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.

In one of the first codexes, I forget which, Imperial Guard did have a preliminary bombardment where basilisk shells would land on the opposing army before the game began.

Please note that Rough Riders, Scions, Sentinels (even armoured sentinels), Infantry Guardsmen and any power weapon upgrade are never worth their points.

I can get 3 Armoured Lascannon Sentinels for 150 points. Space Marines get 1 twin linked lascannon and 2 lascannons at BS4 (with 3 less hull points and +1 armour) for 140 points. I feel as if sentinels should be a little cheaper.. I'm sure there's many more examples that can be made, for all of the different kinds of units.

3 Armoured Lascannon Sentinels have the advantage of being able to be in 3 different places...

Only if they're taking three up separate FoC slots.

I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Lance, haywire, and strD all ignore the points spent by things like the leman Russ on high armor value.

Dark Lances make up for that by being excessively overpriced and, well, crap.

Dark and bright lances should cost the same amount of points. They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12. The close range engagement area forced by the maelstrom missions doesn't allow for the long range penetration of armor to be a factor in games after turn 2-3.

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Dark and bright lances cost the same amount of points. They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12. The close range engagement area forced by the maelstrom missions doesn't allow for the long range penetration of armor to be a factor in games after turn 2-3.

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

Honestly, even against AV 13 dark lances aren't great. Strength 8 still needs a 4 to cause any damage, then you need to hit....you really need 7-8 lances to cause 3HP against av 12+. It's too expensive. That's likely to be more than half of the darklances in the entire army, and they aren't on safe platforms.
It's not like eldar tend to use bright lances. Firedragons having 6 melta guns with AP 0 and possibly BS 5 destroy tanks. Especially since their delivery system allows them to hit rear or side armor with a high degree of safety.
Marines drop in and unload MG/PGs into rear armor. for <200 points, they can get 6 PG shots into rear armor, which is often a 10, sometimes an 11 (so 3+/4+ to wound, same as the lances for a fraction of the cost).
How many Dark Lances can DE take for 200 points? And on a platform that is sure to deliver?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Dark and bright lances should cost the same amount of points.

Yes, but the difference is Eldar don't rely on theirs. They have D-weapons and AP0 Meltas.

There's a damn good reason you don't see bright lances in Eldar lists - they're bloody awful weapons.

- Against AV10, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV11, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV12, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -1S and -12" range.
- Against AV13, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with -12" range.
- Against AV14, A Dark Lance is a Lascannon with +1S and -12" range.

So, they are inferior to lascannons against any AV except 14. And Lascannons aren't good anti-vehicle weapons these days.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They only seem crappy because the meta heavily favors medium tanks where they rarely have an av above 11-12.

Even against Heavy tanks though, they're still not good weapons.

Also, bear in mind that most armies have stuff like meltas. So, when they get close to a tank they're rewarded with a much better chance to pen and explode it.

When Dark Eldar get close they're rewarded with... more dark lances.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

It is frustrating that the dark lance should only be 5 points more than the dissies. For some reason they seem to think that the reason people always upgraded them was that the bright lance was too cheap, not that the disintegrators were too expensive.

What's frustrating is that they increased the cost of dark lances, instead of lowering the cost of dissies. And then they proceeded to remove the rule that let the Ravager move 12" and fire all its weapons at full BS. It wasn't overpowered in 5th, and now it's just a joke.

I don't rely on D weapons or meltas in my eldar lists. Also, my meta has a decent chance of seeing fortifications so the av14+ around here is a SERIOUS consideration on the table. The 50% chance of hullpoint removal is not bad, especially when now the ap2 weapons can actually explode vehicles in one shot. When you see the numbers of "7-8" lances to drop three hullpoints, with a penetrating hit you have a 1/6 chance to eliminate the tank they are firing at entirely, 1/3 to remove its mobility for the rest of the game (immobilized or dead) 50% chance to neuter the vehicles damage potential (weapon destroyed, immobilized, or exploded) and every other shot that pens will cause dramatic loss of firepower and/or limited movement.

People act as though causing penetrating hits are useless (and yes, against superheavies it can be) a single penetrating hit will DRAMATICALLY affect the rest of the game. Considering the very worst a bright or dark lance has is a 1/3 chance to pen there is no reason to think they are useless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

IG don't need a buff.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

which ones are weaker then the IG ones, out of the ones marines use. IG has nothing like the drop pod and both razorbacks and rhinos are better then chimeras, because they are either much cheaper or free.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

What is with SM whiners these days? They seem to think that they should be the best and that no one should be able to get close.
Our codex is NOT fine. It is so weak that even when playing against less able opponents I struggle to win. It is a static hunk of crap in an age where games are decided by fast moving agile units. It is full of over priced junk units which have been needing a buff for several editions now - hell, only two IG units are worth their points cost and only another three are actually worth taking.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

IG don't need a buff.

Yes we really do.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
Add inn off-bord artilley with infantry spotters as a new model, and we're in business.

OK, just what sort of off-board artillery are we talking about?

1 "FREE" S9 AP2 Apocalypse (cloverleaf) Barrage for every non-Wyvern unit you buy?

What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

What is with SM whiners these days? They seem to think that they should be the best and that no one should be able to get close.
Our codex is NOT fine. It is so weak that even when playing against less able opponents I struggle to win. It is a static hunk of crap in an age where games are decided by fast moving agile units. It is full of over priced junk units which have been needing a buff for several editions now - hell, only two IG units are worth their points cost and only another three are actually worth taking.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

IG don't need a buff.

Yes we really do.

Don't bother replying to him, he just copy-pasted his (now locked) spam thread in proposed rules about how the Guard need to be toned down from being "OP". He supposedly plays guard, which is apparently where he gets his credibility for his claims. Even though a blind man can tell you guard are in a rough spot right now though.

Jancoran will disagree with you.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

This is not only an appeal to authority, this is someone who lacks credibility.
Look at his tournament list. It's an eldar net list, not his ig blob.

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then don't post.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

*points everywhere*

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ cover save.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
What is it with IG whiners recently? Your codex is fine. Stop trying to make it op.

Using this puppet, show us where the IG codex touched you.

*points everywhere*

Do any of you lot even read your own codex?

Several times over, then I pinched myself and took several large mugs of coffee, then I re-read it. Sadly I was awake and the book was not just a bad dream.

Yes, I've read my codex a lot the past few years. We can tell you that the vast majority of what you're saying is outright wrong. But then again you won't listen anyway.

Typically-Wardian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ save.

A 2+ save?!?! Well, with camo gear and good cover I can occasionally get a 3+...
Im not rolling poorly, I am rolling average/above average. SM vehicles are just, point for point, straight up better.

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

When was the last time either you or Jancoran played competitively? My meta's pretty chill, but the IG still get thrashed, even after players swap codicies.

Does it matter?
Sm don't take tanks anyway outside of transports.
Gravs and bikers are way more common, drop pod squads trivially remove any tank outside of ones that can jink.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'd like to see rules that promote vehicle squadrons in the same way that SM tanks got rules for being full sized squadrons.

hat's because SM vehicles are weak compared to IG ones. They have lower armour, less firepower, and can't fire on the move.

SM tanks have one point less frontal armour. and two less side armour. They also cost less than half what a Leman Russ costs and bring a hell of a lot more firepower to the table.

No, they don't. A Predator with three Lascannons is about the same price as a Russ tank with much greater armour, greater firepower, and can fire on the move. How exactly are the guard not better?

Strange then, is it not, that said triple Las predator will often remove the stock LRBT (the both cost roughly the same) and a lot more stuff than the LRBT could anyway, all on its own.

That would be strange. Except it doesn't.

That would be extremely strange then because I can personally assure you that it does.

Poor you, rolling poorly. SM vehicles are just straight up worse. The IG even have a unit that can help Russes get a 2+ save.

A 2+ save?!?! Well, with camo gear and good cover I can occasionally get a 3+...
Im not rolling poorly, I am rolling average/above average. SM vehicles are just, point for point, straight up better.

Bullgryns, camo gear and an ADL. Do it right, and you can easily have 3 or 4 unkillable russes. Throw in prescience and you are far more accurate than most others.

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Jancoran will disagree with you.

When was the last time either you or Jancoran played competitively? My meta's pretty chill, but the IG still get thrashed, even after players swap codicies.

 reds8n wrote:
If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then don't post.

Quoting a mod is not an acceptable substitute for an argument.

 Selym wrote:
Quoting a mod is not an acceptable substitute for an argument.

Not to mention its the very same mod that locked his troll-thread directly related to this topic, so its not like he's on his side anyways.