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.

Well, as long as Combat Squads are still a thing, I should be fine. My Crimson Fists Sternguard always Combat Squad in 7th. I tended to use small squads everywhere else. My Blood Angels Tactical Squads are probably going to Combat Squad now, but that isn't always necessary. I think my Death Company will be split into two units now, but that isn't a guarantee depending on their rules.

I really hope there is a way to encourage larger units, such as bonuses to Leadership when squad sizes are maxed out.

Time will tell.

Well, umm...
RIP horde armies. That is all I can really say.
(and to those saying "oh just get X morale boosting model", remember AoS shooting mechanics and just how easy it is to shred a character trying to stay close enough to buff his allied unit. Unless of course he belongs to one of the elite factions)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.
.

You edited this post half a dozen times and still got the numbers wrong. If Marines are Ld 7, Guard are likely to be 6, whereas Sisters will likely be 7 or 6+faith rules. Let's say 7 for simplicity. We assume no bonuses to Ld except the number boost like in AoS.

In your example, the Guard get saves against thouse wounds, so take only 8 casualties. Ld6+1 for having more than 10 left means 1+D6 casualties to battleshock, for a max of 15 men lost (75%) or best case 10 lost (50%).

The Ld7 sisters taking 4 casualties suffer D6-2 battleshock casualties, so max 8 (80%) or best case just the original 4 (40%).

It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

HandofMars wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
At first i was dreading this change. But, now, I like it.

It's not 2D6 morale test, it's only 1D6.

Meaning realistically you won't be losing a lot of normal models to this. It would mainly be things that have very low leadership, and even then, you're losing an expected 3.5 assuming MASS casualties.

Sisters [10, 2 flamers, 130 points], fire on 20 Guardsmen [20, 2 plasma, 130 points]

7 hits average from the flamers with the new rules, 11 hits average from the bolters. 12 wounds total, average. Guardsmen are leadership 7, they test 12+D6 vs 7 and lose an additional 8.5 models. There are now no guardsmen left.

20 guardsmen shooting at the Sisters gives us: 34 lasguns and 4 plasma shots, giving 17 lasgun hits and 2 plasma hits, giving 8.5 lasgun wounds and 1.6 plasma wounds, giving a total of 4 casualties. The Sisters test battleshock at 4+D6 vs 8 and lose an additional 0-2 models.
.

You edited this post half a dozen times and still got the numbers wrong. If Marines are Ld 7, Guard are likely to be 6, whereas Sisters will likely be 7 or 6+faith rules. Let's say 7 for simplicity. We assume no bonuses to Ld except the number boost like in AoS.

In your example, the Guard get saves against thouse wounds, so take only 8 casualties. Ld6+1 for having more than 10 left means 1+D6 casualties to battleshock, for a max of 15 men lost (75%) or best case 10 lost (50%).

The Ld7 sisters taking 4 casualties suffer D6-2 battleshock casualties, so max 8 (80%) or best case just the original 4 (40%).

It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

Did leadership go down? I'm looking at 8 for Sisters and 7 for Guardsmen.

I didn't notice that bolters and flamers don't penetrate armour anymore. I wonder what lasguns do now; grant armour?

The point is, for both the Sisters and the Guardsmen, the small units survive better than the big one. A bunch of small units take almost no battleshock casualties, whereas a big unit takes a ton. The downside to MSU currently is there's less bubble wrap for special weapons and that it's easier to prompt leadership. But 8e morale is going to remove this drawback.

Also where'd the +1 for 10 come from?

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Did leadership go down?

According to the sneak peaks for 8th edition, tactical marines have LD 7 (making it so that they can endure 1 casualty per turn without losing any models in the battle shock phase).

Expect 7 for sisters and 6 for guardsmen.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Did leadership go down? I'm looking at 8 for Sisters and 7 for Guardsmen.

Yes, it looks like Lds are going down a notch.

I didn't notice that bolters and flamers don't penetrate armour anymore. I wonder what lasguns do now; grant armour?

Same AP as Bolters. Because reasons.

Also where'd the +1 for 10 come from?

It's an Aos thing, apparently, that people are expecting to carry across to 40K.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
/quote]
There's always been a tactical advantage to having small units

That's true, however buff and synergy favor 1 big unit too, it is really depend on certain "bespoke" rule we don't know yet.

I would have rather seen them scrap Morale all together myself :( It has always been fiddly and kinda meh in 40k.

Hopefully they can resist the And they shall be stupid rule, and keep it simple.

I'll work it out at leadership 6 and 7, with Guardsmen getting their 5+ [still not considering First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire! or Light of the Emperor]
Guardsmen in one 40-man squad [40, 4 plasma, 260 points] fired upon by four 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
28 average flamer hits and 16 bolter hits, 29.3 wounds, 20 casualties, test battleshock at 20+D6-6=17.5 additional losses, total 37.5 casualties. 93.75%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], one-to-one.
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 7.3 wounds, 4.8 casualties, test battleshock at 5+D6-6=2.5 additional losses per squad, total of 29.2 casualties. 73%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], two-to-one.
14 average flamer hits and 8 bolter hits, 15 wounds, 10 casualties per squad, nobody left to test battleshock, total of 20 casualties. 50%
Sisters in one 20-girl squad [20, 2 flamers, 250 points] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
4 plasma hits and 34 lasgun hits, 3.33 plasma wounds and 17 lasgun wounds, 8.5 casualties, test battleshock at 8.5+D6-7=5 additional losses, total 13.5 casualties. 67.5%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], one to one:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 4.25 lasgun wounds, 2 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 8 casualties, 40%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], two to one:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 8.5 lasgun wounds, 4 casualties, test battleshock at 4+D6-7=.5 additional loss for two squads, total 9 casualties, 45%

The effect is particularly pronounced with the Sisters, by splitting up they reduce their number of losses by 40%. In addition, note the effect that splitting up had when fired upon two-to-one, resulting in squad annihilation and actually capping the damage it's possible to take.

MSU is almost always better than one big unit. If the enemy splits up onto four small squads and I have one big one, then I can wipe out one a turn with dramatic overkill, but at most one a turn, whereas four small squads can combine to wipe out one big unit or split their fire to engage up to four small units. The 40-man guard unit is bought and upgraded as four 10-man squads then combined, but the improved special weapons density from MSU is also noticeable with the Sisters, improving their potential damage too. Splitting up grants a total of 6 additional upgraded guns. In addition, small shooting units can be more easily destroyed by the enemy's charge and/or shooting, therefore allowing undamaged units to shoot the enemy during your turn.

Formerly, these advantages would have been offset by the fact that the special weapons lose out on bubble wrap, a big unit can more efficiently use Orders and Psychic Powers, and that a big unit was harder to dislodge through morale. But battleshock makes them more vulnerable to morale, not less.

Big units aren't going to be dead. Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock, and order and buff efficiency is incredibly important, but it's an observation.

Here's with Blood Claws [who are Marines, but are allowed to come in big squads]
Blood Claws (Marines) in one 15-man squad [15, 180 points] fired upon by three 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
21 average flamer hits and 12 bolter hits, 16.5 wounds, 6 casualties, test battleshock at 6+D6-7=2.5 additional losses, total of 8.5 casualties. 56.7%
Blood Claws (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 60 points] fired upon by three 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 5.5 wounds, 1.8 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total of 6 casualties. 40%
Blood Claws (Marines) in one 10-man squad [15, 180 points] fired upon by three 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
3 plasma hits and 25.5 lasgun hits, 2.5 plasma wounds and 8.4 lasgun wounds, 5.3 casualties, test battleshock at 5.3+D6-7=1.8 additional losses, total 6.8 casualties, 45%
Blood Claws (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 60 points] fired upon by three 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 2.8 lasgun wounds, 1.76 casualties, test battleshock at 1.76+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 5.28 casualties, 35%

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope there is a way to encourage larger units, such as bonuses to Leadership when squad sizes are maxed out.

H2h for one. You want few big units in close combat rather than multiple small ones.

GW could also be smart and borrow page from FW and make bigger unit cheaper than 2 smaller one(ie base cost say 50 for 5 guys, each extra guy costs 8 for example). Rules often favour MSU overall(regardless of game. Not 40k syndrome) so points is good place to compensate for it.

Benefits for big units to compensate LD issues don't neccessarily have to be in LD section. LD has historically from 2nd ed onward always helped MSU over big units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HandofMars wrote:
It's not that imbalanced. If the sisters are MSU, the guard can pretty reliably erase one of the 5-gal units in one go.

If they wiped out MSU unit then they lost battleshock casualties they would suffer if they were in big unit so MSU suffers either same or less casualties than 1 big unit.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'll work it out at leadership 6 and 7, with Guardsmen getting their 5+ [still not considering First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire! or Light of the Emperor]
Guardsmen in one 40-man squad [40, 4 plasma, 260 points] fired upon by four 5-girl Sisters squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.]:
28 average flamer hits and 16 bolter hits, 29.3 wounds, 20 casualties, test battleshock at 20+D6-6=17.5 additional losses, total 37.5 casualties. 93.75%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], one-to-one.
7 average flamer hits and 4 bolter hits, 7.3 wounds, 4.8 casualties, test battleshock at 5+D6-6=2.5 additional losses per squad, total of 29.2 casualties. 73%
Guardsmen in four 10-man squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.] fired upon by four 5-girl Sister's squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.], two-to-one.
14 average flamer hits and 8 bolter hits, 15 wounds, 10 casualties per squad, nobody left to test battleshock, total of 20 casualties. 50%
Sisters in one 20-girl squad [20, 2 flamers, 250 points] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
4 plasma hits and 34 lasgun hits, 3.33 plasma wounds and 17 lasgun wounds, 8.5 casualties, test battleshock at 8.5+D6-7=5 additional losses, total 13.5 casualties. 67.5%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], one to one:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 4.25 lasgun wounds, 2 casualties, test battleshock at 2+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 8 casualties, 40%
Sisters in four 5-girl squads [5, 2 flamers, 70 points ea.] fired upon by four 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.], two to one:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 8.5 lasgun wounds, 4 casualties, test battleshock at 4+D6-7=.5 additional loss for two squads, total 9 casualties, 45%

The effect is particularly pronounced with the Sisters, by splitting up they reduce their number of losses by 40%. In addition, note the effect that splitting up had when fired upon two-to-one, resulting in squad annihilation and actually capping the damage it's possible to take.

MSU is almost always better than one big unit. If the enemy splits up onto four small squads and I have one big one, then I can wipe out one a turn with dramatic overkill, but at most one a turn, whereas four small squads can combine to wipe out one big unit or split their fire to engage up to four small units. The 40-man guard unit is bought and upgraded as four 10-man squads then combined, but the improved special weapons density from MSU is also noticeable with the Sisters, improving their potential damage too. Splitting up grants a total of 6 additional upgraded guns. In addition, small shooting units can be more easily destroyed by the enemy's charge and/or shooting, therefore allowing undamaged units to shoot the enemy during your turn.

Formerly, these advantages would have been offset by the fact that the special weapons lose out on bubble wrap, a big unit can more efficiently use Orders and Psychic Powers, and that a big unit was harder to dislodge through morale. But battleshock makes them more vulnerable to morale, not less.

Big units aren't going to be dead. Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock, and order and buff efficiency is incredibly important, but it's an observation.

I have a few notes to make:

1. Even in 7th edition, MSU is a way to make the same number of models more durable, since, with few exceptions, your opponent has to target one unit at a time, and even then, assaults are tied to what did or didn't happen in the shooting phase. If you have 10 man marine squads, it is difficult to think of reasons why you shouldn't combat squad them into 5 man units. Even if you could take 2 special weapons instead of 1 special and one heavy, it's still a better idea to combat squad them.

2. You yourself note that big units provide a better use of orders and psychic buffs. I can only assume that this will continue in 8th edition.

3. Let me say now that I vehemently disagree with the idea of commisars providing immunity to battleshock. First and foremost, guardsmen are much cheaper than marines, and I can't see this changing in 8th edition. If horde armies get special treatment in the battle shock phase, then this means that elite armies are at a per-point disadvantage.

Horde armies have already gotten buffed with the ability to roll saves against boltguns, and, again, by the change to templates. They do not need immunity to the battleshock phase too.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

I guess. But that makes commissars pointless. They make no difference in big squads, and they have the same effect as failing for small ones. They're already mostly pointless, I guess.

Though if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:And if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

I agree that this is potentially a problem.

However, do consider the fact that GW has indicated that they are doing extensive playtesting to ensure balance.

I can only assume that at least one of the playtesters used big IG blobs.

I almost can't believe that I'm saying this, but...

I'm fairly sure that GW's got this.

Traditio wrote:
3. Let me say now that I vehemently disagree with the idea of commisars providing immunity to battleshock. First and foremost, guardsmen are much cheaper than marines, and I can't see this changing in 8th edition. If horde armies get special treatment in the battle shock phase, then this means that elite armies are at a per-point disadvantage.

Horde armies have already gotten buffed with the ability to roll saves against boltguns, and, again, by the change to templates. They do not need immunity to the battleshock phase too.

Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously. Grey Hunters are up to 10, and Blood Claws are the biggest I found in my book at up to 15. Do Neophytes go up to 20?

Grey Hunters (Marines) in one 10-man squad [10, 140 points] fired upon by two 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
2 plasma hits and 17 lasgun hits, 1.6 plasma wounds and 5.6 lasgun wounds, 3.5 casualties, test battleshock at 3.5+D6-7=0 additional losses, total 3.5 casualties, 35%
Grey Hunters (Marines) in two 5-man squads [5, 70 points] fired upon by two 10-man Guardsmen squads [10, 1 plasma, 65 points ea.]:
1 plasma hits and 8.5 lasgun hits, 0.83 plasma wounds and 2.8 lasgun wounds, 1.76 casualties, test battleshock at 1.76+D6-7=0 additional losses per squad, total 3.5 casualties, 35%
[Sisters produce the same result]

Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:And if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

I agree that this is potentially a problem.

However, do consider the fact that GW has indicated that they are doing extensive playtesting to ensure balance.

I can only assume that at least one of the playtesters used big IG blobs.

I almost can't believe that I'm saying this, but...

I'm fairly sure that GW's got us covered on this.

They probably do.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I guess. But that makes commissars pointless. They make no difference in big squads, and they have the same effect as failing for small ones. They're already mostly pointless, I guess.

Though if you can't cancel battleshock in big blobs of 50 guys, well, the big blob of guys is going to stop being big very, very fast.

Pretty sure effect is ~2 less casualties. At least in 2nd ed h2h where each blip in d6 roll+modifiers vs another and difference=number of hits parry(force reroll to opponent dice) was in average bonus worth +2 to your dice roll(which is why the simplified h2h system we use has parry=+2 to roll. More or less same end result, less rolling. Only some special rules involved like with harlequins force to resort to original system).

Difference would be small yes but complete negation is very unlikely. GW stated already units that ignore battleshock are going to be far and wide. All 1 model are already so there cannot be many and cheap IG squads with commisar would lead quickly path of nobody cares. If those why not unit X as well? Unit Y? Like entire marine range? Etc etc etc.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

In AoS your general/warlord gets command abilities. Kinda like an order that they can give at the start of their turn.

The basic one that everyone gets is Inspiring Presence, where you pick one of your units and make it immune to battleshock tests until the start of your next turn.
Quite nice when your army is centered around a big horde unit containing 60 models.

There are plenty of other faction-specific aura buffs and so on that can also make units immune or resistant to it.
Assuming similar mechanics make their way over, I don't think it's going to be too big a deal for horde armies.

Arson Fire wrote:
In AoS your general/warlord gets command abilities. Kinda like an order that they can give at the start of their turn.

The basic one that everyone gets is Inspiring Presence, where you pick one of your units and make it immune to battleshock tests until the start of your next turn.
Quite nice when your army is centered around a big horde unit containing 60 models.

There are plenty of other faction-specific aura buffs and so on that can also make units immune or resistant to it.
Assuming similar mechanics make their way over, I don't think it's going to be too big a deal for horde armies.

That's btw bad system in that it's very much unscalable. Effect of that rule varies a lot based on do you have 500 pts game(huge) or 4000 pts(ignorable).

That's pet peeve of mine. Rules that don't scale well. Hated FB 5th ed magic phase for that(apart from that most fun magic rule system I have played so far. Some spells could have done with tweaking but other than that it rocked. Except zero scalability), 0-1 unit limitations thorough game history etc.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Commissars will probably eliminate battleshock

I would expect reduction of effect(extra LD, reroll, maybe halve casualties for the test etc). Not complete removal which are going to be very rare according to GW.

What I think would be fair is if you can *BLAM* a model in exchange for rerolling the die.

I'd make it +D3 or +D6 to the units leadership for the test

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
9 hits, 6 wounds, 4 casualties, battleshock .5, 4.5 total losses. 45%
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
3.5 total losses. 35%
Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 total losses. 40%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
1.8 total losses, 36%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
4.8 casualties, battleshock 2.5, 7.3 total losses 73%,
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 casualties, 40%

A Commissar cancelling battleshock would keep guardsmen as survivable as they are now for 35 points.

Well, not really. The nerf to boltguns and flamers is a massive buff to Guardsmen. They're 33% more resilient. Is the 33% worth the 35 extra points?

I'm not sure if the loss of AP but removal of the template is actually a new buff or nerf to flamers.


So as far as points disadvantage goes, it's still the guardsmen being worse off. And that's before considering the transport options, and special weapons options.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, umm...
RIP horde armies. That is all I can really say.
(and to those saying "oh just get X morale boosting model", remember AoS shooting mechanics and just how easy it is to shred a character trying to stay close enough to buff his allied unit. Unless of course he belongs to one of the elite factions)

It's not that easy, and even if you do shoot that character, that means the unit they were buffing is still fine and dandy and has now had a full turn to be up in yo grill.

And if you think YOU thought of this and the people playtesting didn't then you're delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Well, Marines don't come in big enough units to be affected seriously.

I believe that you may not be understanding my point.

Here's what I mean:

Let's suppose you successfully kill two of my marines. I didn't upgrade to a veteran sarge. I roll a 6. I lose a guy. Assuming no further rules changes, that's a 13 point loss.

On the other hand:

Let's suppose that I thoroughly focus fire down your 40 man IG blob. I mow through 30 of them in a single phase. You roll a die and...*BLAM* You lose 1 guy and ignore the rest.

That's a 5 point loss.

Does that seem fair to you?

Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
9 hits, 6 wounds, 4 casualties, battleshock .5, 4.5 total losses. 45%
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
3.5 total losses. 35%
Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 total losses. 40%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Grey Hunters [5, 1 Flamer, 75]
1.8 total losses, 36%
Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70] shooting at Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65]
4.8 casualties, battleshock 2.5, 7.3 total losses 73%,
Guardsmen [10, 1 Plasma, 65] shooting at Sisters [5, 2 Flamer, 70]
2 casualties, 40%

A Commissar cancelling battleshock would keep guardsmen as survivable as they are now for 35 points.

Well, not really. The nerf to boltguns and flamers is a massive buff to Guardsmen. They're 33% more resilient. Is the 33% worth the 35 extra points?

I'm not sure if the loss of AP but removal of the template is actually a new buff or nerf to flamers.


So as far as points disadvantage goes, it's still the guardsmen being worse off. And that's before considering the transport options, and special weapons options.

All of this math is completely pointless because you have no idea what any of the numbers actually are except the profiles for flamers or boltguns.

And weren't people super worried about big bricks of guardsmen just melting entire boards? Wasn't that a thing?

So which is it, are they Land Raider munching Titan thumping monstrosities or are they paper thin wuss bags? Cause they can't be both.

ERJAK wrote:
It's not that easy, and even if you do shoot that character, that means the unit they were buffing is still fine and dandy and has now had a full turn to be up in yo grill.

Of course that means that high S, high rend, multi damage weapon was spent better at killing multi wound character vs 1 wound grunt...Optimizing firepower so unit isn't too happy to have been saved.

ERJAK wrote:


All of this math is completely pointless because you have no idea what any of the numbers actually are except the profiles for flamers or boltguns.

And weren't people super worried about big bricks of guardsmen just melting entire boards? Wasn't that a thing?

So which is it, are they Land Raider munching Titan thumping monstrosities or are they paper thin wuss bags? Cause they can't be both.

Well, have you ever seen a 50-man guard squad benefiting from Prescience and Misfortune and Bring it Down! or First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!? Kills most everything.

Big bricks of guardsmen won't be melting entire boards. Lots of small or medium sized bricks might, but I doubt it. A Land Raider will have "dozens of wounds".

I don't actually see where they're going to be able to hurt Land Raiders, but I'd hazard it involves exploding dice, which would take a lot of guardsmen.


Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armoursave against most weapons now, but they're also taking massive casualties from battleshock. We'll see what happens. Templates changing may be a benefit or a detriment, too, we'll see. It's actually kind of hard to get more than 3 or 4 guardsmen under a flamerthrower template except in some particularly special situations.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armour save against most weapons now

Probably including formerly AP 4 weapons (which will probably be Rend -1).

If you equip them with 4+ armor, chances are, they'll get a save against krak missiles.

Give them 4+ armor and put them in cover, and, all of a sudden, they are basically wearing power armor.

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

If I need a krak missile to kill a 5 point model...

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Guardsmen have always been fragile. They're getting their armour save against most weapons now

Probably including formerly AP 4 weapons (which will probably be Rend -1).

If you equip them with 4+ armor, chances are, they'll get a save against krak missiles.

Give them 4+ armor and put them in cover, and, all of a sudden, they are basically wearing power armor.

Let's be clear on this: imperial guard and orks are getting a MASSIVE boost in durability.

Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

Any boost would be a massive boost. They're still going to be dying left and right, and battleshock will more than make up for their 33% increase in resilience.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

In 7th edition?

 Traditio wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Putting vets in cover already makes them MEQ.

In 7th edition?

Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Vets + Forward Sentries + Aegis Defense Barricade = 3+ cover save. They're still T3, though.

What do you want to bet that GW is going to figure out a way to give you TEQ guardsmen?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, it's not even that difficult.

All that they have to do is make ruins give +2 instead of +1.

And there you go. TEQ guardsmen.