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.

The Chimera's weapons arn't even twin-linked though. It's hard to miss with the twin-linked bolters at BS4, while the Guard have to pay for two Heavy Bolters to get the same number of average hits, technically with the potential for a higher number of hits, but with a much greater potential for less hits. You have something like a 1/6 chance of missing just one shot on the Razorback, but a 1/6 chance of missing two shots with BS3 Heavy Bolter, and a 1/9 chance of missing with all the shots. It's early so my math isn't activated yet, but a Chimera firing six Heavy Bolter shots has a much, much higher chance of them all missing entirely.

aka_mythos wrote:Well I think you're allowing the functional based costing to override the cost as balanced by the rules.

And I think you're mistaken in your assessment of my costing.

aka_mythos wrote:The cost has to reflect the chimera's stats.

And I've done that above.

aka_mythos wrote:In the new codex SM, an AV13/11/10 Predator with autocannon is 60 pts and with 2 heavy bolters is 85 pts. A Razorback, AV11/11/10 with twin heavy bolters is 40pts.

Yes. You can downgrade a Predator's armor and remove it's main gun and weapon upgrade options.

aka_mythos wrote:So pricing of a Chimera relative to a Razorback, we have to account for the additional front armor, the extra heavy weapon, and the added troop capacity.

But you also have to account for the lower BS, the fact that it loses roughly 50% of its firepower when it moves, and the fact that those Heavy Bolters are about as good as it gets, and the fact that 6 Marines are a better payload than 10+ Guardsmen.

Chimera vs Razorback:
+ Front & Side to AV12 (medium) = +10 pts
- dual BS3 vs twin BS4 = -5 pts
- dual guns vs twin guns = -5 to 10 pts
- all guns are HB-class, no option for Assault Cannon / Lascannon / Multi-Melta = even to -5 pts
- Transports 60 to 100 pts of Guardsman vs 80 to 125 pts of Marines = even to -5 pts

The significant change is going from AV10 sides to AV11+ sides, as you become Bolter-proof when moving, and the Razorback already has that included in its cost. Going from AV11 to AV12 means you ignore Tau basic guns, along with Heavy Bolters - not a big deal, as these aren't purposed as anti-tank weapons. Going from dual BS3 to twin BS4 is a huge disadvantage in 5th Edition, as these aren't Defensive weapons that get free shots on the move in an Objectives-based environment. Also, the value of Transport has come down significantly for Troops transports - GW is encouraging Transport sales to support mobility warfare.

So relative to a Razorback, a Chimera should NOT cost more, and can be easily argued to cost LESS.

aka_mythos wrote:The comparison of a Predator to Razorback

The comparison of of a razorback to rhino

I'm going to ignore these, because you got the Razorback baseline comparison wrong, so secondary comparisions would necessarily be flawed.

aka_mythos wrote:Their is a bit of ambiguity in costing due to the different minor rule differences of razorbacks and chimeras, that I have assumed cancel out or have negligible cost, ie 3 entry hatches versus one, amphibious, lasgun firing ports...

I'll generally agree, but I'm going to take Amphibious OFF the Chimera moving forward. It's hardly ever used, and definitely NOT represented on the model. Actual Amphibious AAVs have a high prow-like nose and special tracks / dual-drive props, along with water sealing / skirting. These features are not present on the Chimera, so therefore not amphibious.

aka_mythos wrote:An AV12/12/10 would be 60 to 65pts. With those stats and its weapons it begins to be less of a transport and more of a medium tank on par to a basic predator.

No way. At 60 to 65 pts, a Predator-based Chimera is way undergunned and mis-purposed.

I'll do the Predator comparison, though.

Comparinng Chimera to Predator
- no BS4 Autocannon = -20 pts.
- AV12/12 vs AV13/11 = even
- all guns are HB-class, no option for Assault Cannon / Lascannon / Multi-Melta = even to -5 pts
+ Transport 12 Guardsmen = +5 pts

Losing the main gun is a clear disadvantage, unless you're assuming Guard will get Autocannons with Targeters as a Turret weapon option. AV13F is better for a long-range shooter while AV12S is better for a mobile transport, so I think this is probably a wash. Losing the Lascannon options are significant, and are a fair trade off against the transport capability.

So relative to a Predator, I have the Chimera weighing in at 40 pts.

aka_mythos wrote:While by comparison a less practical Chimera as its rules currently are should cost in at 45pts.

OK, let's compare the AV12/10/10 Chimera to a 35-pt Rhino:
- Amphibious vs Repair = even (or -5 pts)
- AV12/10 vs AV11/11 = -10 pts (or more)
+ 2nd HB = +5 pts
- Transport 12 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines = -5 pts

Amphibious almost never comes up as anything of importance, so should be ignored, whereas Repair is actually useful. AV10 sides mean the armor is clearly worse than a Rhino. The twin Bolter trades against the first Heavy Bolter. So you need to add 5 pts for the 2nd Heavy Bolter. But transport 10 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines means the Rhino wins on better payload. So points-wise, you have a Rhino with much worse armor, worse transport utility, but 5 pts for a better gun? Right.

An AV12/10/10 Chimera is worth 25 to 30 pts, definitely not more than 35 pts.

aka_mythos wrote:So while I believe the Chimera should be cheaper and better its cost has to reflect its stats and rules relative to the costs other armies have.

That's the first sensible thing you've said in the entire post!

open_sketchbook wrote:The Chimera's weapons arn't even twin-linked though. It's hard to miss with the twin-linked bolters at BS4, while the Guard have to pay for two Heavy Bolters to get the same number of average hits, technically with the potential for a higher number of hits, but with a much greater potential for less hits. You have something like a 1/6 chance of missing just one shot on the Razorback, but a 1/6 chance of missing two shots with BS3 Heavy Bolter, and a 1/9 chance of missing with all the shots. It's early so my math isn't activated yet, but a Chimera firing six Heavy Bolter shots has a much, much higher chance of them all missing entirely.

Yes thats why when I did the points for two heavy bolters I put the cost at 5pts each, instead of the 15pts for a twin linked heavy bolter. A twin linked heavy bolter will only ever be able to score 3 hits, while two heavy bolters have the slimmer chance of hitting 6. The more dice the more luck becomes a factor. You are right though that TL heavy bolters are more accurate they will probably hit more often due to the higher BS but they do not have the same volume of fire.

In two turns of play a BS4 TL HB will put out 6 shots, 5 hit; in the same two turns 2 heavy bolters BS3 put out 12 shots with an average of 4 hits; that's close. Due to independent odds there stands the statistical chance that a given two rounds of play are above the average, a run or a streak to use casino terms. With the Twin linked heavy bolter the best you can do is 6 hits, but with the standards bolters their is still a statistical odd you can hit 8 or even 12 enemies something the TL HB can not do. This is not to say its going to happen often, but there is a chance of a dramatic advantageous gain with the two heavy bolters not present with TL HB. Couple that with the fact that you'll never see more than 2 Razorbacks in a game, relative to the 5 or more chimeras that I see alot of IG players field. You open up the odds for luck to strike.

Also my cost assessment has not taken vehicle weapon upgrade options into consideration because that is a separate cost and a twin-linked bolter in the form of FW's would potentially be an upgrade.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:So pricing of a Chimera relative to a Razorback, we have to account for the additional front armor, the extra heavy weapon, and the added troop capacity.

But you also have to account for the lower BS, the fact that it loses roughly 50% of its firepower when it moves, and the fact that those Heavy Bolters are about as good as it gets, and the fact that 6 Marines are a better payload than 10+ Guardsmen.

+I do account for the lower BS in the weapons cost, I even said so in my post. 5pts for each heavy bolter instead of 15 pts for a twin linked bolter.
+You can't cost in the payload. The payload is a separate unit that pays for its self. This payload difference impacting cost flies in the face of convention. If this were a consideration for GW when they write rules there would be discounts dependent on which units are mounted; that clearly isn't the case.
+GW in general uses the basic pt. convention for transport capacity that a transport pays 1pt for each model it can transport rounding to the 5's or 10's of pts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Chimera vs Razorback:
+ Front & Side to AV12 (medium) = +10 pts
- dual BS3 vs twin BS4 = -5 pts
- dual guns vs twin guns = -5 to 10 pts
- all guns are HB-class, no option for Assault Cannon / Lascannon / Multi-Melta = even to -5 pts
- Transports 60 to 100 pts of Guardsman vs 80 to 125 pts of Marines = even to -5 pts

Thats very wrong.
+Pt pricing convention for tanks is 10pts per side per pt of armor above 10. for AV12/12 you're 10 pts short.
+Your taking off points twice for what is effectively the same thing. Two heavy bolter vs. twin heavy bolter; BS3 vs BS4.... a twin linked heavy bolter on a Razorback ends up only being worth 15pts and your method of point costing deducts 15pts for that difference. Two heavy bolters even at BS3 are worth more than ZERO.
+The lack of higher class weapon options are not direct cost on the vehicle, the cost of having those weapons are built into the upgrade to get them and not into the basic vehicle.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The significant change is going from AV10 sides to AV11+ sides, as you become Bolter-proof when moving, and the Razorback already has that included in its cost. Going from AV11 to AV12 means you ignore Tau basic guns, along with Heavy Bolters - not a big deal, as these aren't purposed as anti-tank weapons. Going from dual BS3 to twin BS4 is a huge disadvantage in 5th Edition, as these aren't Defensive weapons that get free shots on the move in an Objectives-based environment. Also, the value of Transport has come down significantly for Troops transports - GW is encouraging Transport sales to support mobility warfare.

So relative to a Razorback, a Chimera should NOT cost more, and can be easily argued to cost LESS.

I think before upgrades they should cost the same and that a chimera should be AV12/11

A chimera is not intended to be a medium tank, ignoring those heavier hitting weapons by giving it AV12 on sided would make it a medium battle tank. A predator doesn't even have AV12 side armor.
Yes point values have come down significantly, 15pts fewer for a rhino, 30pts for a razorback. But to cost down a Chimera by more than 55pts while giving it the stats of a battle tank are ridiculous.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The comparison of a Predator to Razorback
The comparison of of a razorback to rhino

I'm going to ignore these, because you got the Razorback baseline comparison wrong, so secondary comparisions would necessarily be flawed.

Please inform me how?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Their is a bit of ambiguity in costing due to the different minor rule differences of razorbacks and chimeras, that I have assumed cancel out or have negligible cost, ie 3 entry hatches versus one, amphibious, lasgun firing ports...

I'll generally agree, but I'm going to take Amphibious OFF the Chimera moving forward. It's hardly ever used, and definitely NOT represented on the model. Actual Amphibious AAVs have a high prow-like nose and special tracks / dual-drive props, along with water sealing / skirting. These features are not present on the Chimera, so therefore not amphibious.

I see this as moot point it appears to be a negligible cost if any.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:An AV12/12/10 would be 60 to 65pts. With those stats and its weapons it begins to be less of a transport and more of a medium tank on par to a basic predator.

No way. At 60 to 65 pts, a Predator-based Chimera is way undergunned and mis-purposed.

My point was that with the stats you purpose it'd come to 60 to 65 points, it would be out gunned and mispurposed, which is why you should stay clear of giving such high stats because it puts it in a different league or class of vehicles.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'll do the Predator comparison, though.
Comparinng Chimera to Predator
- no BS4 Autocannon = -20 pts.
- AV12/12 vs AV13/11 = even
- all guns are HB-class, no option for Assault Cannon / Lascannon / Multi-Melta = even to -5 pts
+ Transport 12 Guardsmen = +5 pts

+A BS3 autocannon is 15pts. BS3 Heavy Bolters are 10pts each. Two heavy bolters to the one autocannon has a 5pt difference. Double that to represent BS4 autocannon and we have a 10pt. difference not the 20pts you have.
+AV12/12 vs AV13/11 are even.
+The price of weapons above the heavy bolter class are built into those higher cost weapons and not into the tank chassis. Otherwise the price between a Rhino and Razorback would be more than 5pts.
+By convention transport capacity would come in at 10pts. And whether its guardsmen is irrelevant because the vehicle could just as easily get used by other units such as Ogryn and thus cost of a transport can not account for the cost of the unit potentially in it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Losing the main gun is a clear disadvantage, unless you're assuming Guard will get Autocannons with Targeters as a Turret weapon option. AV13F is better for a long-range shooter while AV12S is better for a mobile transport, so I think this is probably a wash. Losing the Lascannon options are significant, and are a fair trade off against the transport capability. So relative to a Predator, I have the Chimera weighing in at 40 pts.

The main gun is but looking at how two heavy bolters stack upto and autocannon point wise its not that significant a difference. The have and have nots of options are not part of the cost of the vehicle but the cost of upgrade. You are mistaking tactical costs to physical costs with little regard to vehicle role. Not having a lascannon might be an issue if it weren't for the fact that chimera aren't suppose to fight other tanks.

Your costing of the Chimera is 20pts under.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:While by comparison a less practical Chimera as its rules currently are should cost in at 45pts.

OK, let's compare the AV12/10/10 Chimera to a 35-pt Rhino:
- Amphibious vs Repair = even (or -5 pts)
- AV12/10 vs AV11/11 = -10 pts (or more)
+ 2nd HB = +5 pts
- Transport 12 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines = -5 pts
Amphibious almost never comes up as anything of importance, so should be ignored, whereas Repair is actually useful. AV10 sides mean the armor is clearly worse than a Rhino. The twin Bolter trades against the first Heavy Bolter. So you need to add 5 pts for the 2nd Heavy Bolter. But transport 10 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines means the Rhino wins on better payload. So points-wise, you have a Rhino with much worse armor, worse transport utility, but 5 pts for a better gun? Right.
An AV12/10/10 Chimera is worth 25 to 30 pts, definitely not more than 35 pts.

+Amphibious vs repair, Disembarking pts vs 6 defensive lasguns are even
+If AV12/12 is equal to 13/11, why isn't a 12/10 equivalent to 11/11... guess what they are slap those 10pts back on.
+2 Heavy bolters should be 5pts each not total. (BS4 Twin Heavy Bolter is 15pts, divide by two we have 7.5pts for a BS3 Twin Heavy bolter, single heavy bolter comes in at 5.)
+Whose being transport shouldn't come into play, because you can not account for every possibility with the single point cost of a vehicle.

I see the biggest cost differences between us come from your way of costing the insubstantial attributes of other vehicles relative to the chimera. Things like whats being transported and what weapon upgrade options it has, are all things that are costed else where other than the basic cost of a vehicle. Yes there is a tactical value to those attributes but to assign all the negative point costs to vehicles that lack some options is absurd because its building a point cost on things thar aren't there. They're delusional negative costs.

A Chimera is AV12/10/10 and as it stands should only cost between 40 and 45pt... say 42pts with basic weapons. Minimally beyond a razorback.

Using a rhino as a starting point and assuming the point costs of different special rules and attributes cancel out.
Rhino AV11/11/10 with a BS4 is 35 points, shift a point of armor to the front, while adding marginally to troop capacity and add two BS3 heavy bolters you have over 40pts but under 45 points.

If you add armor its going to be about +10pts per point of armor per side; this is irregardless the other aspects of the vehicle.

I say we should get an AV12/11/10 Chimera for about 50pts.

An AV13/11/10 Predator with only a BS4 Autocannon is 60pts. A 12/12/10 Chimera would have pretty much the same armor, it has two heavy bolters instead of an autocannon and is BS3 instead of BS4 but can transport 12 models. Break even on advantages and disadvantages for it.

grrr. double post.

Make me sick!

Close order drill - did not exist until the last IG codex. Cute and useful but at a point cost. Make it free and let's call this Napoleonic 40k.

ALL should have it? Well let's just put all IG in napoleonic uniforms and buy Warhammer formation trays. Napoleonic tactics/formations should be worthless in the modern battlefield and more so in the 40k universe. Liveable fluff but pay for it.

Only the IG has bayonets? Haven't looked closely at a dark eldar warrior lately I guess.

How should guard dominate? .

In the end... "Sergeant, give me the casualty reports." "120 dead out of 132 sir." "Well done, we have eliminated those 50 pesky chaos marines. Send a message back to the general. Mission accomplished and send up the next regiment while we go to the repo depot and get another 120 conscripts... They have had their 24 hours of intense training I hope..."

If you want to solve the KP problem... go back to requiring some math...

Marines 9 KP and lose 6 67% casualties

IG 27 KP and lose 15 55% casualties.

The IG are still a more effective force they win. But do this and now should all the other armies go home and say they can't win 1/3 of the scenarios when the steamroller guard is their opponent?

I know all about DE. Well both DE and Kroot have their own spikey weapons, yes, DE are too old to have had any thought of this sort given them being carry overs from 3rd Ed. Also by being pirates they aren't going to stand in any sort of formation. Kroot have their own unique advantage because of the fact that they don't use theirs like spears.

Umm... bayonets were used extensively up through WWII, at which point even the japanese were using them in charges. WWI, troops going over the top, bayonets fixed.

If anyone gives COD to their guards and keeps them in formation the entire time their an idiot. The COD is for a last ditch effort, something you move your guard over into when you see you're gonna get charged. So you're not going to be moving in Napoleonic formations. COD is not as much a tactical centerpiece as it is another ability of the IG to improve survivability.

IG coming from so many diverse worlds its important to realize the Imperial Guard is not homogeneous. Not all IG are conscripted and those that are have their own set of rules.

The way IG are suppose to dominate is not just in the number of men but also number of vehicles and the number of heavy weapons. IG win by attrition tactics. Being attrition based they are willing to take a higher level of casualties, may be not to the extent of your hyperbole, but non-homogeneous IG. That should be reflected in the KP system without changing the system or requiring it to be reinterpreted. The way to fix kill points is to simply not count platoon squads as KP, only the command units as 2. IG squads don't have the squad size of horde armies they're somewhat softer and die relatively easily. That said the platoon command would be protected by his whole platoon and then finally the other player would be working as hard for my kill points as I work for his.

Indeed bayonets were used in WWI and WWII.

That the Japanese did banzai charges ... sure. Vicious and scary to face but they rarely succeeded. Usually the success rate was low.
WWI? Alright, casualty rates for gaining hundreds of yards... Machineguns or in our case heavy bolters and flamers rule the day.

The IG is an attrition army agreed. It wins by firepower. If you want guardsmen to be able to stand up to space marines in hand to hand, pay for it. Or do it the guardsmen way and blast them into oblivion with a number of weapons that a marine would die for. (And often does.)

There is a small problem with the command squad being worth 2 and the platoon squads being worth 0. I am a marine... so behind this line of 20 guardsmen stands 5 command figs... I order my devastator squad of 4 heavy bolters to unload on... you guessed it, the command squad. So now we have 12 shots, 8 hit and probably 7 wound. Hope you are good at 4+ saves. The other issue is if you field the 5 squad platoon, you only have 2 points out there. Cheese in reverse.

The KP system does burn all armies but the IG does take the brunt of it. I do think the percentage system is more balanced. An ork comes at you with a warboss and 6 maxed boyz squads. We are talkiing 7 KP and he has at least about 1200 points out there. Yet if he loses 5 killpoints we are talking a big bite out of his force. IG will probably go through 10 or 12 KP worth of squads to stop it but they should still have 10 or 12 KP of stuff still left. Others have some very high cost figs that can eat up points and are worth it for their effect. The percentage system would penalize the hoarder and also penalize the unbalanced size forces. (e.g. 4 squads of 20 necron warriors and 2 3-base scarab units)

The big thing I think every army is struggling with is the right force structure for 5th ed. and how to have one that is fieldable in all
the scenarios. The guard is not alone and where one cheezy marine force may own you in a kill point game they may struggle mightily to survive a guard army in an objective scenario.

The biggest problem I see with the guard is that while your front line provides cover for your second, third, forth line of troops it also provides that same cover to your opponent. I think this is where 5th ed. really screwed with the IG and every other army to a lesser degree. An acceptable to me would be that an IG platoon does not block LOS/provide cover to an enemy) if it is firing over another squad in it's platoon. This would force the IG to deploy platoons in depth and not penalise them for doing it. OTOH, they fire over another friendly unit and too bad, you are stuck with the same problem as everyone else.

The other problem I see is the new Ork codex. It is great, it really makes the orcs a force to be reckoned with but the cheapening of the base trooper from 8 or 9 to 6 really did a disservice to a lot of armies but the guard, some eldar, and kroot stand out. An ork - that is T4 and S4 when it charges and has a rapid fire S4 18" 2 shot weapon and 2 attacks base in hand to hand. Should not be costing the same as an imperial guardsmen. Space marines are gaining freebies like grenades, bolt pistols and their cost is staying the same. Meanwhile eldar guardians, kroot mercs, DE warriors and the IG are forced to slog on as the rest of the universe either improves in their kit or the GW gods have decided they were 33 to 50% overvalued. If an Ork should cost 6, I would say both base Eldar should cost 6 or 7. An imperial guardsmen should be costing 5. (You can argue 4 but I shudder to think of IG even being feasible in a 2-hour tournament round when you have 250 men to deploy/move/shoot not mention to buy and paint.) The problem is worst for the guard because unlike the eldar guardian or kroot merc. The IG is the core of your army no option. The kroot are an option for a tau the guardians are valuable in their place but the dire avenger is a more capable trooper. Between their cost being the same as an orc and the fact that your 10-man squads provide cover to the on rushing 30 orc mobs, the IG pays a horrific price.

When soldiers are wearing cloth uniforms and wielding steel bayonets, I'll agree, charging is a bad idea.

When soldiers are wearing high-tech reactive armour that makes kevlar look like paper and wielding plasma steel bayonets with edges sharpened down to single digit molecule counts, maybe bayonet charges have their place.

The Imperial Guard is no conscript army, they are highly trained and disciplined troopers. You want to know what a conscript army looks like? It's leadership 5 and BS 2. The Guard are by the nature of the best soldiers humanity has to offer. (Space Marines aren't really human anymore, and there are only a few million Sisters, and as few as a hundred thousand) You want crappy, throw a million men into the meat grinder? That's the job of underfunded PDF forces. The Imperial Guard do what they do because they've had ten thousand years to get good at it. They fight the way they do with a longer military tradition than we've had civilization! If bayonets and bright uniforms are being worn, then for whatever reason it works in the Forty-First Millennium. Even the regiments that do casually throw lives away, like the Death Korps of Krieg, arm their soldiers to a high standard and train them well, and fight the way they do because it's the best way to do so within their realm of specialty, ie attrition warfare in trenches.

The Guard employ, and since their first codex have employed, combined armed tactics, high technology, and sophisticated strategy, but unfortunately the perception of the Guard and their abilities is warped by a combination of how the Guard play within game mechanics, the low-tech look of their equipment (the perception fallacy) and the fact that their abilities are shown in comparison to genetically engineered combat monsters who kill solar systems for fun, sufficiently advanced aliens, evil sufficiently advanced aliens, the mechanically animated souls of ancient sufficiently advanced aliens, super soldiers wearing tank armour wielding automatic rocket launchers, possessed super soldiers wearing tank armour wielding automatic rocket launchers, a swarm of giant insect dinosaur combat creatures that eat planets, insane warrior nuns with flamethrowers, energy beam throwing gray aliens with giant mecha, and devils from hell itself. Warhammer wouldn't be interesting as a game to show every time the Guard go up against some random rebel planet, walk through their assault fire fire like the enemy were throwing flowers, and blow them apart with laser guns or slice them apart with chainsaw swords.

A wonderful recruiter for the IG you are.

In comparison to all the other armies out there... they are the disadvantaged, the numerous, the Imperial Guard.

Alright you have your reactive super-high tech kevlar. You might of the Imperium form up in close order ranks like the soldiers of Frederick the Great. Your sergeant tells you no one can stand up to the might of the imperium. (As he should or the commissar would shoot him dead.) You charge ... let's see...

The 7-foot tall mutated humans who wear some form of armor that is better than a WWII tank had for protection.

The dying race of eldar who are uncannily faster than any normal human but by the sheer fact that you have a pointy stick he quakes in his boot and doesn't shoot you apart with this monomolecular edged disk thingies that are poisoned... Oh and they ruled the galaxy when humans were in animal skins so you obviously have the superior technology. (Eldar fluff)

The genitically mutable race of bugs/reptile thingies that seem to take on the strengths of their opponents as time passes.

The 7-foot tall over muscular big toothed green beasties that seems driven only by fighting themselves if not some convenient opponent.. in this case you. Oh and in numbers, they never show any fear.

The guardsman you describe sounds like he is packing a lasrifle that should be rending with a power bayonet that can cut through anything. That guardsman should cost at least 10 points each.

In the reality of the 40k game you are fielding the cheapest trooper barring a spinegaunt with no modifications. Despite what the imperial commissar told you, your armor is worthless against a necron gauss rifle, a marine's bolter or an eldar's shuriken catapult.
You are superior to one race in the universe, a cow ahh I mean a tau firewarrior. Oh, but his leaders gave him a better type of armor and arguably the best standard weapon in the universe. Live with it, the guard are the bottom of the barrel in the world of 40k. Embrace it and make it work.

The space marine chapters are a 1000 or so strong. When we refer to the Imperial Guard it is always as regiments. That implies 2500 or more men and while there may be 1000 chapters of space marines, it seems to me that Cadia alone has fielded some 300+ regiments. You are not as good as a marine and the game system tries to account for that by giving you 2.5 guardsmen for every 1 marine that is on the field. Now you want to argue that a marine is 3 or more times more valuable than a guardsmen perhaps. That a guardsman is not the equal of an ork, agreed. Worse than an eldar guardian... in some instances yes. Just don't make a guardsman better than half the base troopers in the universe. Face it you are a 3 strength, 3 toughness trooper armed with a 3 strength weapon in a universe that abounds with 4 strength, 4 toughness enemies with 4 strength weapons. You ARE good, you ARE the finest that unaltered humanity has to offer. You are just not the equal to all the mutated monsters that float around the universe. That is why the emporer, in his wisdom sends regiments of guardsmen where he might send part of a space marine chapter.

I think one issue with the imperial guard is the fact that the army they're best at fighting are other imperial guard. While that makes some sense, not really a good thing.

As the IG are now they are organized and play like an analogue of semi-modern military force, somewhere between WWII and Persian Gulf War, in term of the complexity of these things. Mostly because GW's drawn their inspiration from war movies with that setting. IG have better technology in some ways, but without the complexity of its application, hence why Tau kinda have the technological leg up.

Back to kill points. I still believe that making the command platoons the sole sources of the KP is the best way to deal with it. I think its inevitably how it will be dealt with. I also believe that when its done with the new rule book GW will simply write in a rule that causes multiple intervening units of the same platoon to generate some sort of cumulative cover save, ie one squad +4, 2sqds +3 with some maximum. It puts an emphasis on the willingness to take losses, with an emphasis on requiring leadership decapitation tactics to break the highly structured guard. It also brings the IG closer in line with the number of KP with other armies.

So yes marines would go after the leadership of the platoons, which makes sense, but ignoring 50 guardsmen only works for so long. Any guardsmen player is also going to be smart enough to put their command squads in places where they won't get shot first turn, behind or in terrain/tanks (kinda like real life) not in front to be shot dead turn one.

DAaddict, the fact of the matter is that, most of the time, the Imperial Guard aren't fighting any of the other factions, except maybe the Orks. Among the interesting factions, yes, the average Guardsmen aren't much. But that doesn't mean that they're useless untrained idiot conscripts.

Close Orders Drill doesn't necessarily have to represent ranking up Napoleonic-style, but just sticking close to one another when the assault comes and tag-teaming the larger, scarier stuff, using their numbers, training and teamwork to best a threat greater than themselves, which reconciles our viewpoints nicely. You get your numbers, and I get my trained infantry.

Quite frankly, COD needs to go away from a game differentiation standpoing. If someone wants to play humans standing shoulder-to-shoulder when they fight, GW makes an entire game system that revolves around that very concept.

That is, let them play Fantasy, with its tight ranks and files, instead of 40k with its open formations.

____

Oh, yeah, I'll readdress Chimeras later - much to say, no time to say it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Quite frankly, COD needs to go away from a game differentiation standpoing. If someone wants to play humans standing shoulder-to-shoulder when they fight, GW makes an entire game system that revolves around that very concept.

You are such a narrow minded person, you know that DD?

You see Guard as one thing and one thing only.

Guard are a massive conglomerate of many, many historical and movie cliches. Some of them are like American GI's in Vietnam, some of them are like the Mobile Infantry from Star Ship Troopers, some of them are Russians, and some of them are British Red Coats in pith helmets.

But once again you want to dictate how Guard should be, and your argument is pointing out that there's a different game system people can play if they want ranks of people.


You've seen Zulu right? You've seen the ranks of British gunmen firing. You've heard of the American Civil War, where they all marched up to one another and fired guns into each other? Some people like the idea of ranking up gunlines and blazing away. Some people love the idea of fixing bayonettes and charging. COD represents this perfectly. There is no reason to remove it.

BYE

At this point its just important to say that the Imperial Guard codex is intended to represent soldiers from a diverse number of worlds. All the worlds have various states of technologies and understanding of their application. If troops can be feral worlders with warrior weapons why can't they be feudal worlders with COD. Even beyond the concept of feudal worlders their is a viability in what COD represents, this comes from the abstract level of detail the game has.

The way the IG are, they are intended as an analogue of the armies of the last 100 years of history with futuristic technology thrown in to tie them to the setting. With in the last 100 years, even with in the last 50 years modern militaries have utilized these sorts of COD tactics.

The continual insistence that COD is about marching your troops in tight formation is stupid. It is merely an abstract representation of how guardsmen utilize their weapons to gang up on enemies in close combat to compensate for their lack of individual abilities. COD only requires that they be in formation when they assault or are assaulted.

I'm not convinced at all that IG *should* be feral worlders with Warrior Weapons.

Nor am I convinced that COD belongs except as an artifact reminder of GW doing a piss-poor job of playtesting and balancing Doctrines. If COD were properly (over-) costed like Warrior Weapons in the last Codex at +20 pts per unit (+1 pt cost per stat point increased), or Independent Commissars, nobody would be interested in the option.

Because all of you keep talking about training and such. Such additional training is represented by additional points costs. In other words, if COD really is so good and characterful, are you willing to pay appropriate for it?

Or would you rather have those same points be applied to something more modern and generally useful like universal Vox as standard?

foil7102 wrote:Just a wish list thread for the 5th edition imperial guardsman.

When ever I look at the IG I have always though that the concept of doctrines was neat idea if poorly handled.

A top down redesign of the guard would be nice with a focus more on themes. I have always seen IG being fielded in certian configurations.

1) Ground Infantry - IG on foot with either artillery or air support support.

2) Mechanzied Infantry - Focus on Tanks and Armored Personal Carriers

3) Airborne Infantry- Focus on Drop Troops, Drop Ships, & Gunship Deployed IG

4) Special Forces - Focus on IG Elite Units

Any IG Codex needs to be able to flexible enough to allow you to field any of the above. Which it does now but currently makes some builds hard to field or not very effective. I think you can simplify doctrines by combine then in the four above. How you would do that I am not sure.

You pick one and build your army around that theme or doctrine

Other Changes that I would like to see

1) Drop the Baskilsk, This is more suited for Apoc

2) Bring Back the Griffon Mortar.

3) Bring back the tarantula, the rapier, the thud gun, and the mole mortar.

4) Allow the option for IG to take Rhinos instead of Chimeras (I wish GW had never brought this out. the rhino was just fine)

5) Allow Dropships and Gunships for the IG

Things I can wish for but will NEVER see.

1) Proper Penal Legion

2) Human Bombs

3) IG Robots and Dreadnaughts

4) IG Bike Squads

5) IG Beastmen Regiments

Evil Eli wrote:When ever I look at the IG I have always though that the concept of doctrines was neat idea if poorly handled.

Believe me, you're not the only one.

I mean, my main man DD above me says that COD shouldn't be free. The counter to that is that it wasn't free, you needed to spend a doctrine point. Sadly, the Doctrine system was so hopeless you weren't actually ever giving anything up in order to take COD, so in the end it was free. If the Doctrine system actually forced you to make hard choices, and if the restricted troop types were actually worth taking, then COD (and Drop Troops for that matter) would not have been free as you would have to give up something equally important.

But the Doctrine System was a waste, there was no choice involved as you just took the best ones and ignored the rest (and most of the Doctrines were crap anyway - Cybernetic Enhancement anyone? Warrior Weapons? God-damned Hardened Fighters).


So, in the end, Jonny-boy is right when he says that COD shouldn't be free, but it shouldn't cost points either. It should cost you something else.



And this is why Doctrines need to be done on a Platoon by Platoon basis. CoD can continue to be free, but taking it needs to stop you from taking other things. So no COD combined with Light Infantry, Drop Troops and half a dozen things. Each platoon does something. Some things can be combined (Cameleoline + Light Infantry, Drop Troops + Carapace Armour), but otherwise taking one item forbids that unit from taking the others.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:


You've seen Zulu right? You've seen the ranks of British gunmen firing. You've heard of the American Civil War, where they all marched up to one another and fired guns into each other? Some people like the idea of ranking up gunlines and blazing away. Some people love the idea of fixing bayonettes and charging. COD represents this perfectly. There is no reason to remove it.

BYE

In all fairness, after by the time of the US civil war, that style of warfare had become...slowed. Generals stuck to it for a while because they didn't know anything else, but by the time of the Siege of Petersburg it was done for, most great powers just didn't realize it until WW1. What's more, CoD really feels like an off-hand add-on (as always, *IMO*) that doesn't really fit with any IG army that GW has done since the beginning of 3rd ed, I'd even go so far as to say much of 2nd ed as well.

Sure there are Praetorian armies out there, and man are they stylish, but they don't really fit in well with any other IG army or mesh with IG fluff. GW hasn't done anything to fit that style since they released that line, and none of the IG codex's and fluff really support the whole "US civil war/Zulu" themed army.

Bayonet charges? Sure, we still have that, but really the IG codex shouldn't be trying to design IG armies around a style of warfare that was always rather silly and forced upon armies by poor weaponry and communications. Once telegraphs, radios and rifles became available, it went bye-bye, for good reason, and trying to force that into a setting 38,000 years in the future takes too much from the game I feel, sorta like armies with a real world theme (e.g. IG armies using kits of US army tanks for Leman Russ and Chimera's) take the player out of the setting and take away from the imagery.

If you look in the IG codex, the only sample regiment with warrior weapons that is given, the Kanak Skull Takers, they are "fierce barbarian tribes" that are "like many regiments of the imperial guard..." If that doesn't spell out that warrior weapons are intended to help a person field Feral worlders I don't know what does. Oh wait how about the the entry for warrior weapons itself... first line... "the unit is recruited from primitive worlds"... that's going to Feral or Feudal worlds.

With COD its a trade off in several ways. As it is now taking it means you have fewer doctrine points to spend on other things. It also presents a trade off because in the turn before you're assaulted you have to move you're guys from being scattered in skirmish lines into formation or move them into assault in formation, doing so will prevent you from firing heavy weapons or firing all heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons. Either are significant, but if you brace for the assault you open yourself up to bombardment from templates.

The above is also a reason it has no point cost. The other reason it has no point costs for the +1I and +1LD is because they are conditional on them remaining in this vulnerable formation. If a player by shooting or assaulting the unit breaks up the formation by lets say splitting the formation into halves they lose the benefits of the bonuses. That's the big reason they can't be treated as being the same as a normal stat upgrade.

Options should never be intentionally over-costed. If a unit takes an option or by its nature is an upgrade of another unit and the benefits and downsides of it cancel out it shouldn't cost anything. If the benefits and downsides cancel out than the points the player pays are paying for just the downside. An example of this was 3rd ed. Possessed Chaos Marines, ignoring poor models as a factor, few people took them because the benefits of the different mutations canceled out the randomness but they having to pay double cost on the marine for he benefit and the downside didn't add up. Another example 3rd ed. Hellhound, all glancing hits were penetrating, but you were still paying for a chimera that effectively had 1 point less armor all the way around. Warrior weapons is also an example, you trade off being able to shoot further out for better close combat attacks; this is a negative even without the point cost, you're pay 2pts a model to sacrifice one ore two strength 3 shots before the unit gets into assault, for a single extra str3 attack in the assault. That is at best dead even trade off, at worse you're losing out on a few shots, but to pay for the downside is just stupid.

The correct implementation of an option similar to warrior weapons is with Witchhunters where stormtroopers can drop hellguns and take shotguns, direct trade off. There exists a fundamental shift in how the unit is used, an upside and a downside. No point cost.

Take the new marine codex for instance, Assault Marines only cost two points above standard marines, two points barely cover the jump packs, so they obviously aren't paying for the fact they have the marine equivalent of warrior weapons going for them. And don't get me started on the fact that by not taking those jump packs that only cost 2 points they get a free rhino or droppod... do the math at 5 models you pay just 10 points for a rhino or drop pod.

My point if their is a pure benefit with no downside you should pay for it, but if their is a built in downside any pay in should be minimal. Whether it should be in or not is a different issue than what it costs. IG already have so much going against us do we really need more against us?

Because there is a trade off in using COD even if IG had it not everyone would use it. It would just be a tactical option.

And to the idea that bayonet charges don't work or have no function in he modern age look up an incident by the Scotish Highlanders in Iraq, 2004 in which 2 squads with fixed bayonets charged and killed 30 Iraqis militia.

I do agree though that Vox casters make the most sense as a built in cost of unit adjusting equipment.

aka_mythos wrote:

And to the idea that bayonet charges don't work or have no function in he modern age look up an incident by the Scotish Highlanders in Iraq, 2004 in which 2 squads with fixed bayonets charged and killed 30 Iraqis militia.

I see this example used a lot for things (and the Scots were certainly badass for pulling it off), however you have to take into account all the variables involved and how *exceptional* and *rare* this is in modern warfare. It was two squads of well equipped disciplined troops with at least some hand to hand combat training against an opponent that had a lot of potential shooting power, but very little discipline and no hand to hand combat training, all in a very close quarters environment, there is no charging across fields of fire with fixed bayonets, the bayonet charge was only initiated at the point of entry, and they certainly didn't didn't march up to the house in a block or line formation with the intention of charging in with bayonets leveled far before they reached the enemy.

That doesn't diminish the fact that almost every major western military still train its soldiers in the use of the bayonet and that its still perceived by those militaries as a viable tactic against less disciplined units. Few consider it in the field because when engaging in modern warfare its all ranged combat... but in a universe of giant hulking green monsters, blue bugs, and space elves who want to get up and personal and fung shua your internal organs, it isn't all ranged combat. In a universe where larger tougher enemies are charging wildly across a field to rip you many new colorful orifices that some degree of close combat training would be granted that would prepare them tactically beyond just knowing how to stab, that they can function as a squad even in close combat. When all the other armies in the 40k universe get to defy reality and make every battle about close combat why are guard left as so defenseless. In a universe with such an emphasis on close combat despite the contrary nature of it to modern warfare is it really so hard to believe a group of soldiers would cluster together to get whatever smallest benefit they can against things that would scare a modern soldier shi+less?

And once again COD doesn't require you to march in formation, just that when you're engaged you're packed up.

aka_mythos wrote:+You can't cost in the payload. +GW in general uses the basic pt. convention for transport capacity that a transport pays 1pt for each model it can transport rounding to the 5's or 10's of pts.

That was how 3E costed, but it isn't appropriate for 5E, and it isn't appropriate for Marines. Being able to transport 10 Marines might be worth 10 points. And being able to transport 5 Terminators might be worth an additional 5 or 10 pts. But being able to transport 10 Guardsmen is NOT worth 10 pts. It's only worth 5 pts.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Chimera vs Razorback:
+ Front & Side to AV12 (medium) = +10 pts
- dual BS3 vs twin BS4 = -5 pts
- dual guns vs twin guns = -5 to 10 pts
- all guns are HB-class, no option for Assault Cannon / Lascannon / Multi-Melta = even to -5 pts
- Transports 60 to 100 pts of Guardsman vs 80 to 125 pts of Marines = even to -5 pts

Thats very wrong.
+Pt pricing convention for tanks is 10pts per side per pt of armor above 10. for AV12/12 you're 10 pts short.
+Your taking off points twice for what is effectively the same thing. Two heavy bolter vs. twin heavy bolter; BS3 vs BS4.... a twin linked heavy bolter on a Razorback ends up only being worth 15pts and your method of point costing deducts 15pts for that difference. Two heavy bolters even at BS3 are worth more than ZERO.
+The lack of higher class weapon options are not direct cost on the vehicle, the cost of having those weapons are built into the upgrade to get them and not into the basic vehicle.

First and foremoest, it appears that you are basing your points on the 3E VDR. That is a *huge* mistake.

The only vehicles for which the 3E VDR may be consiered "accurate" are FW Imperial Armour, and that is because those vehicles were calculated using the 3E VDR. However, compared to even the old points cost of 3E Codex vehicles, VDR was grossly overpriced by 20% or more. This is why, in general, none of the FW Russ variant tanks are even close to being competitive with the standard Russ or Demolisher.

With the price revisions in 4E and now especially 5E in C: SM, VDR points costs may be off by a factor of 2 or more...

For example, a VDR (WD251 & WD 256) Rhino costs:
+45 pts for AV11 (+5) / AV11 (+15 +15) / AV10 (+10)
+10 pts for Closed Top
+10 pts for "normal" movement
+10 pts for Transport 10
+5 pts for BS4 Storm Bolter
+ 1 pts for Searchlight
+ 3 pts for Smoke Launchers
+ 10 (?) pts for Repair
= 94 (?) pts total for Rhino.

But a 5E Rhino costs only 35 pts in C: SM. Even if you devalue Repair down to 1 pt, the 3E VDR values give costs at least twice what they cost in 5E, and in this particular example, the VDR Rhino is well over twice the points of what the Codex charges.

If you convert that VDR Rhino to a basic twin-HB Razorback, the costs change like this:
-10 remove Repair
-4 reduce to Transport 6
-5 remove Storm Bolter
+20 Heavy Bolter
+10 twin-linked
= +11 pts adjustment
= 105 pts for Razorback.

But a 5E Razorback costs only 40 pts, or less than 40% of what VDR predicts. That is so far off, it isn't even funny.

So I have to say that your costing method of using the 3E VDR just doesn't work for 5E. If you look at the cost, the entire 5E vehicle costs less than the VDR armor by itself.

Anyhow, getting at your comments:
- Even by 3E VDR, WD256 prices AV11 sides at 15 vs 20 for AV12, so the net cost increase of AV11 to AV12 front & sides is +5 pts + 2x +5 pts = +15 pts.
- twin BS4 HB is clearly better than 2 BS3 HBs - as a move-and-fire weapon, it hits twice as often (5 pts for accuracy), *and* isn't penalized in a move-and-fire situation (5 pts for utlity). That isn't double counting, as accuracy and utility are two different things entirely.
- in 5E, costs aren't broken out the same way, which is why Tactical Flamers and MLs are "free", because many costs are embedded into basic vehicle.
- being only able to transport Guardmen just isn't as valuable as being able to transport Marines

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The significant change is going from AV10 sides to AV11+ sides, as you become Bolter-proof when moving, and the Razorback already has that included in its cost. Going from AV11 to AV12 means you ignore Tau basic guns, along with Heavy Bolters - not a big deal, as these aren't purposed as anti-tank weapons. Going from dual BS3 to twin BS4 is a huge disadvantage in 5th Edition, as these aren't Defensive weapons that get free shots on the move in an Objectives-based environment. Also, the value of Transport has come down significantly for Troops transports - GW is encouraging Transport sales to support mobility warfare.

So relative to a Razorback, a Chimera should NOT cost more, and can be easily argued to cost LESS.

I think before upgrades they should cost the same and that a chimera should be AV12/11

A chimera is not intended to be a medium tank, ignoring those heavier hitting weapons by giving it AV12 on sided would make it a medium battle tank. A predator doesn't even have AV12 side armor.
Yes point values have come down significantly, 15pts fewer for a rhino, 30pts for a razorback. But to cost down a Chimera by more than 55pts while giving it the stats of a battle tank are ridiculous.

And I disagree. A Chimera needs AV12 sides because the guys inside are only T3 Sv5+. If they were Marines, they could get away with AV11.

A Chimera *is* a Medium Tank. That's why it's AV12 vs AV14. But it isn't a battle tank, because it doesn't carry Ordnance like a Russ or Demolisher. And whether a Pred has AV11 or 12 sides doesn't matter when looking at a Chimera, because that Pred has AV13 up front. A Predator is a Tank Hunter more than a MBT. It fires from a prepared position, rather than moving forward and engaging the enemy.

Again, I'm not arguing for a Battlecannon on the Chimera - it still has the crappy HB-class guns. It just has a lot of armor to protect the Guardsmen being transported. So it is a medium tank, but it's not a battle tank - it's a battle transport.

And the cost adjustment shouldn't be factored at the +/- relative to older points, because that Chimera has always been far more grossly overpriced than the Rhino. In 4th Edition, that Chimera was easily 20+ pts overcosted. Now, it's even more overcost. That is why the cost needs to be taken against similar vehicles, like the Rhino or Razorback. And by and large, a Chimera is like a Razorback that trades firepower for transport.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm going to ignore these, because you got the Razorback baseline comparison wrong, so secondary comparisions would necessarily be flawed.

Please inform me how?

See above and original post. I think my post was abundantly clear. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, let's compare the AV12/10/10 Chimera to a 35-pt Rhino:
- Amphibious vs Repair = even (or -5 pts)
- AV12/10 vs AV11/11 = -10 pts (or more)
+ 2nd HB = +5 pts
- Transport 12 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines = -5 pts
Amphibious almost never comes up as anything of importance, so should be ignored, whereas Repair is actually useful. AV10 sides mean the armor is clearly worse than a Rhino. The twin Bolter trades against the first Heavy Bolter. So you need to add 5 pts for the 2nd Heavy Bolter. But transport 10 Guardsmen vs 10 Marines means the Rhino wins on better payload. So points-wise, you have a Rhino with much worse armor, worse transport utility, but 5 pts for a better gun? Right.
An AV12/10/10 Chimera is worth 25 to 30 pts, definitely not more than 35 pts.

+Amphibious vs repair, Disembarking pts vs 6 defensive lasguns are even
+If AV12/12 is equal to 13/11, why isn't a 12/10 equivalent to 11/11... guess what they are slap those 10pts back on.
+2 Heavy bolters should be 5pts each not total. (BS4 Twin Heavy Bolter is 15pts, divide by two we have 7.5pts for a BS3 Twin Heavy bolter, single heavy bolter comes in at 5.)
+Whose being transport shouldn't come into play, because you can not account for every possibility with the single point cost of a vehicle.

- In practice, Amphibious and Lasguns are worse than Repair and extra access points, even though Lasguns are Defensive, by virtue of being only S3... But for the sake of argument, I'll continue to hold them as even.
- AV12/10 is NOT equivalent to AV11/11. I went over that in my original post. AV10 sides on a vehicle that moves means that you are really talking about what is effectively AV10/10 due to the extreme vulnerability of having large, thin sides in 5E. AV10 sides are *much* worse than AV11 sides because of the broad prevalence of S4 weapons which can still glance. This is at least a 10 pt adjustment.
- OK, fine: 2 HB at 5 pts each = 10 pts, vs 5 pts for Storm Bolter = 5 pts net, as I calculated originally.
- and you are completely wrong here. It matters *immensely* what you can Transport. If you have a RT-era Rhino, you can carry 5 Terminators or a Dreadnought. But as of 3E, that isn't an option. Being able to transport simply isn't as valuable as being able to transport Marines. And I don't need to be able to account for every possiblity, because the army list does that for me. The Guard list doesn't have Marines or Terminators. In theory, the best cargo would be Ogryns. Except Ogryns suck, too. So there simply isn't anything awesome you can put in a Chimera that makes it's Transport capability worth as much as a Razorback's or Rhino's Transport capability.

aka_mythos wrote:I see the biggest cost differences between us come from your way of costing the insubstantial attributes of other vehicles relative to the chimera. Things like whats being transported and what weapon upgrade options it has, are all things that are costed else where other than the basic cost of a vehicle. Yes there is a tactical value to those attributes but to assign all the negative point costs to vehicles that lack some options is absurd because its building a point cost on things thar aren't there. They're delusional negative costs.

Those negative costs are functional costs, and they are real. But what you're missing is the fact that I generally don't assign much actual cost impact to them in the comparision.

The only final comment I'll make is that you're out of your mind if you think a AV12/11 Chimera is worth 65 pts under 5E rules. It's a non-Scoring vehicle transporting crap infantry that needs to be taken en masse to make up for the poor holding ability of Guardsmen. And worse, it competes with 3 different types of 35-40 pt transports (Rhino, Razor, Pod) that carry far tougher models (SM) that are no less efficient in Objectives Missions due to Combat Squads.

Under such conditions, a Chimera needs to be AV12/12 and cost no more than 40 pts to still be competitive.

aka_mythos wrote:That doesn't diminish the fact that almost every major western military still train its soldiers in the use of the bayonet and that its still perceived by those militaries as a viable tactic against less disciplined units.

Really? I would have thought most militaries would have been smart enough to move on to shovels like Spetnaz along with Trench Clubs like WW1 Trench Raiders. After all, those are the weapons which actually worked when modern militaries moved to actual close combat... :S

I'm not trying to nail down a true point cost in my analysis, I was making comparisons to the most similar vehicles to produce a range of costs based on relatively similar units.

Previously I said an AV12/12 is worth between 60 and 65pts in 5E, not an AV12/11 which I said would cost in approximately 10 points less. Like I said it the comparison is to create a range of costs based on relative properties, so an exact number isn't important just an approximation that remains consistent throughout. A predator with just an autocannon, BS4 is 65pts. So even a BS3 vehicle with comparable armor the benefit of two heavy bolters and troop transport capacity would cost in closer to the predator than the 25 point split difference you're insisting on. All arguments on comparisons to rhinos and razorbacks aside comparing your proposal for a chimera to a predator creates a unit that is only a marginal step below a predator but only 2/3rds the cost. I would love to be able to field that many predator equivalent tanks but I'd feel like dirt because it's a bit broken. On a fluff level I find it hard to believe that IG officers would consider guardsmen as being worth a level of protection superior to what marines have.

I think its a bit of circular logic for you to qualify a chimera as a medium tank because you have given it AV12 on the side. As an AV10 its obviously not a medium tank. Should it be a medium tank, maybe, but you can't really redefine the quantitative value of the chimera to match a criteria of a definition just to justify the original change in the values. It would be like me making the statement redefining that "a formula one race cars only need to go over 100mph"... "my car goes over 100mph"... "thus my car can be a formula one race car." Just because you redefined a chimera does not mean a chimera is necessarily a medium tank. Historically tanks assigned to direct squad support have been light tanks, where heavier tanks were assigned to large support roles. The panzer was a medium tank do you really believe something akin to that would be assigned to many squads. I'm all for making the Chimera more worthwhile, but I'm not out for a steal.

With all the disadvantages of a Razorback and the advantages of your AV12/12 chimera, their is no way they can be equal. I mean if we're going to take into consideration abstract negative costs, what about the fact that a 6 man marine squad can't take any special or heavy weapons that's got to be worth a couple negative points.

What a vehicle can transport is only significant when it is a unique quality of the vehicle that defines its identity, i.e. landraiders and terminators. By your system marine rhino is 35pts, sisters of battle rhino 30pts? The vehicles are identical in every way except what they transport. Or how about a landraider and a Grey Knight landraider, grey knight terminators are that much more powerful than standard terminators, should their landraider be 270pts instead?

Point values of units are assigned in the context of their individual abilities and while that may relate to the army on the whole in a given way that skews comparison with armies it is never purposefully so drastic for two so similar things.

I still say 45-50pts for AV12/11 two heavy bolters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:That doesn't diminish the fact that almost every major western military still train its soldiers in the use of the bayonet and that its still perceived by those militaries as a viable tactic against less disciplined units.

Really? I would have thought most militaries would have been smart enough to move on to shovels like Spetnaz along with Trench Clubs like WW1 Trench Raiders. After all, those are the weapons which actually worked when modern militaries moved to actual close combat... :S

Vaktathi was referring to the rarity of close combat in modern warfare. Rarity of opportunity does not diminish the viability of a tactic that is specific in its application. The fact that it has been used even in a limited capacity is proof of that. The insistence of the training of these sort of combat skills in the modern age shows a perceptions of its tried and true nature. Perception though is not enough. The point of it is that an organized disciplined force working in concert together in close combat perform better than less disciplined troops, that is as much a fact in close combat as it is in ranged combat. Trench fighting was far from organized and most often the discipline and training for that sort of fight was poor. Single handed close combat weapons like a trench club only outshine the bayonet in the trenches where its impossible to be organized in such a way as to exploit the bayonet's advantages.

Your comment proves your unwillingness to seriously consider this aspect of the discussion because you ignored the two main components of my response by making a puerile response.
1) That effectiveness in close combat its as much about the discipline and organization as it is the weapon
2) In a universe that is closer to fantasy than reality, where close combat is 100 times more common than a modern battlefield, basic infantry would receive training to optimize the advantage of number and organization over a less disciplined unit.

Well, I'mn going to throw in a few cents.

COD : Keep it free. I don't even use this doctrine, I see people who do, I've taken my Guard against people who do, and I'll say this, it only helps if you are intending on being assaulted, otherwise, you are jsut in trouble from template weapons, heck, even when being assaulted COD is a big risk. Watch someone using COD being assaulted and have their enemy open up on them with a flamer from the flank. It makes very short work of the unit. Fluff-wise, I do think it makes sense. If your opponent is not armed with mass fire weapons (or is not using weapons with any legitimate firepower) but are adept hand-to-hand fighters, like say the orks, then bunching up and getting ready to fight makes sense. A bare human like a guardsmen can not be a skirmisher against an ork, it just won't work. You need to overpower your opponent with either more advanced weapons or numbers. Since the Lasgun has little effect even on an ork, you don't got more advanced weapons.

The Chimera : I don't know anyone who plays guard who hasn't said that the Chimera transport was overpriced since the last two codexes came out. For a mechanized styel army it seems to do fine, but for anyone else who wants to just tack on a Chimera (as is the case with most players) the Chimera just isn't worth buying. Yes, more dakka from the bolters, increased likelyhood of pumping out 6 HB rounds a turn (similiar chances of pumping out 0 though), better FRONT armor than the Rhino, but lets face it, front armor, even when well positioned, doesn't always get used, and if you're using an anti-tank weapon (especially with setup rules as they are now) you will try to position your unit so it can nab that side armor of 10, in which case the Rhino is superior. And yes, payload DOES matter to points cost. I wouldn't be afraid of a Rhino full of equal points guard as I would be a Rhino full of equal points SM. Mobility multiplies, plain and simple.

I only see payload as a factor in the point cost when the unit that can be transported is relatively unique, like a Terminators in Land Raiders. Its an abstract variable that can not be consistent with the unit being carried. There is no mathematical evidence to show that payload is a factor of any vehicles cost beyond that of the Land Raider.

I believe the armor on the side of Chimeras should be higher than it is; just not better than the standard marine tanks.

aka_mythos wrote:There is no mathematical evidence to show that payload is a factor of any vehicles cost beyond that of the Land Raider.

There isn't any mathematical evidence, because GW doesn't use math to calculate vehicle points costs.

At least, if they do, it sure isn't based on the 3E VDR.

What points cost should equate to is some form of "dollars", as in: "the Imperium makes so many Lasguns and Flak sets, that they're effectively free compared to the cost of getting a trooper there in the first place."

or: "Chimeras are so common throughout the Imperium comapared to Rhinos and Razorbacks, that they cannot possibly cost more".


But as that isn't the case, we cost by functional utility. And that functional utility means that being able to carry Space Marines is more valuable than being able to carry Guardsmen. And being able to carry Terminators or Dreadnoughts is more valuable yet again.

Despite the notional transport space being the "same", clearly it isn't. Carrying 10 8-foot-tall superhumans clad in tank armor requires more space and sturdier flooring than what might be required to carry a dozen normal humans wearing more moderate armor. Reinforcing the flooring even further to support guys in battleship armor has even more cost. And then you bump cost again to make room for a walking tank.

aka_mythos wrote:I believe the armor on the side of Chimeras should be higher than it is; just not better than the standard marine tanks.

And I believe that the Chimera should be AV12/12, like a 4E Hellhound. Functionally, it needs to be heavier than on a Rhino or Razorback because Guardsmen aren't as survivable as Marines. So they need their heavy armor on the Tank, since they can't wear it themselves.

Does anyone have any clue what he's talking about? Does he???

Is he arguing against AV11 sides on Chimeras? Or for Marines?

I can never tell...

BYE