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.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

If voxes are unlimited range, then that potential 'issue' (I don't think its one, seeing as PCS can take a gak ton of good weapons that are useful) is going to exist either way. Plus, as discussed, having officers with voxes and within their normal orders radius could provide a re-roll to the order, thus granting some incentive to keep them near a platoon.

A vox network is a vox network. Don't add restrictions where they aren't necessary. The simplest, fluffiest way of doing things is to have voxes create unlimited range between all units with a vox.

It would create an issue, absolutely. Why on earth would players deploy their PCs on the front line with the troops they command (where they should be) rather than hide them away? Much like the difference between a Platoon Standard and Regimental(Company) Standard, there should be a Platoon Vox and a Regimental Vox, the former increasing range while the latter is unlimited.

If they're never confused, then it doesn't matter. And real world experience doesn't matter or apply here, seeing as we're talking about a different military organization 40k years in the future. The simple fact is that absolute realism must be put behind making simple, clean, and fun rules. Having voxes create unlimited range is logical and consistent within the universe, and having anyone able to receive orders is both fluffy and logical within the universe, and is the simplest, least confusing and time consuming way of writing the rule.

You can't have it one way saying that the realism must be put to one side, then claim that a common vox net is both fluffy and logical in universe. It really isn't, a company simply can't operate in the heat of battle with everyone on the same channel.
If you're arguing that a common vox net should be implemented purely for the sake of simplicity then understand that, though I would still disagree.

Which is why its simplest to keep it as it currently stands and allow anyone to order anyone. Currently, a PCS can order a CCS, which still makes sense. If a platoon loses their PCS, they'll likely be very receptive and maybe a little grateful that the nearest junior officer is there to provide leadership and guidance.

No doubt, which is why a limiting on the range of a PC vox is still necessary. If we allow limitless orders at the PC level, theoretically you would only need one surviving PC squirreled away in the corner of the board to provide effective orders to units on the other side of the field. That should be the purview of the CC, the PC should be focused on the more immediate situation.


Essentially, I'm okay with PCs being able to give orders to any unit but making their orders unlimited via vox (rather than substantially increased range) is nonsensical and frankly broken.

In all honesty, I'm all for the unlimited range of Vox's. If we had Epic scale, it would make sense to have limited range, but we've got radio's, 38 odd thousands years into the future and yet soldiers are reduced to orders over shouting distances? Even the basic, short range radios troops had in the 70's were capable of transmitting over a few miles!

Realistically the only person in the IG infantry platoon who will have the same frequency as the CCS is the PCS. I personally think CCS should be able to issue orders to any unit, bar those in a platoon unless it goes through that platoons PCS, the result being an additional test (unless it is the PCS itself). Also Sergeant's should be capable of giving orders to their own squad with an optional point cost, say 5-8 points? Maybe all orders within 4-6 inches automatically pass or increases the chance as well?

Firstly this encourages the PCS being used in it's specific platoon while the CCS is used in it's realistic role of commanding units, then leaving it up to the unit to do it's task their own way. However you can still used the CCS's additional orders on PCS squads but with a disadvantage and giving the impression of a chain of command.

I know it may be incredibly complicated to write into rules but I think it would be fun and useful. Also encourages to use your orders in the correct manner, however more orders should be made available to junior officers.

Also anyone else think Vox's should return to also affecting normal Ld tests in some manner?

Blacksails wrote:We already have the structure for orders. It works in its current form just fine. All it needs is a refinement and to boost a piece of wargear that should be beneficial to orders, but really isn't.

So, you keep the current way orders work, except you test of the issuing officer, and can issue to any unit with a vox regardless of range. No one needs to re-learn the rules for how orders works, its fluffy, logical, and versatile, and doesn't complicate things any more than it needs to be.

I feel that anything simpler loses out on the versatility of having several orders to choose from based on the situation, and anything more complicated adds no real value over the current system with some refinements. For over five years people on both ends of the table understand how orders work, and the idea of voxes being unlimited range has been floated around these forums since I joined.

Keep it simple within the framework we have. Orders as they stand work, they could just some very minor tweaks. No need to turn them into not-psychic powers or automatically give double shots.

Tbh coming from a military background, I've always had a bit of annoyance that there is no reason to use platoons.... as well you know, platoons. I was more addressing that, plus the fact logically a CCS is not going to be telling an infantry squad in a platoon what to do, they would tell the Platoon commander what to do, who would in turn pass the order. It's not really anything addressed in the fluff any more than for SM or Elder (You know, the great leader rallying his troops stuff everyone has).

I do admit it may overcomplicate the rules, as so leave them as they are. But maybe giving sergeants or veteran sergeants a minor order or two, add the overall pool of orders and giving voxes unlimited range (like they used to before they were used for orders) may help improve the guard as a whole.

Also I think the whole platoon structure needs something to encourage platoons to be used as a unit, seeing it's a gripe I've had for a very long time, as there is no reason for me outside of fluffyness to do so. I'm not saying force players to do so, but give some benefit.

Selym wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of a mind that vox should grant +1 Ld and double shots with all weapon if not moving.

Simple and effective.

I'm just imagining a Guardsman being like:

"do we shoot the alien? I'm not sure..."

*carnifex charging*

"Herrmmm...."

*listens to the vox*

"Oh, alright."

*Dakkadakkadakka*

I think what we're suggesting is more like

"We're being overrun"

"You hold that damn position"

"But there's too many!"

"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"

It works great for the narrative (which if I remember correctly is the point of this game....), and it used to be a rule until 5th. The Rules for them in late 3rd, add a bonus to orders and it makes it slightly less slightly for your troops to run when they are shot up.

I agree the whole idea a squad needs to be told to concentrate fire on the horrifying creature right infront of them is a tad silly, but fluff wise aren't guard suppose to find most opponents terrifying, but at the same time unafraid of anything? I think the point of the order is more, you know those terrifying things everywhere, well concentrate on that one terrifying thing... which admittedly doesn't really work in games outside apocalypse.

 vipoid wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

I think what we're suggesting is more like

"We're being overrun"

"You hold that damn position"

"But there's too many!"

"If you don't hold I'll kill you myself"

That seems more the remit of Commissars, rather than general orders.

Main difference is Commissars will actually kill you.... with most officers it's just a threat.

It's also more of a real world example of troop dynamics. It doesn't always help, but on occasions units have held due to the higher ups refusing to give them permission to fall back... with mixed results.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Can anyone come up with a good way of actually representing Long Range Penetration within the confines of 40k?
My force's aviation detachment, its command structure, its paint scheme and its name (The First Arkan Volunteer Group (1st AVG)) is inspired by the Flying Tigers. Its ground operations are inspired by Merrill's Marauders, the 75th Ranger Regiment during the battle for signal hill, the Chindits, the Long Range Desert Group, and Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols carried out during Vietnam.

I have Written a Codex

The primary idea of Long Range Penetration is that raiding action will disrupts enemy operations, supply lines, and leave enemy front lines more susceptible to blocking actions during an offensive. Either you let them continue harrying your supplies and attacking you where you are tactically disadvantaged, or divert additional resources in order to find them and take them out; which leaves your front lines in a weaker position. The primary advantage is that a group such as this can operate and maneuver in terrain that would be unsuitable, or disadvantageous to conventional forces. Most vehicles are not able to perform well at all within the environments that a LRP would operate. The problem is that I need concentrated firepower on the tactical level when strategically LRPs are generally vastly outnumbered in every other logistical metric. I don't want to restrict my opponents on what they can take, but a LRP chooses its engagements and it makes no sense to fight large, brutish, or otherwise unwieldy enemies in the confines of the tactical and strategical doctrines.

By the sounds of it you want a new deathworld codex, which by all accounts the catachan codex was seeing it could be used for any style of deathworld, not just jungle.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
I have never seen the death world book but If it is anything like what you are saying, then I would certainly like another.

The Catachan Codex for all intensive purposes was a deathworld dex. You could replace the jungle with desert, ruins, forests, swamps etc. Then again even to use the normal jungle type the rules at the time was you had to ask your opponent if you were allowed to use the force.

At the end of the day everything got a 6+ armour save but a 1+ cover save in their specific types of cover. Moved through terrain easier, added some jungle fighting rules, made it harder for the enemy to see you, easier for you to see them. Booby traps which you brought like units, but deployed in a unique way.

Basically reduced the variety of your force, gave you the option of having some specialized CC guard infantry, made it a footslogger force, and ties the enemies hands behind their back.

Commissar Benny wrote:
So with the next codex release rumored to come out after Tau & possibly Chaos dex's what is the likelihood that any of these concerns will actually be addressed? Alot of what is being discussed here are things IG players have been asking for....for years. Its kind of breaks my heart because there is so many passion for this army in the community & the feedback we give is just ignored codex release after codex release. Even the most simply things that are common sense.

Tbh seeing the current Guard dex was made with 7th in mind, I bet we'll be the very last faction to receive a 7th edition codex... if we get one at all.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
So with the next codex release rumored to come out after Tau & possibly Chaos dex's what is the likelihood that any of these concerns will actually be addressed? Alot of what is being discussed here are things IG players have been asking for....for years. Its kind of breaks my heart because there is so many passion for this army in the community & the feedback we give is just ignored codex release after codex release. Even the most simply things that are common sense.

Tbh seeing the current Guard dex was made with 7th in mind, I bet we'll be the very last faction to receive a 7th edition codex... if we get one at all.

Ahahahahahaha...... Wait, you where joking right?
This heap of trash is most certainly not a 7th level codex. It is just plain bad. Hell, it feels almost like a nerf from the previous one.

Never said it was a "good" attempt to write a 6th edition codex with 7th in mind I think we can all agree it was a very bad attempt, but you can't really deny they tried to make a 7th dex before it hit with very mediocre/bad results.

Playing my first few 7th battles of over the last few weeks I noticed a few things. Ordnance is far too unreliable for guard, most my kills have came from infantry and orders. Also while I enjoyed my rate of fire increase via FRFSRF, the tau had a similar ability, which with their S5 and AP5 weapons with extra range made firefights reliant on A) Staying out of their line of sight and B)Jumping around corners within 12" with FRFSRF to get an initial advantage. Also it is incredibly hard for us to knock down enemies hull points, and seeing the lack of reliability of Ordnance actually hitting targets, most indirect weapons are much less useful than those (once again Tau) used by other factions.

I think it's quite easy to say, we need possibly FRFSRF buffed in some manner and an increase in effectiveness for out Barrage and Ordnance weapons. I'm thinking maybe expand tank orders to normal commanders with a slight point hike (maybe make it optional?). Ability to issue special orders to artillery units if you have a Master of Ordnance advisor? We also noticed, if the enemy targeted my Company Command Squad fairly early on, while potentially not shooting a more juicy target, like a russ, it was incredibly easy to cripple my heavy support teams.

Meh, I don't massively struggle fighting C:SM. If you use clever movement you can wipe most squads in a turn of shooting. It's the Vehicles, characters, high toughness and wounds models that I find hard to kill while playing as guard. Now that is fighting any faction, I actually found it incredibly easy to kill light, medium and heavy infantry.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Nah, you go at them. Here's some inspiration for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7qm4jgqDxE

*twitch*
That film made me scream. It is about as historically accurate as a Roman vs Celts film with rifles in it.

Meh bar the Tiger fight (which started off well enough) and the climax at the end it was fairly accurate. The first half of the film was pretty spot on. And this is coming from a guy who has been trying to get gaijin to improve their historical accuracy of vehicles and their weapons for about a year and a half now

Martel732 wrote:
SW and BA have advantages that don't much matter against guard. They don't have access to good formations, either.

For the most part, they are power armor losers that get instagibbed by battle cannons, so no FNP. BA are actually in serious, serious trouble against IG.

That being said, I learned a lot about guard by playing against them a lot in 5th. Even though they are humbled, the basic ideas are still the same.

Tbh I've just been completely unable to hit anything with my russes for quite a while now It's getting a tad frustrating.

Although I have noticed massed flashlights working rather well. Most my opponents still have hangovers units from 6th and as such still have a reasonable amount of mechanised units like marines in rhino's. They jump out, I rush them to get within "12 and generally the next turn the squad I've been shooting at is either running, dead or pretty much unable to hit back.

How would you guys feel about making hellguns (or hotshot lasguns *shudder*) 24"?

Also don't some meta's tourneys ban superheavies and the like? I don't really think they need SH's in the core dex.... I would be interested seeing more FW flyers in the core dex though. Maybe some of the Non-SH FW vehicle?

 Selym wrote:
Hellguns at 24" would be better, but still gak. Really, if you're going to use that sort of thing, it should be a strength 5-6 weapon.

Tbh I would be happy with them being S4..... they're not suppose to be capable of wiping MEQ squads out, more to be better than lasguns doing so.

Yeah that "Schola Progenium Training" rule is a tad OTT... Maybe make it get hot on a 1-2 and unable to fire the next turn?

 master of ordinance wrote:
@ Yoyoyo
Really, you feel that a 4 shot S 4 AP 3 weapon would be massively overpowered and that all we need to do is reduce the points cost and make them AP 4? Wow. Your logic astounds me. Right now I would second going for the most stupidly pants on head overpowered choice there is for our Storm Troops. It is about time the Guard where able to hold their own.

Tbh I think it should stay AP3.... Preferably S4, but all in all I think they "have" to be "24 max range. Main reason all the units they are designed to take on can kill them before they come into range. 24" S4 AP3 Assault 2 wouldn't be too unreasonable would it? Also let them keep frfsrf?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I would take S5 or S6 over AP3 every time. The ability for Stomies to hunt MCs is gold.

Tbh I've never view them as units that should really be hurting MC. Imo opinion they should simply be better at killing infantry, not larger targets.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So we're basically doing Frag / Krak?

I'd make the secondary mode much more marginal.

Battlecannon
- 72" S8 AP3 5" Blast Ordnance (HE)
- 72" S9 AP2 Ordnance (AP)

Vanquisher Battlecannon
- 96" S8 AP2 Ordnance Armorbane Fleshbane (AP)
- 96" S7 AP4 3" Blast (HE)

Vanquisher Tank - Vanquisher Battlecannon is Twin-linked due to Co-ax Autocannon

Why would you make the Vanquisher AP fleshbane? How rounds work IRL an AP round would simply shoot through a creature without tumbling, there is a reason the US reduced their round size during/after Korea. Also on average the vanquisher will glance AV14..... I think seeing how dedicate titan killer round is it should be represented slightly better. The Vanquisher should be a serious threat to armour, more than it is atm imo.

I would say give the basic LR some ability with it's battlecannon to really hurt multiple would, high T units, such as some of the high wound nids.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The point of making it Fleshbane is so that it can do the job it is meant to do:
Hunt monsters.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Vanquisher should punch a nice neat hole directly through the target - that's Fleshbane right there.

I've never understood this, why should what is designed and designated as a purely Anti-Tank and Anti-Titan vehicle be used against MC's? It's designed to kill armour, at best it should really be given a small blast radius battlecannon shell with maybe S7 as standard (aka not an upgrade like beasthunter).

It's akin to using an AP round vs a soft target. As per real life, the tank with higher HE potential should be better vs MC's. Punching a hole through something quite often does not cause as much damage as something that either explodes or tumbles and gets stuck inside the target. I know GW doesn't work on logic (aka battle tank rounds would cause massive damage to a tank or MC's it penetrates), but even then I feel the only real reason the Vanquisher gets the beast hunter is because they want it to be a "kill all target" vehicle which it shouldn't be.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Armorbane means the Vanquisher, on average, penetrates AV14 with a 15. That's pretty good. And I made it twin-linked with extra range.

Sorry I put down completely the wrong issue, lol. Was tired last night when I posted it.

My main problem with the vanquisher is it's AP2, really it should be AP1 to fulfil it's role. It should be knocking out titans (with enough shots) and vehicles fairly easily. The AP2 still means unless you roll a 6 that vehicle is still going to be there. Personally I would make the Vaquisher AP1, causes loss of two HP and a extremely nerfed BC round.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The problem with the Guard is not our numbers, its our power level. I can already flood the board with several hundred Infantry and a few tanks in an average game but the problem is that these will A) die rapidly and B) usually fail to do anything. Sure, I have a hell of a lot of shots but at S3 AP- they struggle to take down most things in the current game. Yes I have hundred of bodies, but each of these is T3 and has a 5+ save, they die to just about every weapon out there and they die in droves.
Its the same with the tanks. Marine players see a Leman Russ and go "OMG AP3 pieplate instakillz ma dudes on AV14 for 150 iz OP broken cheeze!!!111!!!!!111" but in fact the Russ is really lacklustre. The pieplate often scatters miles and can be negated by spreading your troops out or using cover (a concept I know most SM players struggle with but it is there) whilst the vehicle can be outrun by basic Infantry (6" move and cannot boost) but at the same time its secondary weapons automatically snapshoot if the main gun fires.

So, TLDR numbers are not the iissue, Guard armies are big enough as it is. The problem lies in the pathetic powerlevel we are forced to cope with.

i agree with most of your post, but not the underlined part. Against anything S3 or S4 it's a non issue, I quite constantly wipe squads using FRFSRF with units that are much cheaper using just lasguns. T5 can be an issue, but not impossible. The issue arises mostly with T5-7 models seeing you cannot get enough fire onto them without relying on vehicles. Those units should really be either targeted with said vehicles or heavy weapon squads. Heavy weapon squads imo are A) Too expensive B) Too squishy and C) Crippled by their BS3, especially for single shot weapons such as lascannons.

 master of ordinance wrote:
AP1 is just no enough though. Not for THE tankhunter of 40K. Give it a massive boost on the damage chart - +4 at least - so that it can KO a tank in one hit.

The reason that it works against MC's is because an MC is not a soft target. An MC is a massive feth off monster with a thick hide or chitin plates. It is essentially a walking tank. Or in the case of the Tau/Eldar dickery a Walker masquerading as an MC/GMC for the buff. It is essentially a walking hard target, hence why AP shells should butcher them. Besides, if an AP shell hits something the sheer impact of a high velocity larger calibre slug is going to do masses of damae anyway. Ever seen a .50 round hit someone? Now scale that up to a 75mm or 105mm shell.

1st part, yeah I did include AP1 by itself was not enough. It should take at least 2 HP in my personal opinion.

The main difference being that when you get to tank round size the 50. cal argument falls apart (also the normal instant death if double S compared to T rule still applies). The reason the US reduced round size, as did the Russian rejecting the 57mm gun was the fact the rounds would punch straight through targets without doing much damage (and the russian example was vs other tanks). The other difference with the Vanquisher rounds is very little explosive in comparison to normal rounds. Now I understand it's a special round, but I fail to see why a dedicated tank hunter, should also be a MC killer.

Giving a vanquisher a free beast hunter shell makes it an auto include for all the wrong reasons. You now have a unit that can knock too much out, can auto kill too many different units, Armourbane, plus blast so can damage more than one model. Now say it was a free upgrade as you suggested and they removed the blast, while not 100% convinced on it not being OP, I would say it makes the gun less useful. Possibly also make it only instant death vs MC's?

I personally feel a player should be punished for using too many AT vehicles vs an infantry heavy force. Especially seeing how the Vanquisher is cheaper than a standard russ.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The reason I suggested a +4 is because the Vanquisher should be killing tanks in one hit, not just crippling them. +4 turns it from a 'Well, it might hurt my tank' grade threat to a 'OH £*^%, VANQUISHER' grade threat.
Once again, Fleshbane is because we are not shooting this thing at soft targets, we are shooting it at what are essentially walking tanks (carnifex, Battlesuits, Riptides, Wraithknights, Hive Tyrants, etc). These things have as much, if not more, protection as a tank.

haha again with the first part I'm not disagreeing with you

Second point, there is a rather massive (if non intentional) realistic difference between MC's and vehicles. Spalling. A tank/vehicle will experience a rather large amount of spalling when penetrated. Also due to very little internal room, the spalling and shell/filler will fill most of the fighting compartment with very sharp and/or hot projectiles.

A MC, being a mech suit or organic will lack theses effect for a variety of reasons. A mech MC has the pilot in a very small and contained fighting compartment, unless the compartment is hit dead on (most likely killing the pilot anyway), spalling in say the chest or leg will not kill the crew akin to spalling in a tank, which will hit the crew dues to the much larger (in comparison) fighting compartment that most penetrating shots will enter. Also concerning organic creatures, especially with Chintin or hide, spalling would not occur at all, also any fragments would hit the organic material around the entry point. Seeing the organic MC have evolved to deal with extreme damage with very few/unprotected vital organs, again direct hits would be required to specific body parts. The only reason beast hunter shells work is not due to blowing a MC to bits, it works because of a bioacid. I personally think MC's should be dealt with by other units (which in of themselves may need improvements).

Now I don't deny the Beast hunter shell should be given to "normal" vanquishers, just the call for it to be a universal or free upgrade. The Beast Hunter should be akin to APCR in WW2, rare, expensive and used in desperate situations. A normal vanquisher should pay for it and limit it to one or two shots. And that is "only" if Vanquishers and the Beast Hunter rounds stay how they currently are.

I personally have been turned to thinking the vast majority of the codex's issues, as with the vanquisher, be mostly sorted by an almost universal point cut and accuracy buffs to units that use heavy weapons.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
TBH, I just watch GUP for the tank pr0n.

i don't think anyone watches it for it's quality as an anime... it's all about the tanks! lol

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's the problem:
Armourbane weapons are given that rule to represent the fact that they don't cause spalling or internal damage.
They're given that rule to represent the sheer penetrative force of the round. If they're doing that to a tank, then they should be doing the same amount of damage to an organic creature.

I've been advocating for awhile to have Armourbane weapons given some kind of secondary effect against MCs/GMCs. Fleshbane sounds about right.

Well good thing I wasn't talking about armourbane To be honest I don't really think wounding MC's is the issue, more causing enough of those wounds. Problem with giving the Beast Hunter to average Vanquishers is it makes a dedicated AT vehicle no longer dedicated for very little points (still cheaper than a normal russ).

I simply think another tank/unit should be a anti MC than the vanquisher. Also what is peoples main issues with mech suits as Walkers? Is it wound count? If so it would be more an issue with the opponents profile more than the fact it's a MC. Or is it the fact AT bonuses don't apply against them?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

Well of course there should be a premium to make MLO skyfire.... So you would have something that is only -1 S & AP than a lascannon, has a decent blast round for hordes that also has a S7 skyfire round for 5 less points? Jog on!

The problem is more the heavy weapon squad, not the weapon cost imo. Normal Guardmen are 5ppm, while the heavy weapon squad is 7.5ppm if you think of them as two guardmen per base. The only downside being a single shot S6 weapon can kill them both instead of just one model..... Realistically they need to be reduced to 30 points and/or return to either their old rules (being two seperate models, one of which can still fire his lasgun) or give it a rule it cant be insta-killed, maybe give it minus 1 bs for models with one wound to represent the team being less efficient or something?

Making the Vanquisher a D weapon would make it more how it was intended, especially seeing it's the only titan killing weapon that fails to do so.... D-1 however would make it do nothing 1/3 of the time vs targets it normally would do much more.... maybe a special rule that is uses the normal table but count a 6 as a 5? I think D3 wounds would be much better than insta-death via beasthunter shells.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

Well of course there should be a premium to make MLO skyfire.... So you would have something that is only -1 S & AP than a lascannon, has a decent blast round for hordes that also has a S7 skyfire round for 5 less points? Jog on!

The problem is more the heavy weapon squad, not the weapon cost imo. Normal Guardmen are 5ppm, while the heavy weapon squad is 7.5ppm if you think of them as two guardmen per base. The only downside being a single shot S6 weapon can kill them both instead of just one model..... Realistically they need to be reduced to 30 points and/or return to either their old rules (being two seperate models, one of which can still fire his lasgun) or give it a rule it cant be insta-killed, maybe give it minus 1 bs for models with one wound to represent the team being less efficient or something?

Making the Vanquisher a D weapon would make it more how it was intended, especially seeing it's the only titan killing weapon that fails to do so.... D-1 however would make it do nothing 1/3 of the time vs targets it normally would do much more.... maybe a special rule that is uses the normal table but count a 6 as a 5? I think D3 wounds would be much better than insta-death via beasthunter shells.

Yes, I would. I see nothing wrong with that.

The W2 Heavy Team is stupid. "One model per squad may be upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon." Simple squad fix, as nobody cares who the loader / spotter is - he's just for looks. Then the HWS simply has 3 models upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon. Kill 4 to knock off the first Heavy, and they're worth it.

Oh, the Vanquisher isn't a Titan Killer (that's the Shadowsword's job) - it's supposed to kill Tanks, not Titans, so D-1 rather than full D.

Sorry but a 15 point launcer with skyfire rounds only being 15 points, while a lascannon is 20? That's just idiotic. You now have a half decent AT weapon, and anti horde weapon and a AA weapon for only 15 points.... think a lot of opponents would have an issue with that. Although I wouldn't be too opposed to something like a 7-10 point skyfire only launcher.

Yeah they're inherently broken.

Well fluff wise groups of vanquishers are well known for their ability to destroy and cripple titans. Problem with D-1 actually means 1/3 of the time it will do absolutely nothing vs vehicle or infantry, even those it can normally kill at much better odds. So in reality while you're making it easier to destroy vehicles in one hit, it now less reliable in a fair few situations. Now that I think about it maybe it should get a unique penetration result table?

making it a D weapon or D-1 is too much.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, well I think that you need to recognize that a Monstrous Creature is nothing more than a tank with Wounds. Usually a decent amount more of them than most vehicles have Hull Points.

You're misunderstanding the issue at play. It's the fact that it is so wildly inconsistent as to what is a Walker versus what is a Monstrous Creature.

It's the fact that a Monstrous Creature gains a significant advantage versus anything labeled a vehicle.

Why? Because Monstrous Creatures come with saves as standard. Vehicles that aren't Skimmers or with special rules granting saves can only ever claim Cover Saves.
Additionally, once you get into Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures? They get an automatic buff against their banes(Poisoned and Sniper weapons can only ever Wound on 6s, unless the Poisoned weapon has a high enough Strength to Wound on a lower number) just for being classified as such. Imagine if a Superheavy could ignore the effects of Lance, Armourbane, or Melta weapons.

Additionally, if a Superheavy Vehicle gets killed? It can potentially take out a huge swathe of YOUR army.
What happens if a GMC gets killed? Nothing!

Well realistically most MC's I've seen such as those that are Nid and Tau are nothing like Tanks with wounds. The mechanics of how they are damaged and what knocks them out is completely different. Now I agree walkers is a different issue, but take a sentinel or dreadnought for example, they're much more akin to a tank that walks, seeing the main body/cockpit is so large it's actually akin area wise to the fighting compartment in a tank. Shooting a Mech MC in the chest for example, isn't going to do the same amount or type of damage as it would a tank, which is why I think many mechs are represented as such.

Also you have an issue with GMC getting buffs against snipers and poison? You know weapons designed against man size to MC sized animals. Imagine how silly it would be if a full unit of ratlings used their normal sniper rules against a GMC? Now GMC's point cost shopuld reflect they don't have apoc explosions (or any at all) and one thing I do think is many MC's have far too many wounds. But then again that is an issue with their respective profiles imo.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's going to do exactly the same amount and type of damage shooting a Tau Crisis/Broadside/Riptide/whatever suit in the chest as it would be shooting a Sentinel's cockpit or a Dreadnought's stupidly heavily armored sarcophagus. The pilot for the Crisis suit is in the chest and it's not like they're somehow treated against explosives.

Not really, think about it. Sentinal cockpit gets hit, spalling etc hurts the target, now MC's are generally bigger. Concerning the riptide only 1/4 of the entire main trunk of the suit is the cockpit. Not only that but that compartment is also seperated from the rest of the vehicle. Including Limbs, it's only around 1/8th to 1/10th of it's mass, compared to a sentinel that it's about 1/2 the mass and the dreadnought that is around 1/3-1/4 (ignoring it's also acts as life support). Comparing it to a leman russ make it even worse, pretty much anywhere the russ is penetrated will result in shrapnel filling the fighting compartment, harming the crew and potentially causing ammo to ignite. Most MC's have enclose fighting compartments, akin to a real life fighter, of which many will survive being hit by ridiculous amounts of rounds that have not hit something critical or the pilot directly.

It's actually one of the main bonuses to having separate fighting compartments IRL.

In the end, Crisis Suits got labeled the way they were because of rules concerns when they were first introduced. When they came out, vehicles were actually powerful and thus an army which could take a huge amount of Walkers was seen as potentially overpowered by the design team.

Well aren't normal crisis suits simply infantry? Main reason being the suit mimics the users movements much better and more enhances the pilot akin to terminator and centurion armour?

What do Sniper weapons do?
Aim for vulnerable points on their targets(represented by the roll of a "6" to Wound being AP2; the sniper round found an extremely vulnerable point in the armor/protection of their target). Nothing about simply becoming a GMC removes that. Limbs are still vulnerable points, you just can't make a killshot. You can't do that to a GMC anyways.

You'd have a case for Poisoned Weapons, seeing as how a GMC is so large that it would take longer for poisons to affect them--but if that's the case, then MCs should be given the same thing since they're so much bigger than your "average"

Snipers to creatures those size would be like using a 9mm to take on a tank.... sure you can fit a scope to it and aim for the rear armour, but it will not do anything. It may be a weak point, but if your weapon isn't big enough it's not going to do anything.

Okay, and?
It's Ratlings. They need something to finally justify their points.

Haha they're only 30 points..... they're actually one of the only decent elite options, especially if you run a bar minimum squad or two.

GMC point costs need to be elevated upwards, significantly, or vehicles need to be elevated upwards beyond MCs/GMCs to justify the bloated points cost that most vehicles pay.

In all honesty I do agree, I think MC's are very underpriced. How much is it for a riptide? 180 points + upgrades... I think it's around 240points for a fully upgraded one, that's only slightly more than a pask vehicle... which arguably is not 'quite' as good

War Kitten wrote:Yeah, Ratlings aren't really worth it are they? 10 PPM for a BS4 sniper shot on a toughness 2 platform.

Well my main argument being anyone who wastes a turn shooting a 30 point unit and in efefct waste a units shooting should have their brain checked.

A 30 point ratling unit is actually a perfect target saturation unit.... that can still be a annoyance.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
By your logic, a single hit on the Riptide should shred the pilot into hamburger.

How? Would result in less damage to the pilot and the entire vehicle, should get an idea to how spalling and damage works in combat....

Have you ever looked at any of the cutaways of modern tanks versus the Leman Russ?

Yeah looking at the leman russ cutaway right in front of me, russes actually have vastly much larger compartments.

No. They're a pilot with a neural linkage inside of the middle--just like a Dreadnought or a Knight or any class of Titan.

Neural link is irrelevant.... fighting compartment size in comparison to the vehicle size was more of an issue. Plus volatile parts of the vehicle. Titans are a completely different topic however.

Sniper weapons aren't weak. They're really not. I will never understand why they have the AP they do.

Maybe it's time Precision Shots does something more than just allowing you to choose who you allocate Wounds to, but it's a precision instrument. A sniper isn't aiming for legs or arms, they're going for killshots whenever possible. Even on a GMC they're going to be hitting some kind of weak spot.

To use your analogy, it would be like if you were to use a 9mm to take on a tank...when the tank commander left the hatch open and you're able to get elevation to see inside.

Right... you know MC's and GMC 's don't need hatches thus the commander logic does not work? Stop trying to compare a vehicle that logistically and intrinsically works nothing like a normal vehicle. Again the best comparison is an upsized terminator armour in how they work, but with more agility.

That's like comparing one turd to another, because the Elite options in AM are distinctively lackluster.

To an extent I agree, but even scions have their usage as suicide squads. Now I admit their usage does not match their intended usage and they need improvement, but ratlings are great in their minimum 30 point units.

180 points plus upgrades for a 2+ save, the ability to get a boosted Invulnerable save and FNP with high Toughness.

And it can claim Cover relatively easily along with firing their weapons with no real penalties.

Wooo, vehicles!

Well again I agree with you point wise, cover point? Well how is it easier to get a 25% obscurement on a large walker than it is a tank using the same scenery?

As I said earlier, I think the main problem with MC's and GMC's is A) Their wound count and B) Their point cost, not them actually being MC's or GMC's.

 War Kitten wrote:
Guard Needs:
-Lumbering Behemoth back for the Russes
-Points drop on the Hellhound and it's variants
-Points drop on Ogryns/Bullgryns
-Regimental Doctrines
-Something to help out bog standard Guardsmen
-Not even going to start on Rough Riders

Other things I would add is
- Chimeras return to their old point cost.... plus a return to three firing out the turret
- Heavy Weapon squads are fixed and points reduced. Why you pay more for their base unit over guardmens is beyond me, especially when they die easier vs S6+ weapons, all for an extra 2.5 points. Reduce them to 30 points, and even then I would still say make them two separate models like they used to be. Hell you can force them to be in base contact or on the same base so all current models can still be used.
- Make Hydra's worth the points.... hell I wouldn't even mind a point hike so they can also shoot at ground units, similar real life AA can be used in a similar way quite successfully, why not the hydra?
- Return some of the older artillery units, give us some new ones (less rocket artillery please) and give us some cool artillery abilities too. Wyverns are fine as they are, but I find the rest are really lacklustre.

 Lukash_ wrote:
Wyverns lose twin-linked, go up to 80 pts.

Meh I would say 80 points would be slightly too high. Although currently at 65 points they're a steal, but that being said most other codices have far worse culprits.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The ONLY way I will accept 80 point Hydras is if they regain their "Auto-targeting System" rule(which was removed from C: Imperial Guard to Astra Militarum, but remained in Imperial Armour) in addition to a "Choose whether or not to fire as Skyfire" option and a ROF increase to Heavy 5.

Oh. And ATS goes from "Ignores Jink Saves" to "Ignores Cover".

Well surely that was because the IA was written prior to the current codex? I know this is the case with IAv1:2e. Many other unit's such as the chimera are pretty much the same as they were in C: Imperial Guard represented by their lower point cost, the Hydra also did not use to be open topped.

Well the ATS wording already is in effect "Ignores Cover saves or Cover Bonuses provided by Supersonic or Jink", why would you give it an overall Ignore Cover save without doing the same to normal autocannons? Especially if they normal Hydra's rate of fire increased? Ignoring Jink should return at the very least however.

 War Kitten wrote:
I would like our standard infantry to get some sort of buff. I despise running blobs of Guardsmen. If I wanted to run giant units like that I'd play Orks. I would like my basic infantry squads to be decent enough where I can run each one separately without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.

i suppose you could make orders given by a PCS universal to the entire platoon? Or may make an order given by the PCS to one Infantry squad apply to all 2-5?

Tbh I don't really like using blobs, but I do like how effective they can be.