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.

Selfcontrol wrote:
I've already said, I will say it once again.

Imperial Guard is utter dogshit. It is the worst army in the game by far, right now. Until they get a proper Codex, they need some ridiculous, overpowered buffs, to simply exist as an army to compensate with how garbage their 8th Codex is.

This is why Imperial Guard gets to ignore the new Indirect Fire Weapons. This is also why they get a ridiculous auto-wound on 6s to hit.

Yes, it is an ugly as sin bandaid. We know. I haven't met a single person, either here or elsewhere, who thinks it is a "sensible" fix. It's gross. But it's needed right now. And GW is not going to release a 5 pages long dataslate with more sensible fixes solely for IG when they already have a Codex (even a garbage one) and they are due for a new one with a small / medium waves of new models.

But sure, better have another sterile and useless discussion on the General subforum. It is already a trashbin afterall.

And they will continue to be garbage because of the removal of template.

Guard were decent because they relied on a template to deliver hits, now, their big guns and weapons need to roll to determine number of hits, which already is bad because rolling double 1s on a weapon sucks, then roll on their BS, which is 50/50, then roll to wound, then deal with saves.

you wanna make guard good? and decent? give them a higher floor for their multi shot weapons.
As a base, all their blast weapons should double results of 1 and 2 on dice rolls to determine number of hits.

I think it's time WH40k implements a rock paper scissors type weaponry, or more akin to pokemon types weakness/resistance/neutral.

Anti-Infantry
Anti-Tank
Anti-Air (or speed?)

Infantry should be immune to Anti-Air, Neutral to Anti-Tank, and Weak to Anti-Infantry.

Tanks should be immune to Anti-Infantry and weak to Anti-Tank, and neutral to Anti-Air

Air/Fast targets(bikes/skimmers etc) should be immune to Anti-Tank, Neutral to Anti-Infantry, and Weak to Anti-Air.

I do not see how to encourage take all comers lists in any method other than something like this.

 catbarf wrote:
Guardsmen getting auto wound on 6s is the dumbest, least internally consistent, least fluff-based balance decision I've seen this edition. Maybe that sounds dramatic, but when someone decides that Guardsmen with lasguns should be better at killing tanks than Intercessors, it's very clear that the guys writing the rules are trying to balance tournament win rates without regard for the verisimilitude or even just matching the fluff.

Two Infantry Squads rapid firing with FRFSRF can just about bracket a Leman Russ. What the feth?

I know 'Lasgun goes pewpew' doesn't have quite the same ring to it as 'Heavy Bolter go Brrrrrr' but maybe we can turn it into a meme regardless.

With most armies being infantry this would mean that armies that are made from majority skimmers and jetbikes, would be immune to most incoming fire power from other armies. And that is assuming all armies had any AA weapons or options to counter them with it. And am talking any options, even bad ones.

The problem with the auto wound on 6s thing isn't that it's particularly good, it's that it's unbelievably stupid. It says really bad things about the design studio that that is all they could think of to try to make guard slightly less terrible - or really bad things about their superiors if they could think of other things that they weren't allowed to do.

People should expect better. This isn't five guys in their basement any more. It's a premium product produced by a company worth billions with an annual turnover in the hundreds of millions.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
I think it's time WH40k implements a rock paper scissors type weaponry, or more akin to pokemon types weakness/resistance/neutral.

Anti-Infantry
Anti-Tank
Anti-Air (or speed?)

Infantry should be immune to Anti-Air, Neutral to Anti-Tank, and Weak to Anti-Infantry.

Tanks should be immune to Anti-Infantry and weak to Anti-Tank, and neutral to Anti-Air

Air/Fast targets(bikes/skimmers etc) should be immune to Anti-Tank, Neutral to Anti-Infantry, and Weak to Anti-Air.

I do not see how to encourage take all comers lists in any method other than something like this.

Just use the system from Apocalypse (the latest edition) as a base for a newer edition.

It's a good system.

 deviantduck wrote:
Point to where on the doll GW touched you.

They stabbed me in my brain. I think I took psychic damage on this one.
I'm already not a fan of this everything can wound everything gak. But this.... IG auto-wounding everything on to-hit rolls of 6.... WTF? NO!

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
I think it's time WH40k implements a rock paper scissors type weaponry, or more akin to pokemon types weakness/resistance/neutral.

Anti-Infantry
Anti-Tank
Anti-Air (or speed?)

Infantry should be immune to Anti-Air, Neutral to Anti-Tank, and Weak to Anti-Infantry.

Tanks should be immune to Anti-Infantry and weak to Anti-Tank, and neutral to Anti-Air

Air/Fast targets(bikes/skimmers etc) should be immune to Anti-Tank, Neutral to Anti-Infantry, and Weak to Anti-Air.

I do not see how to encourage take all comers lists in any method other than something like this.

What you are describing is more or less how the old AP and wounding system worked.
AP3 was anti infentry with mediocre amount of shorts
Ap2 was anti elite light vehicle with few shots
AP1 was anti heavy vehicle with usually 1 or 2 shots.

The issue became the sheer volume of AP3 and AP2 that was available to field in large volumes.

AV system prevented you from being able to wound vehicles if your weapons were not strong enough. Because you had to roll your STR + a D6, if it could not equal or beat the AV it did nothing, meaning AV over 10 was immune to S3 weapons, AV 11 immune to S4 waepons ect ect.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The problem with the auto wound on 6s thing isn't that it's particularly good, it's that it's unbelievably stupid. It says really bad things about the design studio that that is all they could think of to try to make guard slightly less terrible - or really bad things about their superiors if they could think of other things that they weren't allowed to do.

People should expect better. This isn't five guys in their basement any more. It's a premium product produced by a company worth billions with an annual turnover in the hundreds of millions.

Do any changes at the end of an edition matter though? IG will get a new codex, and in a short time after we get a new codex, new marine books etc. 6-12 months ago, this may have been big. But right now it is just more LoL stuff. It ain't more broken , in the powerful meaning of the word, then other good factions have.

Selfcontrol wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
I think it's time WH40k implements a rock paper scissors type weaponry, or more akin to pokemon types weakness/resistance/neutral.

Anti-Infantry
Anti-Tank
Anti-Air (or speed?)

Infantry should be immune to Anti-Air, Neutral to Anti-Tank, and Weak to Anti-Infantry.

Tanks should be immune to Anti-Infantry and weak to Anti-Tank, and neutral to Anti-Air

Air/Fast targets(bikes/skimmers etc) should be immune to Anti-Tank, Neutral to Anti-Infantry, and Weak to Anti-Air.

I do not see how to encourage take all comers lists in any method other than something like this.

Just use the system from Apocalypse (the latest edition) as a base for a newer edition.

It's a good system.

Yes please!

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
And ork nobz are able to… and my alpha can X in the lore…
The game is just about pure mechanical stuff at this point.
Have you also considered that lascannons just aren’t too great?
Run the numbers on some anti tank that’s actually good.
Guardsman range also caps out at around 24 inches, I can think of a lot of vehicle weapons that can stay well outside of that range.

A squad of Guardsmen with Lasguns does as much damage as a Marine wielded Multimelta.

A squad of guardsmen with officer support, inside 12" (so either walking up the board or in a transport) using frsrf chucks out out what, 1.48 damage?

1 marine with no doctrines, buffs or transports and a multimelta does 1.55 at 24"

It's a little apples to oranges.

It was already apples to oranges when light rifle fire is being compared to premiere AT weapons. We shouldn't be anywhere near where we are in the relationship between the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That explains all the news stories I've heard recently abou Ukranians defeating Russian tanks by running up to them with assault rufles. . .

Right....

What, "I don't want no war in my wargame"?

There was a point when the game gave a lot more priority to being more realistic in certain ways. Heck, let's not even say "realistic" lest someone shout "but 40k isnt real!!". We can go with "lore accurate" even. When was the last time you read a story where Guardsmen were relying on their Lasguns to damage heavily armored vehicles?

These things matter in the eyes of many.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

What you are describing is more or less how the old AP and wounding system worked.
AP3 was anti infentry with mediocre amount of shorts
Ap2 was anti elite light vehicle with few shots
AP1 was anti heavy vehicle with usually 1 or 2 shots.

The issue became the sheer volume of AP3 and AP2 that was available to field in large volumes.

Eh. That wasn't the only issue. It was always weird that AP4 weapons, which were sometimes anti-vehicle weapons like autocannons, were strong enough to completely ignore more powerful imperial armor and advanced (tau) or heavy ('eavy armor) alien armor, but it was just as bad at penetrating power armor as a humble lasgun. And it was weird that my dire avengers (Sv4+) could shut down 50% of incoming flamer wounds, but they got no save at all against heavy flamer wounds because of 1 extra point of AP. Plus, heavy infantry like marines basically didn't care about cover except when being hit by AP3 or better attacks, and then they were almost as squishy (or even less squishy point for point) than a guardsman.

I like how the current system rewards every point of Armor, save bonus, and AP (except when one is extreme enough for the other to be wasted). It makes marines want to use cover. It makes autocannons better at punching through armor than stubbers. I feel like the current AP system would be fine if we just ditched doctrines, some of the recent AP buffs, etc.

AV system prevented you from being able to wound vehicles if your weapons were not strong enough. Because you had to roll your STR + a D6, if it could not equal or beat the AV it did nothing, meaning AV over 10 was immune to S3 weapons, AV 11 immune to S4 waepons ect ect.

This, in turn, meant that an army that spammed vehicles was essentially immune to large chunks of the enemy army; especially if that army wasn't Strength 4 base. (And didn't have krak grenades which essentially make your whole squad A1 S6 in some editions). So if your eldar army spent 500 points on basic troops with S4 weapons, you basically had 500 points less offense in your list whenever you played against a tank-heavy enemy list. This in turn drove you to avoid taking many of the units in your codex because you had to prioritize your anti-tank options to deal with the enemy parking lot.

Marine players were less affected by all this because every non-vehicle in their army could punch nearly every vehicle in the game to death, plus they had krak grenades, plus they could give sergeants anti-tank melee weapons.

Also, this meant that an adamantine lance of knights army was immune to everything S6 or less in front of it, everything S5 or less behind it, and was immune to anything S6 or less in melee. This, in turn, meant that big chunks of your army basically did nothing but hop on objectives and wait to die without fighting back. Some players consider this to be the height of tactical decision making and a perfectly good way to play 40k.

I mean to that i would say....good?

Because you should have to consider building lists around having some sort of anti armor.

If your list is getting creamed because it could not deal with armor....welll....bring anti armor.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh no! People are thinking about it!

So you're telling me that 120 points plus an HQ ( so about 155 ) does 6 wounds to a 150 point unit when they're within 12" of it. Oh no. The game is over. What Ever Will We Do? Surely no one has figured out how to kill T3 5+ before they get within 12". Dooooom.

I'm not sure if the angle you're taking is 'basic Guardsmen getting nearly 50% return against their least optimal target type is fine' or 'Leman Russes actually should be optimal targets for Guardsmen' but either way I would encourage you to sit down and have a long think about whether this is a good thing rather than continue to defend the trench you've dug.

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean to that i would say....good?

Because you should have to consider building lists around having some sort of anti armor.

If your list is getting creamed because it could not deal with armor....welll....bring anti armor.

Ah, but see, the current edition makes me bring anti-armor. While my small arms fire can technically hurt vehicles, it doesn't do so very efficiently. I'd be at a big disadvantage if I didn't bring at least some anti-armor.

What ye olde system generally did was make me value anti-armor to the exclusion of most of my non-anti-armor options. Which lead to less list diversity and meant that I was basically playing at a disadvantage if I wanted to field something that wasn't really good at fighting tanks. You should feel just as comfortable taking a flamer as you do a meltagun. I like fielding fire dragons, but I don't want to max out on fire dragons and no longer have room for banshees.

TBF, it's valid (and not uncommon) for people to prefer the AV system. I just personally found it to be less interesting/interactive/to encourage spam lists that reduced list variety/frustrating when I wasn't allowed to use half my army against a mechanized list.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That explains all the news stories I've heard recently abou Ukranians defeating Russian tanks by running up to them with assault rufles. . .

Right....

POV- A Dakkanaut encounters a joke.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

Probably a brain fart, but I'm not following some of those values. Is FRFSRF double the lasgun shots or just +1 shot? Assuming the former...

20 bodies = 78 shots (no lasguns allowed on sergeants, right?).
78 shots = 36 hits.
12 of those hits are 6s, so 12 saves to make.
24 remaining hits means 4 wounds.
4+12 = 16 saves to make.
16 saves means you fail 2.67 saves for a total of 2.67 damage. So nevermind. I don't follow your math, but we get to the same place assuming FRSRF is double shots. (Even less if it's only +1 shots.)

So yeah, I think even after this buff, lasguns fall into that realm of, "Statistically so inefficient that it's probably not a problem." Like, sure, somewhere in the world, someone is going to kill a landraider with a single volley of lasguns; but most of the time lasguns will remain an efficient choice for dealing with tanks. What little damage they do can probably be chalked up to hitting gaps left by stronger weapons, chipping away at the exposed parts of the vehicle, etc. An imperial knight has some metal cords on its calves that are thinner than guardsman's wrist. We can probably agree that those cables are important and that they'll start to break if they get hit by enough lasgun shots, yes? That's the sort of thing lasguns are doing to vehicles.

EDIT: tbf, a guard squad will probably do slightly more damage now that they can take free wargear, but I imagine most of us are okay with lascannons and plasmaguns hurting vehicles.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So you're telling me that 120 points plus an HQ ( so about 155 ) does 6 wounds to a 150 point unit when they're within 12" of it. Oh no. The game is over. What Ever Will We Do? Surely no one has figured out how to kill T3 5+ before they get within 12". Dooooom.

As usual, you just don't get it, and aren't taking in what people are saying.

Try reading what people are saying and the reasons why this rule feels wrong on a conceptual level rather that mathmathmathing your way into knots again.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

Probably a brain fart, but I'm not following some of those values. Is FRFSRF double the lasgun shots or just +1 shot? Assuming the former...

20 bodies = 78 shots (no lasguns allowed on sergeants, right?).
78 shots = 36 hits.
12 of those hits are 6s, so 12 saves to make.
24 remaining hits means 4 wounds.
4+12 = 16 saves to make.
16 saves means you fail 2.67 saves for a total of 2.67 damage. So nevermind. I don't follow your math, but we get to the same place assuming FRSRF is double shots. (Even less if it's only +1 shots.)

So yeah, I think even after this buff, lasguns fall into that realm of, "Statistically so inefficient that it's probably not a problem." Like, sure, somewhere in the world, someone is going to kill a landraider with a single volley of lasguns; but most of the time lasguns will remain an efficient choice for dealing with tanks. What little damage they do can probably be chalked up to hitting gaps left by stronger weapons, chipping away at the exposed parts of the vehicle, etc. An imperial knight has some metal cords on its calves that are thinner than guardsman's wrist. We can probably agree that those cables are important and that they'll start to break if they get hit by enough lasgun shots, yes? That's the sort of thing lasguns are doing to vehicles.

EDIT: tbf, a guard squad will probably do slightly more damage now that they can take free wargear, but I imagine most of us are okay with lascannons and plasmaguns hurting vehicles.)

Flipside: If the argument is "The damage is so insignificant", why not return to a paradigm where they can't hurt it at all. It sure would save a lot of rolling!

dont forget, the 6 to wound is on anything, not just guardsmen. So any with the regiment keyword will wound on a 6

Works on Scions too as far as I can tell, contrary to what GH and some other places have suggested. Which makes the hotshot lasguns very good.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Flipside: If the argument is "The damage is so insignificant", why not return to a paradigm where they can't hurt it at all. It sure would save a lot of rolling!

Good point and fair question. Answer: Because of the things that aren't guardsmen/lasguns. I like where things like shuriken weapons sit where they're still pretty bad at killing vehicles, but they do well enough to feel like they're contributing. If I positively had to kill a rhino with shuriken catapults, I could do it; killing off my bright lances and fire dragons doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of the taking hits without retaliation. Or more commonly, my dire avengers won't kill a rhino, but they'll save me from having to put an extra bright lance into it to finish it off.

Similarly, things like inferno bolts that are meant to chew through marine armor seem like they should be able to contribute against tanks. My wave serpents probably shouldn't be able to sit still and completely ignore heavy bolters. Nurgle daemons should be allowed to hurt vehicles without relying entirely on soul grinders and HQs. In a game where it's easy to build a skew list (even if you're just trying to put together a thematic casual list), letting every unit participate in the core engagement (fighting) is preferable to not.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

Probably a brain fart, but I'm not following some of those values. Is FRFSRF double the lasgun shots or just +1 shot? Assuming the former...

20 bodies = 78 shots (no lasguns allowed on sergeants, right?).
78 shots = 36 hits.
12 of those hits are 6s, so 12 saves to make.
24 remaining hits means 4 wounds.
4+12 = 16 saves to make.
16 saves means you fail 2.67 saves for a total of 2.67 damage. So nevermind. I don't follow your math, but we get to the same place assuming FRSRF is double shots. (Even less if it's only +1 shots.)

So yeah, I think even after this buff, lasguns fall into that realm of, "Statistically so inefficient that it's probably not a problem." Like, sure, somewhere in the world, someone is going to kill a landraider with a single volley of lasguns; but most of the time lasguns will remain an efficient choice for dealing with tanks. What little damage they do can probably be chalked up to hitting gaps left by stronger weapons, chipping away at the exposed parts of the vehicle, etc. An imperial knight has some metal cords on its calves that are thinner than guardsman's wrist. We can probably agree that those cables are important and that they'll start to break if they get hit by enough lasgun shots, yes? That's the sort of thing lasguns are doing to vehicles.

EDIT: tbf, a guard squad will probably do slightly more damage now that they can take free wargear, but I imagine most of us are okay with lascannons and plasmaguns hurting vehicles.)

Flipside: If the argument is "The damage is so insignificant", why not return to a paradigm where they can't hurt it at all. It sure would save a lot of rolling!

How much damage does a marine with a Lascannon do to the Russ? Also insignificant I imagine by this standard!

Let's see...
Roughly .5 wounds? Wow, a squad of men with assault rifles is roughly equal to three of the Imperium's primary ranged anti-tank guns.

Just like how three men with AK-47s are just as effective against tanks as one man with a Javelin. Checks out.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Flipside: If the argument is "The damage is so insignificant", why not return to a paradigm where they can't hurt it at all. It sure would save a lot of rolling!

Good point and fair question. Answer: Because of the things that aren't guardsmen/lasguns. I like where things like shuriken weapons sit where they're still pretty bad at killing vehicles, but they do well enough to feel like they're contributing. If I positively had to kill a rhino with shuriken catapults, I could do it; killing off my bright lances and fire dragons doesn't mean I have to spend the rest of the taking hits without retaliation. Or more commonly, my dire avengers won't kill a rhino, but they'll save me from having to put an extra bright lance into it to finish it off.

Similarly, things like inferno bolts that are meant to chew through marine armor seem like they should be able to contribute against tanks. My wave serpents probably shouldn't be able to sit still and completely ignore heavy bolters. Nurgle daemons should be allowed to hurt vehicles without relying entirely on soul grinders and HQs. In a game where it's easy to build a skew list (even if you're just trying to put together a thematic casual list), letting every unit participate in the core engagement (fighting) is preferable to not.

Great! So presuming this basic idea of letting even basic infantry contribute something, I'd like to point out the older rules under the old AV paradigm where basic infantry armed even with Frag Grenades could assault and potentially harm a vehicle by planting grenades in vulnerable areas (always counting as hitting the rear armor of a vehicle). Additionally, allowing infantry AT specialists or squad leaders to carry much better AT grenades for even more spectacular effect.

Imo there are much smarter ways to go about achieving your desired goal than what GW has given us.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

Probably a brain fart, but I'm not following some of those values. Is FRFSRF double the lasgun shots or just +1 shot? Assuming the former...

20 bodies = 78 shots (no lasguns allowed on sergeants, right?).
78 shots = 36 hits.
12 of those hits are 6s, so 12 saves to make.
24 remaining hits means 4 wounds.
4+12 = 16 saves to make.
16 saves means you fail 2.67 saves for a total of 2.67 damage. So nevermind. I don't follow your math, but we get to the same place assuming FRSRF is double shots. (Even less if it's only +1 shots.)

So yeah, I think even after this buff, lasguns fall into that realm of, "Statistically so inefficient that it's probably not a problem." Like, sure, somewhere in the world, someone is going to kill a landraider with a single volley of lasguns; but most of the time lasguns will remain an efficient choice for dealing with tanks. What little damage they do can probably be chalked up to hitting gaps left by stronger weapons, chipping away at the exposed parts of the vehicle, etc. An imperial knight has some metal cords on its calves that are thinner than guardsman's wrist. We can probably agree that those cables are important and that they'll start to break if they get hit by enough lasgun shots, yes? That's the sort of thing lasguns are doing to vehicles.

EDIT: tbf, a guard squad will probably do slightly more damage now that they can take free wargear, but I imagine most of us are okay with lascannons and plasmaguns hurting vehicles.)

I didn't bother with the sarge so I did a round 80.

80 shots of which 1 in 6 will auto-wound = 13.36 then those go to armor = 2.2
80 shots that hit on 4s and 5s = 26.6 with 6s to wound = 4.4 and then armor = 0.7




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Maybe you can explain why a squad of Guardsmen with Lasguns are better at tank killing than a squad of DEVASTATORS WITH LASCANNONS and why that's good for the game.

4x.666x.666x.666x3.5= 4.1

Heck, the 6 wounds is what 2 Multimeltas average within 12".

Again with this absolute nonsense.

For one - CB's math was wrong.
For two - lascannons don't have to be within 12".

For the cost of two IS and a commander you can get a squad of eradiators with a MM. Put those within 12" instead of arbitrarily choosing two MM.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So you're telling me that 120 points plus an HQ ( so about 155 ) does 6 wounds to a 150 point unit when they're within 12" of it. Oh no. The game is over. What Ever Will We Do? Surely no one has figured out how to kill T3 5+ before they get within 12". Dooooom.

As usual, you just don't get it, and aren't taking in what people are saying.

Try reading what people are saying and the reasons why this rule feels wrong on a conceptual level rather that mathmathmathing your way into knots again.

I'm responding to someone complaining about the math. I don't give a gak about your purity test gotcha.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Maybe you can explain why a squad of Guardsmen with Lasguns are better at tank killing than a squad of DEVASTATORS WITH LASCANNONS and why that's good for the game.

4x.666x.666x.666x3.5= 4.1

Heck, the 6 wounds is what 2 Multimeltas average within 12".

Again with this absolute nonsense.

For one - CB's math was wrong.
For two - lascannons don't have to be within 12".

For the cost of two IS and a commander you can get a squad of eradiators with a MM. Put those within 12" instead of arbitrarily choosing two MM.

I was responding to this :

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So you're telling me that 120 points plus an HQ ( so about 155 ) does 6 wounds to a 150 point unit when they're within 12" of it. Oh no. The game is over. What Ever Will We Do? Surely no one has figured out how to kill T3 5+ before they get within 12". Dooooom.

In which it appeared you claimed they managed 6 wounds.

Even with the math corrected it's still dumb.

So allow me to ask a thought experiment, and some math hammering.

What is now more dangerous to a max squad of intercessors?

A. A fully loaded Chimera 60+60( max squad of Troops with a HWT) and a HB is 128 pts.

OR

B. 4 Scout Sentinels with Multi-lasers? 35x4 is 140 points


I'm trying to do the math on this and honestly asking. Did they just make laser-arrays deadly?

Kinda funny about the IG. 60 points is basically a power level. haha. but what to bring in a squad? maybe a Lascannon and something for the Sgt. Can't think of a special I know I'd get excited for instead of a lasgun. What's funny is at 60 points I feel I have to bring the heavy weapons, which I don't really feel all that excited to do it feels more like it's required due to the packaging.
Meh.

I've enjoyed the argument about the 6+ always wound stuff. because it's still largely irrelevant to the target unit it would have been better if it were 2 wounds or count as two hits, maybe maybe not. At first I thought it was good but it's less dice to roll at the next step so I'm less excited about it after some thought. will it help? Sure but probably less than expected.

Yeah that's sort of the hilarious drum beat for me.

It makes guardsmen slightly more effective against enemy infantry, and HUGELY AMAZINGLY more effective against enemy tanks, compared to how they were before.

Like an old squad against Marines did something like 2 wounds with FRFSRF. The new squad does 3. About a 50% increase.

Against a Predator tank, the old squad did 1. The new squad does roughly 3 (2.66), for a 300% damage increase.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that's sort of the hilarious drum beat for me.

It makes guardsmen slightly more effective against enemy infantry, and HUGELY AMAZINGLY more effective against enemy tanks, compared to how they were before.

Like an old squad against Marines did something like 2 wounds with FRFSRF. The new squad does 3. About a 50% increase.

Against a Predator tank, the old squad did 1. The new squad does roughly 3 (2.66), for a 300% damage increase.

And with no Ap and average roll the tank is probably unscathed. But it might encourage the Sm player to field a techmarine. doubtful but maybe.