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.

It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.

The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.

I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.

 aka_mythos wrote:
It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.

The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.

I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.

But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)

 vostroyan second born wrote:
But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)

Sounds like you're not forging that narrative correctly.

No seriously, I'm not (completely) trying to be snarky about this. We make fun of 'forging a narrative', but it's the way they do this.

Are 260 Lasgun shots actually useful? Not really. But does it forge a narrative? In the minds of those writing these rules, it does, therefore it gets written.

They just don't think like us.

 vostroyan second born wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
It's partially a problem with how so much of everything has been cost down. As a majority of things have become cheaper you end up with fractional cost differences that add up to greater and greater discrepancies.

The % cost of special and heavy weapons relative to base model cost is made all the worse when your base model costs are higher than they should be. So you have these stacking of excessive costs that then show up in any army many more times because high model count armies have that many more units. If a marine book has something miss cost it might only show up once or twice in a given army but in IG that miss cost will show up 8 or 9 times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The problem being, the IG cannot achieve sufficient numerical superiority because the models and upgrades are about 30% too expensive. And synergy fails when all of the individual pieces are weak.

I agree cost is an issue but if these bonus rules outside the unit entry are allowed to go far enough it can make up for cost disparagy. Formations make synergy more tangible that's why in that sort of scheme it's important.

But there is no synergy in the current cadian formations. Its just more oft the same with some useless special rules. Who needs 260 lasgun shots at a single target. (Just example emperors shield company)

Have you read the wording?

You can issue to "any number of units" in the Emperor's Shield Infantry Company. You have 15 Infantry Squads all told, at minimum. So if you wanted to, you could do FRSRF on a number of Infantry Squads and then have the Platoon Commanders in each Platoon issue "Fire and Advance"(Fire as though you were stationary, despite moving) to those squads which have Heavy Weapons and didn't already fire.

It is kind of like the "Coordinated Attack" that we just saw the Tau get, where you can choose how many units/when to issue the order to fire at a target.
RAW? You can issue the Order to as many units as you would like in the Company. so you can issue FRSRF twice in a turn, bringing 5-7 Infantry Squads in for one big ol' mass of shooting against two targets.

You can then use the Platoon Commander's Order for any remaining units(HWTs, etc) and get to do "Fire and Advance" as well without it costing the Platoon Commander his actual Order.

It might SEEM unwieldy at first glance, but the more I've been looking/thinking about it...the more amusing this can be.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Have you read the wording?

Yes i know the wording and i have to damit that it was not the best example.

But i still think that the cadian formations could/should have been better. If you look at the detachement you have to take >1000pt guardsman without anything or about 700-800pt tanks as core units. This is ridiculous.

Cheapest way to field the Infantry is 1005 points, no upgrades at all. Tanks were 200 points cheaper for basic LRBTs.

Sad Panda wrote:

Chikout wrote:

I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.

Dwarves might be earlier than that.

The hint with the Saga of was too subtle?

It was. Space Wolves-related?

Warhams-77 wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:

Chikout wrote:

I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.

Dwarves might be earlier than that.

The hint with the Saga of was too subtle?

It was. Space Wolves-related?

DWARFS BECOME SPACE WOLVES!

Space Dwarfs on the rocks?!

Warhams-77 wrote:
Space Dwarfs on the rocks?!

Squat Codex confirmed?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:
Space Dwarfs on the rocks?!

Squat Codex confirmed?

Quick somebody go to BoLS and post it! GW is bringing Squats back!

What a lovely year, what a lovely year, Squats and Brood Brothers

M.

 vostroyan second born wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Have you read the wording?

Yes i know the wording and i have to damit that it was not the best example.

But i still think that the cadian formations could/should have been better. If you look at the detachement you have to take >1000pt guardsman without anything or about 700-800pt tanks as core units. This is ridiculous.

There is no reason you have to take these formations; so we're no worse off then before we got them. While it doesn't seem like the easiest army to use... it strikes me as very appropriate for true Cadian armies and it strikes me as GW taking the fluffy company composition charts and translating them into formation. I think these play to the type of battle doctrine Cadians have been shown to use.

Unlike the formations of other armies these aren't auto-take. Unless someone just happens to play this sort of army I don't see other people building to it. Tank armies are the ones that come out on top; even if they're a bit overpriced this helps.

Warhams-77 wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:

Chikout wrote:

I heard slayer. So Dwarves in February then? I am grateful to Sad panda for debunking the nonsense, I just wish we could hear more about what IS coming. I am also sad that Tzeentch never seems to be coming.

Dwarves might be earlier than that.

The hint with the Saga of was too subtle?

It was. Space Wolves-related?

I guess I'd be stupid to hope that Chaos might get thrown a bone?

At this rate, they may as well just squat Chaos Marines and be done with it...

I searched, but didn't see anyone had posted about AM cards coming out tomorrow:

 Stormonu wrote:
I searched, but didn't see anyone had posted about AM cards coming out tomorrow:

I look forward to not buying them.

 aka_mythos wrote:

There is no reason you have to take these formations; so we're no worse off then before we got them. While it doesn't seem like the easiest army to use... it strikes me as very appropriate for true Cadian armies and it strikes me as GW taking the fluffy company composition charts and translating them into formation. I think these play to the type of battle doctrine Cadians have been shown to use.

The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.

The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.

The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.

The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.

I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.

CragHack wrote:

The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.

The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.

I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.

Where do you guys get your Cadian info from? Cadia is about disciplined las-gun shooters, entrenched in WW:I- esque trenches, supported by heavy artillery and loads of LRBT companies.

Warhams-77 wrote:

It was. Space Wolves-related?

Yes.

Tyranids in January is nonsense. Fyreslayers.
Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves.

Not counting possible 1-week things (think Seraphon), only multi-week releases.

Sad Panda wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:

It was. Space Wolves-related?

Yes.

Tyranids in January is nonsense. Fyreslayers.
Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves.

Not counting possible 1-week things (think Seraphon), only multi-week releases.

All I needed to hear. Thanks for the info SP!

 vostroyan second born wrote:


The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.

The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.

Wouldn't Vallahans use more in the way of conscripts though?

You look at the fluff pages that shows the composition of a SM company and following SM formations you get an army that looks like that when you take Demi-companies. You look at the fluff pages that present a chart with the composition of a Cadian company and it always shows these large platoons akin to these formations. The only reason a company of Cadians would ever be composed of as few infantry models as people play is if they'd been whittled down over the course of a campaign or were a group assigned to some special mission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CragHack wrote:

The emperor's shield formation is not the cadian way. in this form with min requirement oft 175 guardsmen it fits a lot better to valhalla.

The web bundle with pcs, 20 guardsman, two hwt and sentinels suits cadia much better.

I disagree. Catachans make more use of HWTs and sentinels than tanks. Cadians, imo, should be about BIG GUNS. Ground-to-orbit nukes, massed artillery and demolisher pie plates.

I think the difference between Cadian and Catachan would largely be the loss of the secondary formation that allows tanks in a troop like role, with instead some sort of formation making use of veterans and sentinels sorta leading the way for a greater number of smaller platoons.

 Zewrath wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:

It was. Space Wolves-related?

Yes.

Tyranids in January is nonsense. Fyreslayers.
Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves.

Not counting possible 1-week things (think Seraphon), only multi-week releases.

All I needed to hear. Thanks for the info SP!

Oh well, I did jokingly predict that SW's would get their 7.5 update before anything Chaos got looked at... And Guard are essentially getting an on-the-fly 7.5 update, even if it's a huge f-you in the way the rules themselves are being released.

So that only leaves BA's, Orks, Dark Eldar, Vanilla Marines, Necrons, Tau, Eldar and Tyranids left to go before Chaos gets anything!

Are talking for 40k spacewolves or forgeworld releases??? Plz be true

Sad Panda wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:

It was. Space Wolves-related?

Yes.

Tyranids in January is nonsense. Fyreslayers.
Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves.

Not counting possible 1-week things (think Seraphon), only multi-week releases.

Awesome! Thanks for the update, Sad Panda.

Sad Panda wrote:

Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves..

Space wolves in February is nonsense. K'vor from ATT already said FSE would be in feb.

 aracersss wrote:

Sad Panda wrote:

Imp. Guard in February is nonsense. Space Wolves..

Space wolves in February is nonsense. K'vor from ATT already said FSE would be in feb.

K'Vor - Total rumors: (1 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)


Sad Panda - Total rumors: (34 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

I know who I believe.

Where do you guys get your Cadian info from? Cadia is about disciplined las-gun shooters, entrenched in WW:I- esque trenches, supported by heavy artillery and loads of LRBT companies.

That's what I mostly said: Pie plates (Demolishers, but could be other Russ tanks) and artillery.
And ground to orbit nukes, because why not? Especially when living so close to Eye of Terror. Also, if I remember correctly, one of Eisenhorns books had the scene were cadians trained their guns as soon as Gregor started landing

It's not impossible there will be a FSE book, which may or may not be reprinting the rules from Mont'ka.

I wouldn't expect many miniatures with it. Probably just be the book, or a single clam-pack at most. There will be several 1-week things 2016.

We dont need any more of the tau cr@p. I hope your sources regarding spacewolf releases in february are true sad panda thnx for info

 pretre wrote:


K'Vor - Total rumors: (1 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)


Sad Panda - Total rumors: (34 TRUE) / (0 FALSE) / (0 PARTIALLY TRUE/VAGUE)

I know who I believe.

the former had more than that I believe