.

Mortar's are pretty much only thing you CAN put to HWS and not be waste of points. For others to be worth considering you need some serious rethinking there. Other weapons can be good but only on regular infantry squad. Which is why remove those and you remove any and all infantry heavy weapons from IG. Except mortar assuming it doesn't get nerfed to death

Off topic but for flamers I like the idea of them sticking witht he 8 inch range but becoming one of the following steps of firepower -
Auto hit 1D6 OR half the models in range in the target unit
Auto hit 2D6 OR all the models in range in the target unit
Auto hit 4D6 OR all the models in range in the target unit twice
Etc.

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The actual problem is not the fact that HWS are Op, the problem is that certain Weaponoptions are underpriced, alot and it is not soley a IG problem. R&H faces the same, especially with mortars this time only with double the ammount of mortars per squad. Same goes for DE and some of their infamous weaponry. Plasma Guns are still, well plasma guns.They did some good with the rebalancing of cost with CA (mainly in regards to autocanns but those also have had a ressurgence because they can deal reliably with DE). Meltas, Nade launchers, webbers for GSC, flamers are however still in a spot where they might aswell not exist.

HWS's are pretty much junk EXCEPT for mortar teams. Mortars are only ones that are a) cheap b) actually can survive. Others are expensive 3 models that need LOS and are about as tough as wet paper.

Mortar's are pretty much only thing you CAN put to HWS and not be waste of points. For others to be worth considering you need some serious rethinking there. Other weapons can be good but only on regular infantry squad. Which is why remove those and you remove any and all infantry heavy weapons from IG. Except mortar assuming it doesn't get nerfed to death

Never said it was diffrent, infact in that regard FW AM regiments and R&H have an advantage because the LMG is a option for weapon teams. I guess the same could be done to AM, since the stubbers costs only 4 ppm it wouldn't be a terrible option.

I'd like a slight nerf to mortars though, bring them up to 6ppm, or (unpopular opinion) give them a minimum range again, something that can be exploited or makes you think more then putting them behind the LOS building ruin and chipping away at your enemy withouth a possibility for stopping that.

If that is not the case, maybee split of mortar support teams, from other HWS, those others gain a special rule like entrenched which adds plus 2+ on their armor if in cover but loses movement capability? Maybee an additional wound?
Maybee the Heavy Stubber would be enough cheap to make them worth it compared to mortars?

Fact is, certain special and Heavy weapons are just superior to others, flamers do AA atm and on average manage less shots against an ork horde then a lasgun under orders, same goes for nade launchers. Then you have plasma and dissy cannons which are underpriced and do massive damage againt nearly everything.

I have no problems with reasonable nerf with mortar. What I'm deadset against is idea that infantry squads shouldn't get heavy weapons limiting infantry heavy weapons to HWS which are frankly lousy for any non-mortar(and I have no idea how to fix it. Points are hard because base price for 6 infantry models is so cheap and weapons needs to be priced with other platforms as well. HWS price akin to melta/plasma? Knowing GW they would up those prices though "as you get more heavy weapons per squad"). Oh and would limit infantry heavy weapons to max 9. Marines can outnumber that...

HWS is pretty hard unit to fix. When they can be shot freely you have expensive valuable guns easily cleared. But character protection style rule meanwhile would be silly bonkers...

Basically, the only thing I wish for is good veterans and the return of penal units.

Veterans should be returned back to TROOP category in the state they are currently in, or leave them in ELITEs and make them viable and able to get specialized.
1) Heavy Infantry - Carapace armor and maybe an upgraded S4 AP- lasgun
2) Reconessiance unit - Infiltrate and -1 to hit while being shot at
3) Assault Infantry - Assault 2 or 3 gun, ability to act as a jump infantry for a single turn. (Think of the Light Assault class from Planetside franchise)
4) Paratroopers - They get deep-strike.

And for penal units, I'd imagine them being similar to what they were before, but with some additional gimmicks, like random leadership, d3 lasgun shots, d3 close combat attacks. Adding some randomness to them.

And Valkyrie having the Strafing Run rule, so it won't be hitting on 5s

Also, Fix/balance the Macharius tank family. They are horrible for their cost.
And maybe making Vanquisher S9 and more reliable to deal damage would be fine too.

The special and heavy weapon mix is a bit odd. But here I think you are dealing with model legacy issues. Saying that from a ‘real world’ perspective virtually every support weapon the Guard has would require more than one operator. Missile launchers, anti-tank guns, cannon, heavy machine guns all need at least 2 soldiers to work effectively. 81mm mortars require three (I would love to have the time to go back and populate my heavy weapon bases more!). Even snipers work in two’s. Perhaps if you had to give up 3 men for a heavy weapon option and minor nerfs like a HWT only getting the heavy weapon shot and losing the hard to remember lasgun/grenade extra shot it would alter perceptions over what was a good choice. Well first you would need far better balance between weapons!

An interesting idea to me would be to both increase flexibility and decrease it at the same time. So make the standard squad size 10 (I would love 12, but 10 is the GW silly thang) and have the option for a mix of up to 3 heavy weapon teams and special weapons, then get rid of the special and heavy weapon squads. Not saying it’s a good idea, but it certainly is interesting to think about what the actual effect would be.

Costing? Assuming a BS of 4+? Weapon stats are
For comparison
(1 pts) lasgun – 24”, 3, -0, 1 (who else misses -1sv lasguns and range 36, -0sv autoguns…)

Special weapons
(5 pts) Grenade Launcher Frag – 24”, assault 3.5 av. shots, 3, -0, 1
Krak - 24”, assault 1 , 6, -1, 2 av. damage (I would love if GW made D3 damage a straight 2…)
(12 pts) Meltagun – 12”, assault 1, 8, -4, 3.5 av. Damage, increasing to 4.5 av. damage below 6” range (honestly, write this type of rule as +1 damage GW!)
(7 pts) Plasma Gun – 24” range, rapid fire 1, 7, -3, 1
Plasma Gun supercharge - 24” range, rapid fire 1, 8, -3, 2 – gets hot…
(2 pts) Sniper Rifle – 36”, Heavy 1, 4, -0, 1 – 1/6 chance when wounding to do an extra mortal wound
I am including the Heavy Stubber here…
(4 pts) Heavy Stubber – 36”, Heavy 3, 4, -0, 1

Heavy Weapons
(8pts) Heavy Bolter – 36”, Heavy 3, 5, -1, 1
(12 pts) Autocannon – 48” Heavy 2, 7, -1, 2
(20 pts) Lascannon – 48” Heavy 1, 9, -3, 3.5 av. damage
(20 pts) Missile Launcher – 48”, Heavy 3.5 av. shots, 4, -0, 1
Missile Launcher – 48”, Heavy 1, 8, -2, 3.5 av. damage
(5 pts) Mortar – 48”, Heavy 3.5 av. shots, 4, -0, 1 – No LOS required
(And house rule weapon – the old metal mortar)
(12 points) – Heavy Mortar, 48”, Heavy 3.5 av. shots, 5, -0, 1 – No LOS required, no move and fire

Looking at all that and taking the heavy stubber/heavy bolter as the base I would have thought the scores on the doors should be more like

Infantry Special weapon choices
(3 pts) Grenade Launcher (Gone down)
(10 pts) Meltagun (Gone down – this may be a mistake…)
(8 pts) Plasma Gun (Gone up)
(2 pts) Sniper Rifle
(4 pts) Heavy Stubber

Infantry Heavy Weapon choices
(8pts) Heavy Bolter
(12 pts) Autocannon
(20 pts) Lascannon
(16 pts) Missile Launcher (Gone down)
(9 pts) Mortar (Gone up)
(12 pts) Heavy Mortar

tneva82 wrote:
I have no problems with reasonable nerf with mortar. What I'm deadset against is idea that infantry squads shouldn't get heavy weapons limiting infantry heavy weapons to HWS which are frankly lousy for any non-mortar(and I have no idea how to fix it. Points are hard because base price for 6 infantry models is so cheap and weapons needs to be priced with other platforms as well. HWS price akin to melta/plasma? Knowing GW they would up those prices though "as you get more heavy weapons per squad"). Oh and would limit infantry heavy weapons to max 9. Marines can outnumber that...

HWS is pretty hard unit to fix. When they can be shot freely you have expensive valuable guns easily cleared. But character protection style rule meanwhile would be silly bonkers...

This is why I keep coming back to a few ideas:

1) Heavy Weapon Squads as I detailed earlier. Keep the teams as they are now, bump the size of the unit maximum from 6 to 10(net gain of 2 additional HWTs). Make it so the Squad can break up into 5 individual teams--each with a Vox-Caster as part of the HWT.
2) Don't give them character protection, rather make it so that they're individual 'squads' once split up. Means that the teams can still be targeted normally and they're a bit less survivable but it also improves protection a bit by requiring someone to commit to taking them out piecemeal.
3) Add a "Defensive Posture" rule to them. On a turn they don't move, they count as being in Cover. If already in Cover, they get an additional point added to their save or they are at a -1 to be hit(don't let it stack with the psyker power that gives a -1 to be hit). Something small but not necessarily gamebreaking.
4) Controversial as this may be...bring in something that allows for the Master of Ordnance to issue them a unique Order or gives him some kind of 'orchestrated firing' rule that boosts up their ROF. I'd love to do things weapon specific(Lascannons get an ability to hit on a better value as he's directing fire at specific targets, Heavy Bolters get to swap to Rapid Fire for a turn, Autocannons get to deal a MW for each successful normal Wound they deal, Mortars get to impose a negative Hit modifier on enemy units they wound--stuff like that) but it might get a bit wordy.

If you had 6 mortars in a squad that would be a little too strong i think. Order efficiency ramps up quite a bit with an already very powerful weapon.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Infantry Special weapon choices
(3 pts) Grenade Launcher (Gone down)
(10 pts) Meltagun (Gone down – this may be a mistake…)
(8 pts) Plasma Gun (Gone up)
(2 pts) Sniper Rifle
(4 pts) Heavy Stubber

Infantry Heavy Weapon choices
(8pts) Heavy Bolter
(12 pts) Autocannon
(20 pts) Lascannon
(16 pts) Missile Launcher (Gone down)
(9 pts) Mortar (Gone up)
(12 pts) Heavy Mortar

How can it be mistake when it's still more expensive than superior plasma...

 Marmatag wrote:
If you had 6 mortars in a squad that would be a little too strong i think. Order efficiency ramps up quite a bit with an already very powerful weapon.

If you're replying to me...

My whole idea is predicated upon the Heavy Weapon Squads behaving like Vehicle or Monster Squadrons--and capping out the unit size at 10 "models". Since HWTs are 2 models as one, it means 5 teams for a single Heavy slot. They are purchased and deployed as one, but operate individually as the game starts. You would have to use 6 Orders to get them all Ordered up(unless we went for my kickass Order revamp project).

tneva82 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

(10 pts) Meltagun (Gone down – this may be a mistake…)
(8 pts) Plasma Gun (Gone up)

How can it be mistake when it's still more expensive than superior plasma...

Because it is very good at a specialized task - deploying at close range (like out of a Valkyrie) and melting stuff. If the codex didn't have this type of option it could be less, but you have to cost stuff for their optimal use...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
My whole idea is predicated upon the Heavy Weapon Squads behaving like Vehicle or Monster Squadrons--and capping out the unit size at 10 "models". Since HWTs are 2 models as one, it means 5 teams for a single Heavy slot. They are purchased and deployed as one, but operate individually as the game starts. You would have to use 6 Orders to get them all Ordered up(unless we went for my kickass Order revamp project).

Would bury your army in games that used kill points.

If orders are an issue just say heavy weapons squads don't benefit from them.

Ice_can wrote:
So castellans in Soup are your issue. That makes sence, it's very much like slamguinius its an ok unit that gets silly once you plow 2 pregame and 5/6CP per turn into it, most unit which can have that amount of CP spent on them do get silly.

A Mono Knights list is going to top out at 9 CP at 2K

Also slamguinius can one round a knight and he is only 129 points if he can one round a knight he can certainly do that to a banblade chassis except mono knights dont have enough models to screen out the deepstrike guard do.

I was basing my points increase on mono knights as points costing it for soup will just create a new marine codex of it onlu being casually playable with one mono build.

Since the GW rules writers in their interview rolling out the knight codex on the official GW Twitch stream said they planned for knights to be played alongside Guard or Ad Mech for CP's, I think it is fair to assume that knights are viewed as part of a soup army.

Since you've got to take a baneblade in a different detachment from Guardsmen and Conscripts, it's kinda weird to view it as not comparable to knight who have exactly the same ability to take guardsmen in their army. If you could take a super heavy as part of a brigade, maybe there would be more argument for baneblades being costed on a completely different scale than knights who can't be taken as part of a brigade.

I think Slamguinius should get a nerf too, but he is less of a problem in the meta because he has to get close and put himself at risk to be useful, and he helps counter some of the bigger problems in the meta like Knights, gunlines, and Custodes.

tag8833 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So castellans in Soup are your issue. That makes sence, it's very much like slamguinius its an ok unit that gets silly once you plow 2 pregame and 5/6CP per turn into it, most unit which can have that amount of CP spent on them do get silly.

A Mono Knights list is going to top out at 9 CP at 2K

Also slamguinius can one round a knight and he is only 129 points if he can one round a knight he can certainly do that to a banblade chassis except mono knights dont have enough models to screen out the deepstrike guard do.

I was basing my points increase on mono knights as points costing it for soup will just create a new marine codex of it onlu being casually playable with one mono build.

Since the GW rules writers in their interview rolling out the knight codex on the official GW Twitch stream said they planned for knights to be played alongside Guard or Ad Mech for CP's, I think it is fair to assume that knights are viewed as part of a soup army.

Since you've got to take a baneblade in a different detachment from Guardsmen and Conscripts, it's kinda weird to view it as not comparable to knight who have exactly the same ability to take guardsmen in their army. If you could take a super heavy as part of a brigade, maybe there would be more argument for baneblades being costed on a completely different scale than knights who can't be taken as part of a brigade.

I think Slamguinius should get a nerf too, but he is less of a problem in the meta because he has to get close and put himself at risk to be useful, and he helps counter some of the bigger problems in the meta like Knights, gunlines, and Custodes.

Again the point was all of the buffs regiment traits etc all carry across in mono guard, guard/marines/Sisters don't cross buff.
To be honest watching some of the armies that the designers have used in games I very much doubt they actually ment were designed and balanced with list synergies. Like they still after a year don't understand or what to address why IG have grandnstrategist and Kurov's.
They are also the people who gave you the comissar nerf.

Ice_can wrote:
They are also the people who gave you the comissar nerf.

The Commissar nerf was an attempt to nerf conscripts which was desperately needed. Unfortunately it was followed by 2 more nerfs to conscripts bumping them to 4 ppm, and making them have to test for orders. After those 2 nerfs, the commissar nerf is probably no longer needed. Personally, I'd like to see the comminssar nerf stick, but the orders nerf go away. Also Guardsmen need to go to 5 ppm to justify conscripts again.

 Kanluwen wrote:
4) Controversial as this may be...bring in something that allows for the Master of Ordnance to issue them a unique Order or gives him some kind of 'orchestrated firing' rule that boosts up their ROF. I'd love to do things weapon specific(Lascannons get an ability to hit on a better value as he's directing fire at specific targets, Heavy Bolters get to swap to Rapid Fire for a turn, Autocannons get to deal a MW for each successful normal Wound they deal, Mortars get to impose a negative Hit modifier on enemy units they wound--stuff like that) but it might get a bit wordy.

Now this I really like, makes the MoO somewhat more useful (or indeed actually useful), if HWS can only receive orders from the MoO and not other officers, that'd be an interesting synergy. Might have to allow them to take a Vox-Caster though, so you don't have to bunch your HWS teams up too much with your other artillery.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
My whole idea is predicated upon the Heavy Weapon Squads behaving like Vehicle or Monster Squadrons--and capping out the unit size at 10 "models". Since HWTs are 2 models as one, it means 5 teams for a single Heavy slot. They are purchased and deployed as one, but operate individually as the game starts. You would have to use 6 Orders to get them all Ordered up(unless we went for my kickass Order revamp project).

Would bury your army in games that used kill points.

And? Look, there's not much that you can really argue to say a horde army shouldn't bleed KPs more if we're simply going off Kill Points. KPs, in general, might need to see a complete overhaul themselves.

If orders are an issue just say heavy weapons squads don't benefit from them.

Orders aren't really an issue, people just seem to have a hardon for complaining about Orders vs anything else.

It doesn't help that KP's are fundamentally a stupid mechanic in the first place

#oldschoolVP4eva.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It doesn't help that KP's are fundamentally a stupid mechanic in the first place

#oldschoolVP4eva.

I didn't even think VPs were a great way of doing things.

I prefer the old fantasy way of calculating victory by counting the points cost of destroyed units. Whoever killed more points were of stuff generally won. Easy solution in my opinion.

I think that instead of 1 killpoint awarded per unit destroyed, that 1 killpoint should be awarded per power level of the destroyed unit. Whoever has more killpoints at the end of the game wins.

Power levels aren't always totally balanced but it is a better system than we have now.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

(10 pts) Meltagun (Gone down – this may be a mistake…)
(8 pts) Plasma Gun (Gone up)

How can it be mistake when it's still more expensive than superior plasma...

Because it is very good at a specialized task - deploying at close range (like out of a Valkyrie) and melting stuff. If the codex didn't have this type of option it could be less, but you have to cost stuff for their optimal use...

Thing is even at the best niche(within 6" of tank/monster with 2+ save) it's only BARELY better than plasma.

It's not very good when best situation for it is still only barely better than plasma gun. And that requires valkurie and taking casualties from grav chute. Nothing else even allows it to use that super hyper niche where it STILL only barely eeks out vs plasma.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
They are also the people who gave you the comissar nerf.

The Commissar nerf was an attempt to nerf conscripts which was desperately needed. Unfortunately it was followed by 2 more nerfs to conscripts bumping them to 4 ppm, and making them have to test for orders. After those 2 nerfs, the commissar nerf is probably no longer needed. Personally, I'd like to see the comminssar nerf stick, but the orders nerf go away. Also Guardsmen need to go to 5 ppm to justify conscripts again.

It's somewhat silly to nerf commissar though when you needed to nerf conscripts. But silly is, with polite spin, typical for GW game design. Shoot with shotgun against random direction hoping something works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Heafstaag wrote:
I prefer the old fantasy way of calculating victory by counting the points cost of destroyed units. Whoever killed more points were of stuff generally won. Easy solution in my opinion.

Nah killing shouldn't be deciding factor except by indirect way in securing objectives. Would help making armies more than just who can kill stuff fastest.

Asmodios wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If you attended an event which was mono-codex, you genuinely believe Guard are in a bad place?

Not at all, I think guard is one of the best mono codexes atm really only competing with knights and space elves. The problem is that soup is just leagues ahead of all mono builds. Id like to see all armies be balanced against each other and able to stand on there own rather than each book being judged by 2-3 units that can be souped in. IT also causes huge issues down the line because nerfing a single unit in a mono army barely affects soup while sometimes crippling mono armies.

This.

My meta is all mono-build, and Guard and IK still roflstomp everyone even with fluffy lists. I'd be all for mono-builds getting some bonus CP and a bonus to the roll for first turn or whatever to help balance the advantages of soup, but it wouldn't help me personally in the slightest.