Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/23 01:41:33
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols
|
Because to me, having to take multiple squads as a single Troop Choice is actually more of a burden than a bonus. A bare bones Infantry Platoon without any upgrades costs more than a Veteran Squad in a Chimera, even though they aren't as maneuverable or as survivable. And because of the size of the unit and the cost of our transports, it's not easy to make that platoon maneuverable. We don't have a transport big enough to fit all the models into at once that isn't an expensive Super Heavy Vehicle, and even our so called cheap transport the Taurox would bring the price of the platoon close to 300pts. Way more than a full sized Tactical Squad in a Rhino, even though the Marines are better in every way. They need to be brought into line with each other.
So, to fix this, and bring a platoon into line with Vet squads, what about lowering the price of Infantry and Platoon Command Squads to 20pts each, Heavy Weapon squads to 15pts each, and Conscript Squads to 40pts each (and 2pts for each extra conscript) and dropping the price of a Taurox down to 35pts.
Now, a basic 'assault' platoon consisting of a Command Squad and two Infantry Squads costs as much a Veteran Squad. And if each unit was given their own Taurox transport, they come in at 165pts before further upgrades. Buy them some grenade launchers, flamers and vox casters, and they'll cost around 200pts. A defensive platoon consisting of a Command Squad, two Infantry Squads, three Heavy Weapon Squads and a Conscript Squad of 30 men will also cost 165pts before upgrades. Give the Command and Infantry squads autocannons, vox casters and grenade launchers, and the Heavy Weapon Squads lascannons, they'll cost 405pts.
More importantly, the Emperor's Shield Formations actually become usable in games outside of Apocalypse. A bare bones Shield Platoon (PCS, 5 Infantry Squads and a Scout Sentinel) comes in at a reasonable 155pts. Give them 8 grenade launchers, 5 autocannons and 3 vox casters and it's only 260pts, when before they would cost 420pts! Meanwhile, the Sheild Company, assuming that it's made up of three of these platoons and the CCS has some upgrades, comes in at 940pts. That squeezes into a 1500pt list nicely, when before a Shield Company was a 1500pt list.
These price far better reflects their capabilities, especially since Tauroxes are so easily busted open, and IG infantry (especially Heavy Weapon Squads) outside of a Chimera die so easily.
Thoughts?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/23 23:37:25
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Future War Cultist wrote:Because to me, having to take multiple squads as a single Troop Choice is actually more of a burden than a bonus. A bare bones Infantry Platoon without any upgrades costs more than a Veteran Squad in a Chimera, even though they aren't as maneuverable or as survivable.
A bare bones infantry platoon has 25 guardsmen (or equivalent) in it. That's 5 ppm except for the platoon commander, who is 10. The additional 5 points gets you orders, an additional BS and WS and an additional LD.
That basically seems fair.
And because of the size of the unit and the cost of our transports, it's not easy to make that platoon maneuverable.
Each individual squad can take a chimera or taurox, no? I fail to see the problem.
We don't have a transport big enough to fit all the models into at once that isn't an expensive Super Heavy Vehicle, and even our so called cheap transport the Taurox would bring the price of the platoon close to 300pt. Way more than a full sized Tactical Squad in a Rhino
It's just not comparable. 105 points gets 5 bolter marines and a rhino with a stormbolter.
You're getting 10 lasgun troops and a taurox with an autocannon for 100 points.
, even though the Marines are better in every way. They need to be brought into line with each other.
They're already in line.
You get 14 lasguns compared to my 5 boltguns.
what about lowering the price of Infantry and Platoon Command Squads to 20pts each
You want to pay 2 ppm for a guardsman?
No.
And a platoon command squad would then be 4 ppm.
Absolutely not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anything, you guys might be underpaying for veterans. +1 BS and the ability to take multiple special weapons per squad (something my marines can't do) shouldn't be a 1 point upgrade.
7 point veterans. That's my proposal.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/23 23:43:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 00:02:08
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:Each individual squad can take a chimera or taurox, no? I fail to see the problem.
The problem is that buying all those transports costs a lot of points and takes up a lot of space on the table.
You get 14 lasguns compared to my 5 boltguns.
5 boltguns fire at 12-24", producing 2.2 dead guardsmen (11 points).
14 lasguns fire at 12-24", producing 0.77 dead marines (10.88 points).
So, looks like a fair fight, except the tactical squad has a much smaller footprint and fits in a single transport. And it also has better leadership, better special rules, etc. You can't just neglect the immense value of force concentration and declare that the two are equal.
You want to pay 2 ppm for a guardsman?
No.
You want to make me pay 5 ppm for a guardsman?
No.
+1 BS and the ability to take multiple special weapons per squad (something my marines can't do) shouldn't be a 1 point upgrade.
So what if they can do something marines can't? This is a game with different armies that should each be able to do things that others can't. Unless you'd like me to add a tax to your army for getting the ability to break up squads into separate units, something my veterans can't do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the fact that veterans only pay +1 point for all those benefits and still aren't a great unit should be pretty clear proof that platoons are too expensive. If a platoon squad can get 2+ ppm worth of upgrades for 1 ppm and still be mid-tier at best then it must be overpriced at 5 ppm.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 00:42:54
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 01:02:04
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:The problem is that buying all those transports costs a lot of points and takes up a lot of space on the table.
For 100 points, you get 10 lasguns and a taurox with an autocannon. That's not "a lot of points." That's less points than 5 bolter marines and a rhino.
In a shooting contest between 5 bolter marines and a rhino and 10 lasgun guardsmen and a taurox with autocannon, who do you think is going to win?
I'll give you a hint. It's not the more expensive unit.
5 boltguns fire at 12-24", producing 2.2 dead guardsmen (11 points).
14 lasguns fire at 12-24", producing 0.77 dead marines (10.88 points).
Lol no.
You're not going to fire 14 lasguns. You're going to use FRSRF, which has better than a 1 in 2 chance of working. That averages to 1.5 times the number of lasgun shots you would normally fire.
So it's actually 21 lasguns vs. 5 boltguns (for the sake of fairness, I'll assume IF chapter tactics):
21 X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/3 (to wound) X 1/3 (bypass save) = 21/18 = 7/6 marines dead
5/1 X 5/6 (to hit) X 2/3 (to wound) X 2/3 (why would a guardsman not be in cover?) = 100/54 = 50/27 = less than 2 guardsmen dead. But let's assume 2.
But we can't stop there. Diminishing returns and all. Next round:
18 X 1/2 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 18/18 = 1 marine dead
4 X 5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 80/54 = 40/27 = less than 2 guardsmen dead. But let's assume 2.
Round 3!
15 X 1/2 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 15/18 = 5/6 almost 1 marine dead
3 X 5/6X 2/3 X 2/3 = 60/54 = slightly more than 1 guardsmen dead
Round 4!
13.5 X 1/2 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 13.5/18 marines dead
2 X 5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 40/54 guardsmen dead
Round 5:
12 X 1/2 = 1/3 X 1/3 = 12/18 = 4/6 = 2/3 marines dead
1 X 5/6 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 20/54 = 10/27 guardsmen dead
By the end of round five, the IG player should have roughly 7 guardsmen left (35 points of models), whereas my 70 points of IF or equivalent marines (who are fething bolter EXPERTS) will have been wiped.
Guardsmen don't need a price decrease.
So, looks like a fair fight, except the tactical squad has a much smaller footprint and fits in a single transport.
If we're taking the taurox into account, it's even LESS of a fair fight. Marines get slaughtered.
You want to make me pay 5 ppm for a guardsman?
Not only do I want you to pay 5 ppm for a guardsmen, but that's what the codex entry says.
So what if they can do something marines can't? This is a game with different armies that should each be able to do things that others can't. Unless you'd like me to add a tax to your army for getting the ability to break up squads into separate units, something my veterans can't do?
At 6 ppm, a veteran is exactly points equal to an ork boy. Do you think that's appropriate?
Also, the fact that veterans only pay +1 point for all those benefits and still aren't a great unit should be pretty clear proof that platoons are too expensive. If a platoon squad can get 2+ ppm worth of upgrades for 1 ppm and still be mid-tier at best then it must be overpriced at 5 ppm.
Your underlying assumption is that everyone should be top tier.
I simply disagree. Enough with buffs. Everything should be mid tier.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 01:14:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 01:17:02
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:In a shooting contest between 5 bolter marines and a rhino and 10 lasgun guardsmen and a taurox with autocannon, who do you think is going to win?
I'll give you a hint. It's not the more expensive unit.
I'll give you a hint: it's probably the marines. AV 10 on the side is really bad, as even bolters can damage it. The Rhino, on the other hand, can only be damaged by the single AC, hardly a reliable anti-tank weapon. Then, once the transports are both destroyed, the marines out-shoot the guardsmen. And god help the poor guardsmen if they lose their Taurox before the Rhino goes down, since the infantry inside can't even attempt to roll dice against a Rhino.
And it's also a bad example because it ignores all of the other units on the table. It doesn't really matter which unit wins a 1v1 shooting match, it matters which is better in its role in the context of an entire army. And the Taurox squad is pretty bad. AV 10 on the side makes advancing up the table to claim objectives or deliver a squad suicide, while 100 points is way too much to pay for a single TL AC if you just hide it in the back corner all game. Then, once the squad disembarks (whether voluntarily or because the transport is destroyed) you have a small squad of T3/no save models with weak guns, which will be removed from the table very quickly if it's anywhere near an objective.
The marines in the Rhino, on the other hand, probably got that Rhino for free (if you're taking lots of marines in transports then they certainly did), so you're over-stating their cost. And once the free Rhino is destroyed the squad inside has enough durability to survive stray shots in return, so it takes a meaningful commitment to get them off an objective.
You're going to use FRSRF, which has better than a 1 in 2 chance of working.
Which makes your comparison really dishonest, since you aren't considering the price of getting FRFSRF and the implied LD tax to make it work consistently. And that's in addition to the questionable honesty of assuming that the guardsmen get to shoot first, taking away 20% of the marines before they get to fire back.
(why would a guardsman not be in cover?)
Because you have to actually move up and get to an objective? Because your horde army has a huge footprint and can't always get cover?
Not only do I want you to pay 5 ppm for a guardsmen, but that's what the codex entry says. 
And, as you've pointed out, there is a moral obligation to allow house rules to fix bad balance. Therefore you are obligated to let me use my guardsmen at 2 ppm, and if you don't you're guilty of everything you accused the Tau and Eldar players of being.
At 6 ppm, a veteran is exactly points equal to an ork boy. Do you think that's appropriate?
Sure. If anything the veteran is a little too expensive. The ork gets T4/no save instead of T3/no save and much better melee ability in exchange for lower BS, but then gets a higher-strength weapon to make up for some of the BS loss. The veteran is a mediocre at best shooting unit, the ork is a decent melee unit.
Now, add transports and melta/plasma guns and the veteran looks a lot more impressive, but also doesn't costs 6 ppm anymore.
Your underlying assumption is that everyone should be top tier.
I simply disagree. Enough with buffs. Everything should be mid tier.
And now you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. If everything is equal then it doesn't matter if you call it "top tier" or "mid tier". Buffing everything to match the current top-tier units has the exact same balance effect as buffing/nerfing everything to match the current mid-tier units.
You're also ignoring the point I was making, that if a unit can get an overpowered upgrade and still be balanced then it was probably too expensive before the upgrade. Veteran squads are mid-tier units after getting a (by your argument) overpowered upgrade from platoon squads. If the +1 BS, special weapon slots, etc, are worth more than +1 ppm then this means that platoon squads must be worth less than 5 ppm. The actual relationship should be veterans at 6 ppm and platoon squads at 3-4 ppm, assuming that we grant your argument that +1 ppm is too little for the veteran upgrade.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 01:50:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 01:22:59
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Crushing Black Templar Crusader Pilot
|
Traditio wrote:Also, the fact that veterans only pay +1 point for all those benefits and still aren't a great unit should be pretty clear proof that platoons are too expensive. If a platoon squad can get 2+ ppm worth of upgrades for 1 ppm and still be mid-tier at best then it must be overpriced at 5 ppm.
Your underlying assumption is that everyone should be top tier.
I simply disagree. Enough with buffs. Everything should be mid tier.
Does it really matter which Tier they are? Everyone could be god tier or pleb tier and it wouldn't matter.
Also, your allergy to buffs is annoying. Your formula of Nerfing + No Buffs + An Over-Simplified Maths Approach doesn't work as well as you seem to think it does. Plus I happen to agree with the OP and Peregrine.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 01:44:12
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols
|
@ Traditio
To address your points:
1: I know what makes up a platoon. The problem is at the moment a bare bones platoon costs slightly less than a full sized tactical squad but performs less than half as good. Those 25 men firing at full range will only kill around 1.39 marines a turn, but the 10 marines will kill around 4.44 guardsmen a turn from the same range. Statistically the marines could survive 7-8 turns of shooting from the IG but the IG will be gone after 5 turns. And if the Marines launch an assault, things will be over even quicker. Yes there's terrain, other units etc to factor in, but at the moment we don't have good value for points. You get twice the fighting power for 5 extra points.
2: Of course the individual squads can each take transports. The problem with this though is the price and footprint starts to rise significantly. For 70pts the tactical marines can take a rhino and a drop pod for their two combat squads. Yes, one of them will have to be a separate FA choice but you'll still have two cheap transports. To get the same for the platoon you have to spend at a minimum 150pts. And thanks to the pod you'll have more maneuverability than us too.
3: Yes, we get a squad in a Taurox for 100pts. But we have to take two of them and a Command Squad to get a platoon. That's a total of 280pts.
4: Our 14 lasguns perform less effectively than your 5 boltguns, as Peregrine demonstrated.
5: Maybe 2pts a guardsman is too cheap, but I won't pay 5pts for them. 3-4pts though is acceptable.
6: Vets are absolutely fine as they are. A grenadier squad with 3 plasma guns can match the damage output of a full sized tactical squad. The point of this exercise is to make a platoon match the vet's competitiveness.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 04:53:26
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:I'll give you a hint: it's probably the marines. AV 10 on the side is really bad, as even bolters can damage it.
Why should we assume that they're taking the hit on the side?
If we deploy on opposite table edges, your autocannon glances my rhino on 4s at 48 inch range. My stormbolter, if it's even in range, isn't damaging front armor. Not to mention that the autocannon gets 2 shots.
The Rhino, on the other hand, can only be damaged by the single AC, hardly a reliable anti-tank weapon.
1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4
Every fourth autocannon shot from a taurox should remove a hull point from a rhino, assuming no cover. A taurox fires two shots per turn.
While that may not seem like excellent odds, I wish to point out that IG is fething loaded with anti-tank weapons. In addition to the 5 bajillion guardsmen with lasguns, the IG player probably will have 50 assorted tanks, artillery pieces, etc. [An exaggeration, but you get my point.]
Then, once the transports are both destroyed, the marines out-shoot the guardsmen. And god help the poor guardsmen if they lose their Taurox before the Rhino goes down, since the infantry inside can't even attempt to roll dice against a Rhino.
The taurox is more likely to take out the rhino than the other way around:
Rhino: 2/3 X 1/6 = 2/18 = 1/9 X 1/3 = 1/27
It takes 27 stormbolter shots, assuming no cover, to take out a taurox.
It takes 12 autocannon shots, assuming no cover, to take out a rhino.
I'd also like to point out that tauroxes already basically come with the rhino equivalent of dozer blades. Plus a fething autocannon. For 10 additional points over and beyond what a rhino and dozer blade costs.
And it's also a bad example because it ignores all of the other units on the table. It doesn't really matter which unit wins a 1v1 shooting match, it matters which is better in its role in the context of an entire army. And the Taurox squad is pretty bad. AV 10 on the side makes advancing up the table to claim objectives or deliver a squad suicide, while 100 points is way too much to pay for a single TL AC if you just hide it in the back corner all game. Then, once the squad disembarks (whether voluntarily or because the transport is destroyed) you have a small squad of T3/no save models with weak guns, which will be removed from the table very quickly if it's anywhere near an objective.
The marines in the Rhino, on the other hand, probably got that Rhino for free (if you're taking lots of marines in transports then they certainly did), so you're over-stating their cost. And once the free Rhino is destroyed the squad inside has enough durability to survive stray shots in return, so it takes a meaningful commitment to get them off an objective.
I was with you until the bolded. Have you played with space marines in the current meta? I don't mean white scars bikes, grav centurions, etc. I mean actual space marines cruising around in rhinos.
Which makes your comparison really dishonest, since you aren't considering the price of getting FRFSRF and the implied LD tax to make it work consistently.
My calculations were based on LD 7. Your chance of rolling a 7 or lower for the leadership test are slightly better than 50%. That's why I multiplied the number of shots each round by 1.5 rather than 2.
But we can add the tax if you want. The company commander is a 10 point model. The 80 point unit slaughters the 70 point unit with 45 points (or more) to spare.
And this doesn't even take into account cheap primaris psykers and their shenanigans.
And that's in addition to the questionable honesty of assuming that the guardsmen get to shoot first, taking away 20% of the marines before they get to fire back.
I made no such assumption. I assumed full strength on both sides for each round.
Because you have to actually move up and get to an objective?
lol no.
I haven't played many games against IG. However, the games that I have seen/played have involved one of two things:
1. Tanks
2. Blobs and artillery hanging out on one side of the table.
Blobguard, from my experience, are as mobile as Tau.
Because your horde army has a huge footprint and can't always get cover?
It's based on the closest model, no?
How mobile do you think my space marines are?
And, as you've pointed out, there is a moral obligation to allow house rules to fix bad balance. Therefore you are obligated to let me use my guardsmen at 2 ppm, and if you don't you're guilty of everything you accused the Tau and Eldar players of being.
I would happily agree to permit an IG player to play with 3 or 4 ppm imperial guardsmen...
...
...if I thought that was necessary to provide a relatively even match.
I have yet to win a game against imperial guard. Every game, I seem to be outgunned, horribly outnumbered or both.
Either its blobguard, and I practically get tabled because too many fething guns (plus ridiculous amounts of artillery which don't even require LOS).
Or its tank spam, most of my army is invalidated, and I still lose people left and right.
I have yet to play against IG and think "Gee, that was a fair, fun fight! That was so even!"
No. Every time I play against IG, I think: "Welp, that was a load of shenanigans and a complete waste of my time."
IG are right next to Tau when it comes to armies against which I don't really like playing.
Sure. If anything the veteran is a little too expensive. The ork gets T4/no save instead of T3/no save and much better melee ability in exchange for lower BS, but then gets a higher-strength weapon to make up for some of the BS loss. The veteran is a mediocre at best shooting unit, the ork is a decent melee unit.
My problem with this is as follows. You're not paying 60 points for a 10 man lasgun blob. What you're actually paying for is 90 points for accurate meltaguns with ablative wounds. Or 105 points for accurate plasma guns with ablative wounds . Or 75 points for flamers with ablative wounds. Or 66 points for accurate sniper rifles with ablative wounds.
You're also ignoring the point I was making, that if a unit can get an overpowered upgrade and still be balanced then it was probably too expensive before the upgrade. Veteran squads are mid-tier units after getting a (by your argument) overpowered upgrade from platoon squads. If the +1 BS, special weapon slots, etc, are worth more than +1 ppm then this means that platoon squads must be worth less than 5 ppm. The actual relationship should be veterans at 6 ppm and platoon squads at 3-4 ppm, assuming that we grant your argument that +1 ppm is too little for the veteran upgrade.
I will certainly grant this point. I am logically bound, if I assert that +1 BS is not worth 1 ppm, to assert that either:
1. Guardsmen are overcosted
or
2. Veterans are undercosted.
Simply for the sake of comparison:
An acolyte with boltgun in the Inquisition codex is 5 ppm.
Acolyte + boltgun = guardsmen + lasgun + orders?
I'm inclined to say yes.
8 point veterans. Je la demande!
|
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 05:10:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 05:17:24
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:Why should we assume that they're taking the hit on the side?
Because we actually know how to use real-game experience, not just (very simple) math approximations? In an actual game the poor side armor of the Chimera and Taurox is a huge liability. You will very often take side shots, and with only AV 10 you die very quickly. You pretty much have to consider IG transports one-use weapons because you can only count on getting one turn to move your troops into position before their transport is dead.
While that may not seem like excellent odds, I wish to point out that IG is fething loaded with anti-tank weapons. In addition to the 5 bajillion guardsmen with lasguns, the IG player probably will have 50 assorted tanks, artillery pieces, etc.
Oh, how convenient. Now that it favors your argument you're willing to consider the effect all those other units have. If this is a valid point then why were you so stubbornly opposed to considering it when people were mentioning Eldar combos that make wraithguard powerful in your "wraithguard aren't too powerful" thread?
It takes 27 stormbolter shots, assuming no cover, to take out a taurox.
It takes 12 autocannon shots, assuming no cover, to take out a rhino.
You're ignoring the passengers. The Rhino's passengers can add two more shots, doubling the Rhino's firepower at 12-24" and tripling it at 0-12". The Taurox, on the other hand, gets no benefit from its fire points because its passengers can not even attempt to roll dice against the Rhino.
Now, the Taurox does win the exchange, but by a small enough margin that it comes down to dice luck. And killing the Rhino is just the first step in the process, while getting a little luck and killing the Taurox while the Rhino is still alive is game over for the IG squad.
I was with you until the bolded. Have you played with space marines in the current meta? I don't mean white scars bikes, grav centurions, etc. I mean actual space marines cruising around in rhinos.
No, I haven't played C: SM, but my primary army is IG. 10-man squads of T3/no save models trying to claim objectives are wiped off the table effortlessly by even small amounts of fire (storm bolters on random drop pods that have nothing better to do, etc). That tactical squad isn't going to do any better against high-firepower units, but it isn't going to die because a couple of random storm bolters took a shot in its direction.
My calculations were based on LD 7. Your chance of rolling a 7 or lower for the leadership test are slightly better than 50%. That's why I multiplied the number of shots each round by 1.5 rather than 2.
But you didn't consider the COST of getting FRFSRF. The 14 guardsmen in your example can not give themselves FRFSRF. If you want to include FRFSRF then you have to add the cost of a command squad to issue it, which means you are no longer comparing equal-cost units.
The company commander is a 10 point unit.
...
Have you even read the IG codex? A naked CCS is 50 points. A naked PCS is 30 points.
Blobguard, from my experience, are as mobile as Tau.
And do you know why that is? Because moving up is suicide. IG blobs are only good for cowering in the back behind an ADL and hoping that nothing survives to get within range. C: SM troops actually have a hope of moving up to claim objectives without dying.
It's based on the closest model, no?
No, it's based on the actual model making the save. If the closest model is in cover then that model will get a cover save (assuming no special wound allocation applies), but once it dies the next model only gets a cover save if it is obscured. So what actually happens is that a horde unit ends up with only some of its models able to get cover, and for guardsmen that means getting no save at all. This is especially true if the other player has blast weapons and can force you to spread out your models.
My problem with this is as follows. You're not paying 60 points for a 10 man lasgun blob. What you're actually paying for is 90 points for accurate meltaguns with ablative wounds. Or 105 points for accurate plasma guns with ablative wounds . Or 75 points for flamers with ablative wounds. Or 66 points for accurate sniper rifles with ablative wounds.
Well yes, but then it's still dishonest to compare a 6 ppm veteran to 6 ppm orks. The melta squad is actually 9 ppm, not 6. Then increase its cost even more because buying a transport is mandatory.
Acolyte + boltgun = guardsmen + lasgun + orders?
I'm inclined to say yes.
You may be inclined to say yes, but you're wrong. Against MEQs at 0-12" the acolyte and guardsman can both kill the same average 0.1666 MEQs per turn, but the acolyte doesn't depend on getting FRFSRF to do it. If FRFSRF fails (or isn't available for one of the many reasons that a squad can be unable to receive orders) then the acolyte does significantly more damage. And of course against GEQs the guardsman kills 0.5 even with FRFSRF, while the acolyte kills 0.666.
So, since you've very clearly stated that you consider the bolter acolyte and guardsman to be equivalent units you are obligated to concede defeat on this point now that I've demonstrated that the acolyte is better. The guardsman must be lowered at least to 4 ppm to be fair.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 05:30:57
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:You're ignoring the passengers. The Rhino's passengers can add two more shots, doubling the Rhino's firepower at 12-24" and tripling it at 0-12". The Taurox, on the other hand, gets no benefit from its fire points because its passengers can not even attempt to roll dice against the Rhino.
You're ignoring range. That's a "48" on the autocannon statline.
...
Have you even read the IG codex? A naked CCS is 50 points. A naked PCS is 30 points.
I meant platoon commander. Mea culpa.
And do you know why that is? Because moving up is suicide. IG blobs are only good for cowering in the back behind an ADL and hoping that nothing survives to get within range. C:SM troops actually have a hope of moving up to claim objectives without dying.
This only supports my initial claim that the guardsmen are likely to have cover. In fact, if anything particularly nasty gets fired their way, they get to GTG, take their 4+ cover saves, and then get right back up and keep shooting on a 2d6 roll of 7 or less.
Well yes, but then it's still dishonest to compare a 6 ppm veteran to 6 ppm orks. The melta squad is actually 9 ppm, not 6. Then increase its cost even more because buying a transport is mandatory.
It's 140 points for 9 boys and a nob in 'eavy armor, with the nob bearing a power klaw and boss pole.
It's 110 points for 10 vets and a taurox. Spend the rest of the 30 points however you want.
Which squad are you putting your money on?
You may be inclined to say yes, but you're wrong. Against MEQs at 0-12" the acolyte and guardsman can both kill the same average 0.1666 MEQs per turn, but the acolyte doesn't depend on getting FRFSRF to do it. If FRFSRF fails (or isn't available for one of the many reasons that a squad can be unable to receive orders) then the acolyte does significantly more damage. And of course against GEQs the guardsman kills 0.5 even with FRFSRF, while the acolyte kills 0.666.
Acolyte vs marines:
1/2 X 1/2 X 1/3 = 1/12
Guardsman vs. marine:
1/2 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/18
Adjusting for FRFSRF 1/18 X 3/2 = 3/36 = 1/12
It's actually identical vs. MEQs.
Against guardsman:
Acolyte vs. guard in cover:
1/2 X 2/3 X 2/3 = 4/18 = 2/9
Guard vs. guard in cover:
1/2 X 1/2 X 2/3 = 2/12 = 1/6
Adjusting for FRFSRF:
1/6 X 3/2 = 3/12 = 1/4
The guardsman actually is superior to the acolyte vs. guard equivalents.
The guardsman is probably much better if you take into account primaris psyker shenanigans.
|
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 05:49:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 05:51:04
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:You're ignoring range. That's a "48" on the autocannon statline.
Yes, and then you have to consider LOS-blocking terrain, how far away the units are initially deployed, what each unit is trying to accomplish, etc. Real games don't happen on an empty table where both sides just line up and exchange fire until someone dies.
This only supports my initial claim that the guardsmen are likely to have cover. In fact, if anything particularly nasty gets fired their way, they get to GTG, take their 4+ cover saves, and then get right back up and keep shooting on a 2d6 roll of 7 or less.
No, it doesn't reinforce it at all, because an IG blob cowering in the back behind an ADL will often find itself out of range and unable to do anything. If you aren't willing to move up then the tactical squad camps on an objective 25" away and collects VP.
Which squad are you putting your money on?
I don't know. What do I need a unit to accomplish? In a 1v1 fight the vets probably win because they can just stay out of range of the melee-only enemy (though it will take quite a while with only a single TL AC for offense). But on, say, a mid-table objective both players need to capture I'm betting on the boyz.
It's actually identical vs. MEQs.
Yes, that's what I just said in the paragraph you quoted. The guardsman gets exactly the same average vs. MEQs if you get FRFSRF, significantly less if FRFSRF fails or is unavailable.
And of course now we're back to your dishonest approach of giving the guardsman FRFSRF without paying for it. If you're adding FRFSRF then the guardsman is no longer a 5-point model, so you're paying more than an acolyte for equal or worse firepower.
The guardsman is probably much better if you take into account primaris psyker shenanigans.
According to your own well-established rules this is not a valid method of comparison. Unless you'd like to concede defeat and go back and edit your posts about how we can't consider DE webway portal shenanigans when evaluating wraithguard?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 05:57:24
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:No, it doesn't reinforce it at all, because an IG blob cowering in the back behind an ADL will often find itself out of range and unable to do anything. If you aren't willing to move up then the tactical squad camps on an objective 25" away and collects VP.
They don't need to. You have 50 (an exaggeration, of course, but not by much) tanks, artillery pieces, etc. that ignore LOS.
Yes, that's what I just said in the paragraph you quoted. The guardsman gets exactly the same average vs. MEQs if you get FRFSRF, significantly less if FRFSRF fails or is unavailable.
1. I realized that you said that afterwards. See the edited version of my posting.
2. I'm assuming that the unit in question has access to FRFSRF every other turn (which is actually less than what is statistically likely on average). That's why I'm multiplying it by 3/2 as opposed to 2/1.
And of course now we're back to your dishonest approach of giving the guardsman FRFSRF without paying for it. If you're adding FRFSRF then the guardsman is no longer a 5-point model, so you're paying more than an acolyte for equal or worse firepower.
You're paying 5 extra points for the 25 man blob. The platoon commander is a 10 point model. It's a marginal point increase, and vs. guardsmen (as I noted in the edited version of my previous post), if we count FRFSRF, the damage output of the guardsman is actually much higher than the acolyte (almost double, in fact).
According to your own well-established rules this is not a valid method of comparison. Unless you'd like to concede defeat and go back and edit your posts about how we can't consider DE webway portal shenanigans when evaluating wraithguard?
Noted.
I only wish to point out that I'm not making it a central point of my argument. It's more of an afterthought anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, for anyone who thinks that IG is underpowered, I wish to recall how, at the very least, I've experienced games against them to go:
IG goes turn one:
20 (exaggerated, but not by much) barrage large blasts. Say goodbye to a third of your army.
Me:
Welp, good game. I concede.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 06:05:41
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 06:06:31
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:2. I'm assuming that the unit in question has access to FRFSRF every other turn (which is actually less than what is statistically likely on average). That's why I'm multiplying it by 3/2 as opposed to 2/1.
Yes, but you still aren't accounting for the COST of getting FRFSRF. A 5 ppm guardsman does NOT have FRFSRF. You only get FRFSRF if you pay for it, at which point the cost per model is more than 5 points.
And you're also forgetting that FRFSRF is +1 shot, not double firepower. At 12-24" it's double firepower, but if you want to kill anything quickly with a platoon squad you're trying to get within 0-12" for the extra shot. And then FRFSRF is only a 50% increase in firepower, when it works at all.
You're paying 5 extra points for the 25 man blob. The platoon commander is a 10 point model.
You can't just consider the price of the commander compared to a normal guardsman because you can't buy a single commander. You can only buy a complete PCS/ CCS, which may or may not be in the right position to give the order if you aren't buying them at a 1:1 ratio with your "normal" squads. Nor can you consider the value of the basic infantry models on a PCS/ CCS, because you're very often camping them out of LOS because a 5-man squad of GEQs dies very quickly if anything can see it.
And then of course there's the question of whether the PCS is available at all. For example, a 4x flamer PCS is a very efficient unit to stick in the back of a Vendetta and this is arguably better than anything you might get out of FRFSRF. So the fact that you have to take a PCS to unlock the other infantry squads does not guarantee that you'll be issuing FRFSRF to them every turn. They will very often have to get by on their natural firepower while the PCS is dead or elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote:Furthermore, for anyone who thinks that IG is underpowered, I wish to recall how, at the very least, I've experienced games against them to go:
IG goes turn one:
20 (exaggerated, but not by much) barrage large blasts. Say goodbye to a third of your army.
Me:
Welp, good game. I concede.
Try not bringing nothing but footslogging tactical marines deployed in perfect template formation? IG aren't a strong army just because you refuse to make any changes to bring your own army to even mid-tier status.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 06:09:39
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 06:14:16
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:Yes, but you still aren't accounting for the COST of getting FRFSRF. A 5 ppm guardsman does NOT have FRFSRF. You only get FRFSRF if you pay for it, at which point the cost per model is more than 5 points.
It's a marginal increase. It's 5/25 (or 1/5) ppm.
A cost of that kind is not even worth considering.
And you're also forgetting that FRFSRF is +1 shot, not double firepower.
I'm fully aware of this. I'm assuming a range of greater than 12 inches.
You can't just consider the price of the commander compared to a normal guardsman because you can't buy a single commander.
The commander comes with 4 guardsmen with lasguns who also can benefit from FRFSRF. I fail to see the problem.
You can only buy a complete PCS/CCS, which may or may not be in the right position to give the order if you aren't buying them at a 1:1 ratio with your "normal" squads. Nor can you consider the value of the basic infantry models on a PCS/CCS, because you're very often camping them out of LOS because a 5-point squad of GEQs dies very quickly if anything can see it.
And then of course there's the question of whether the PCS is available at all. For example, a 4x flamer PCS is a very efficient unit to stick in the back of a Vendetta and this is arguably better than anything you might get out of FRFSRF. So the fact that you have to take a PCS to unlock the other infantry squads does not guarantee that you'll be issuing FRFSRF to them every turn. They will very often have to get by on their natural firepower while the PCS is dead or elsewhere.
Why on earth would you do that? The PCS is a force multiplier. Making it run around and actually do things on its own would be about as silly as making a primaris psyker run around and do things on its own.
Try not bringing nothing but footslogging tactical marines deployed in perfect template formation? IG aren't a strong army just because you refuse to make any changes to bring your own army to even mid-tier status.
Which is, of course, nothing other than L2P and "git gud."
Whatever.
Let this point alone be noted:
Call me a noob if you want.
Call me a scrub if you want.
Call my list terrible.
Say that I'm simply bad at the game.
The point remains, at the very least, that against ME, I am under no obligation to permit an IG player to run guardsmen at 4 ppm.
At 5 ppm, I already fething lose. By a large margin.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 06:15:18
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 06:37:45
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:It's a marginal increase. It's 5/25 (or 1/5) ppm.
A cost of that kind is not even worth considering.
No, it's much more than that because, as I said already, you can't upgrade any random model to give orders. You have to buy an entire PCS/ CCS, which will very often be camping out of LOS giving orders and unable to use its own weapons. So you're paying 30 points to give FRFSRF to a 50 point squad.
I'm fully aware of this. I'm assuming a range of greater than 12 inches.
An assumption which conveniently over-values FRFSRF and favors your argument that guardsmen are fine.
The commander comes with 4 guardsmen with lasguns who also can benefit from FRFSRF. I fail to see the problem.
If you're giving FRFSRF to the PCS then you aren't giving it to one of the other squads in the platoon, where it would be much more effective. And, as I said, most of the time the PCS/ CCS is hiding out of LOS and almost certainly out of lasgun range. You always deploy the orders squads behind everything else to keep them alive as long as possible, moving them up to use their own weapon is suicide.
(Now, PCS/ CCS are also often used as cheap special weapon carriers since you can take four per squad, but those squads aren't expected to issue FRFSRF.)
Why on earth would you do that? The PCS is a force multiplier.
The PCS is also 50 points for 4x flamers, and a 5-model squad that can fit in the back of a Vendetta for claiming objectives. You willingly give up its role as a force multiplier because it's an incredibly efficient unit in a different (and also valuable) role.
Which is, of course, nothing other than L2P and "git gud."
If you want to express it in less-polite terms, yes, that's exactly it. You stubbornly refuse to make any changes to improve your army, so beating you with IG is not exactly an impressive feat. When you look at competitive tournaments where IG can't earn easy wins against weak players/armies things do not look good for them.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 06:57:07
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:If you want to express it in less-polite terms, yes, that's exactly it. You stubbornly refuse to make any changes to improve your army, so beating you with IG is not exactly an impressive feat. When you look at competitive tournaments where IG can't earn easy wins against weak players/armies things do not look good for them.
And this just reinforces what I've been saying.
Enough with buffs.
The higher tier needs nerfs. Slight nerfs to veterans (to 8 ppm). Heavy handed nerfs to Eldar, Tau, etc.
Beat barrage into the dust with the nerf bat.
Make tactical marines actually playable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/24 06:58:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 07:06:43
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Alternatively, buff the weaker things to match the current top tier.
Slight nerfs to veterans (to 8 ppm).
Lol no. Veterans are mid-tier at best and do not need a 20 point per squad nerf.
Beat barrage into the dust with the nerf bat.
Lol no. Barrage weapons are weak enough as it is, if you're getting tabled by them the problem is on your end.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 07:08:50
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote:
Alternatively, buff the weaker things to match the current top tier.
Absolutely not.
The game is supposed to last 5 turns or more. I should have a reasonable expectation that, regardless of what I bring (within relative reason), I won't get tabled by turn 3.
The game needs to dial back a notch or ten, not dial up.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 07:13:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 07:10:17
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Liche Priest Hierophant
|
ITT: Guard are actually a high-tier army that needs to be nerfed into the ground. The fact that you can even list Guard up their with the high-tier armies (like yours, if you wouldn't spam Tactical Squads w/ 0 good weapons, or take options that allow you to cover a majority of foes like MCs and vehicles) boggles my mind. Like, what? Also you want to nerf barrage weapons more? Ok then. Also, nerfing everything to CSM level is a terrible idea. Then every army is stuck with abysmal internal balance and poorly matched to their theme. You need to buff the lower tier and nerf the upper tier to a middle ground (that currently doesn't really exists in 40k because the power gap is so vast) if anything.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/24 07:12:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 07:13:26
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:Absolutely not.
The game is supposed to last 5 turns or more. I should have a reasonable expectation that, regardless of what I bring (within relative reason), I won't get tabled by turn 5.
The game needs to dial back a notch or ten, not dial up.
Buffing defense is one way of buffing units to match the top tier.
And we've already established that you're not operating within reason, since you have a long list of units you refuse to use and openly accuse people who buy knights of being horrible TFGs. No game can or should be designed to cope with people who bring bad lists, if you're going to keep bringing your 3rd edition tactical spam list then you should not expect to win much in 7th edition.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 08:19:06
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Has anyone considered the fact that the basic human force in 40k should be the yard stick all other armies are measured against , to get a better level of balance across all factions?
Because using 7 foot tall super humans with the best equipment in the human arsenal as the yard stick has skewed the balance horrendously.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 08:24:11
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Lanrak wrote:Has anyone considered the fact that the basic human force in 40k should be the yard stick all other armies are measured against , to get a better level of balance across all factions?
Because using 7 foot tall super humans with the best equipment in the human arsenal as the yard stick has skewed the balance horrendously.
I completely agree with this.
This is why AP 2 and AP 3 weapons should be extremely uncommon, for starters.
Except, of course, in space marine armies. Because they're 7 foot tall super humans with the best equipment in the human arsenal.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 08:30:13
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Traditio wrote:I completely agree with this.
This is why AP 2 and AP 3 weapons should be extremely uncommon, for starters.
Except, of course, in space marine armies. Because they're 7 foot tall super humans with the best equipment in the human arsenal.
I'm sure it's entirely a coincidence that you place space marines...
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 08:33:26
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
''Best'' equipement.
Considering the amount of Marines we hear I'd rather take a hotshot and pretend my enemy doesn't have armor on.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/24 08:33:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 20:03:08
Subject: Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
While I agree that the infantry platoons are under powered, I don't think that lowering their cost even further does them any favours, as it just makes your existing infantry models even less valuable, even if it's a more appropriate cost. I'd prefer to see some kind of bonus to their effectiveness, such as changes to orders to maybe give some more defensive orders, such as the ability to fall back against enemy charges, or go to ground with a further +1 bonus as a counter to most cover being reduced to 5+.
I dunno, definitely needs a new, properly balanced codex to really fix it, preferably by someone that can remember that Imperial Guard infantry is supposed to actually be useful now and then, and not just dying easily to make marines look good.
A points reduction might be reasonable as a stop-gap, but I don't think it would really encourage anyone to take any more units than they have to, it'll just make it cheaper to take the bare minimum.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 22:28:13
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols
|
Yes that is true, but a points reduction will be a step in the right direction. Bringing back doctrines like the old days is another idea, but that's for another thread.
Another idea I had was to give infantry (and vet and scion) squads the option to take a medi pack. It's because I think that medics should be more prevalent in 40k, and from a gaming perspective having Feel No Pain is always useful. Now we could actually get a save some of the time if you're prepared to pay for it.
Assuming that the command and infantry squads are 20pts each and tauroxes are 35, we could have an infantry squad with a vox caster, medi pack, plasma gun and a Taurox for 90pts. Double that, and add in a command squad with similar gear and we could have a mobile, fighting platoon for 270pts. I'd take that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/24 22:36:40
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Future War Cultist wrote:Yes that is true, but a points reduction will be a step in the right direction. Bringing back doctrines like the old days is another idea, but that's for another thread.
Another idea I had was to give infantry (and vet and scion) squads the option to take a medi pack. It's because I think that medics should be more prevalent in 40k, and from a gaming perspective having Feel No Pain is always useful. Now we could actually get a save some of the time if you're prepared to pay for it.
Assuming that the command and infantry squads are 20pts each and tauroxes are 35, we could have an infantry squad with a vox caster, medi pack, plasma gun and a Taurox for 90pts. Double that, and add in a command squad with similar gear and we could have a mobile, fighting platoon for 270pts. I'd take that.
I have a better idea. Why not just give all platoon and company commanders (and equivalents) the following rule:
"This model may issue an order to all infantry (including its own unit) within 12 inches of this model. Multiple orders may not be issued to the same unit on the same turn. Each unit must take a separate leadership test to determine whether or not the issue of the order is successful for that unit."
The commander models each increase in cost by 5 ppm.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/24 22:40:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/04/25 23:57:01
Subject: Re:Price Drop For Infantry Platoons And Tauroxes
|
 |
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols
|
Two other ideas:
First, let Platoon Commanders issue Bring It Down, Fire On My Target and Get Back Into The Fight. They can still only issue one order a turn, so Company Commanders still have it better. In the past I've found myself using my Company Commanders as the main order issuers, and any Platoon Commanders are just left issuing a token order. Usually to their own unit. Now, they'll be far more useful.
Now if you fork out the points for a Scion Command Squad with special weapons, they'll really be worth it.
Second idea, let Infantry Squads merge together during the game. Combined Squads are usually decent but are terribly slow since they can't fit into transports. So how about this:
If a unit containing at least one model with the Combined Squad special rule ends its Movement Phase within 2" of a model from another unit containing a model with the Combined Squad special rule, they may attempt to combine into a single unit. To successfully combine together, the player must take a Leadership test using the highest leadership value from among the two units attempting to combine. The player must declare which units are attempting to combine together before taking the test. If the test is successful, the two units now count as a single unit for the rest of the game. If both units contain a model with a vox caster, they may reroll the dice for this Leadership test. Units that combine in this way that are fleeing or have gone to ground automatically rally.
So now, you can take lots of infantry squads in transports, deploy them, and then merge the squads into larger units capable of fighting.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/26 00:04:04
|
|
 |
 |
|
|