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 reduces the ratlings to 1.1916 damage and a mortal wound. Using the math above(just need to reduce the end result by 16.666%). Vs tge captain.

Oh, and some Hellhounds that performed okayish.

I made some updates to my spreadsheet. I've got the points per model assuming all default wargear included as well. I'm a little (read: considerably) colorblind and I picked colors that made sense to me. Let me know if the colors are too jarring for anyone, and I'll change/remove them.

I've only done AM for now since that's who I play, and they have the most stuff to keep track of. I might do the other factions in Imperium 2 later. I want to get a whole sheet for Imperium 1 together also, but there's a lot of stuff in that and I'm lazy.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
You messed up more than that, whatever you were trying to prove to us.

BTW

Command point rules, having some trouble figuring out how to calculate that.

I have a feeling no amount of evidence of any kind would dissuade you from your doomsaying at this point.

That evidence is encouraging our doomsaying!

I saw one tank, it did more with it's secondary armaments than it did with it's main gun, and even then achieved next to nothing. Note that a pair of Hellhounds costs 220 points, and a Leman Russ with Heavy Flamers costs about 205.

The artillery wasn't that useful either, it's combined fire mildly annoyed some Destroyers.

So are the tanks really that bad?

It seems the only real value of a leman russ battle tank or demolisher is to have heavy flamers and tie things up. However, tank commanders with bs3+ rerolling 1's battle cannons or executioner turrets should be on the good side of mediocre for the points. Obviously they won't be invited to a min max win at all costs list. That would be all mortars, manticores, tempestus command squads.

In other words all the things that most IG players did not bother with in the last couple of editions.
I guess this means we all need to go and buy new things right?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So are the tanks really that bad?

Yes. I posted details on their wound distributions a while back, you can find the plots to see just how bad they are.

But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.

jaxor1983 wrote:
But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.

Those tank orders and those strategems better be damn good, like "Tanks automatically max-roll Shots and Damage".

At the very least, the guns should have fixed damage values and not have to roll to-hit. Then they'd be passable, if somewhat poor for their cost.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So are the tanks really that bad?

I don't think so. They're four (usually) HWTs with T8 and 3+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're paying for durability, not damage output.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:
But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.

Those tank orders and those strategems better be damn good, like "Tanks automatically max-roll Shots and Damage".

At the very least, the guns should have fixed damage values and not have to roll to-hit. Then they'd be passable, if somewhat poor for their cost.

Pretty much this, especially when you consider that a Battle Cannon (At least an 8" shell as per the model) is now only doing as many 'shots' as a Frag Grenade (you can carry it in your hand). The Demolisher cannon is doing even less, unless you are firing at a blob target, and then it is averaging 4 shots, as opposed to the Battle Cannons 3-4, with the maximum still capped at 6. Exterminators twin autocannons are no longer twinlinked, menaning that you essentially have two regular autocannons with a shorter range.
All in all this edition looks set to shaft Guard players massively, unless they are willing to invest in Mortars, Storm Troopers and Hellhounds. And when I say "invest" I mean "Go out and purchase enough models to build an army entirely composed of"
The worst part for me is that Tanks can now be locked in close combat, essentially making them useless for the only thing that they might have been good for: close support with Flamers.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So are the tanks really that bad?

I don't think so. They're four (usually) HWTs with T8 and 3+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're paying for durability, not damage output.

Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.

If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.


I'm debating whether or not I want to go out and buy Hellhounds/Devildogs. I've got Immolators, and I'm happy with my Immolators, and I feel that if I'm going to spam "cheap" flamer and multimelta armed tanks I might as well spam Immolators and Dominions, which I already own, and not be playing IG.

What GW has done is gone and made the units that nobody ever brought good, and the units that everybody has lots of terrible.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


What GW has done is gone and made the units that nobody ever brought good, and the units that everybody has lots of terrible.

Which is exactly what I just said. This is a blatant money grab as IG players are now left with the choices of either bringing their old armies and models and being clobbered by other players, or staying able to fight (just about) but having to shell out around about £500 for an entirely new army.
Your choice, pay or lose.

Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.

But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.

If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.

It used to be 150 points if you ran the LRBT cheap and cheerful, right? So you're paying 12 more points to have the new vehicle rules. As far as the cannon goes, you could only count on it hitting where it was supposed to maybe half the time anyway. With that in mind, I typically brought it expecting maybe 2-3 hits half the time and whatever happy little accidents the opponent would generously offer me. Now we have d6 attacks that we have to roll to hit and have 50% to hit. I'll agree that it's not better on paper, but the upper bounds is at least not limited by opponent skill, and I look forward to not seeing these goofy conga lines stretching across the board to prevent me from getting more than a couple splats with the cannon at a time.

I mean, it certainly didn't overall get better. It probably got worse. I'll agree with that. I'm just saying to compare it to what it was before you judge it too harshly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.

But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

I kinda get the feeling that 7th edition formation hysteria left everyone a little used to expecting a unit to singlehandedly win a game.

Otto von Bludd wrote:Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

No. At the very least, it showed the Mech part of the Mech Guard being generally harmless, and the rest of the list being able to beat an enemy who could have been a goldfish. It showed tanks, and I mean MBT's, not little IFV's or SPG's or APC's, doing nothing at all. And even then the SPG's were only marginally less harmless than the tanks.

My favorite Leman Russ is the Vanquisher. It's been bad since 6th. What Leman Russ variant I like is besides the point.

daedalus wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.

If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.

It used to be 150 points if you ran the LRBT cheap and cheerful, right? So you're paying 12 more points to have the new vehicle rules. As far as the cannon goes, you could only count on it hitting where it was supposed to maybe half the time anyway. With that in mind, I typically brought it expecting maybe 2-3 hits half the time and whatever happy little accidents the opponent would generously offer me. Now we have d6 attacks that we have to roll to hit and have 50% to hit. I'll agree that it's not better on paper, but the upper bounds is at least not limited by opponent skill, and I look forward to not seeing these goofy conga lines stretching across the board to prevent me from getting more than a couple splats with the cannon at a time.

I mean, it certainly didn't overall get better. It probably got worse. I'll agree with that. I'm just saying to compare it to what it was before you judge it too harshly.

I'm not comparing it to previous editions, I'm comparing it to what's around it right now. And it's crap.

Here, last edition comparison, Leman Russ Battle Cannon:

It has a 2/3*33/36 chance of deviating at all [60% chance]. Then, assuming it did deviate, it would still strike the target model 36% of the time, and wound 83% of the time. That's assuming it's shooting at a single infantry model in a field, and it equals it's current performance. But, of course, a direct hit will hit a minimum of 2 infantry models, and when the enemy is dispersed, it's almost impossible not to hit something. And because it was Str.8, it tended to instantly wipe out anything it hit by IDing things. Not amazing, but infinitely better than it is now. It's minimum realistic performance is about equal to our current average performance.

And, of course, if you look at the distribution charts I posted a while back about the tank guns, the maximum expected damage is really about 3 damage to 2 models. After that, it's pretty much in the realm of never-ever-ever going to happen.

daedalus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.

But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

I kinda get the feeling that 7th edition formation hysteria left everyone a little used to expecting a unit to singlehandedly win a game.

I'm not expecting it to win a game.I am expecting it to not have a net negative contribution to it's team. I am expecting it to be at least passably okay at doing anything at all.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.

But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.

All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Otto von Bludd wrote:Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.

"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "

Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?

Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.

If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?

If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.

No. At the very least, it showed the Mech part of the Mech Guard being generally harmless, and the rest of the list being able to beat an enemy who could have been a goldfish. It showed tanks, and I mean MBT's, not little IFV's or SPG's or APC's, doing nothing at all. And even then the SPG's were only marginally less harmless than the tanks.

If you consider that game to have illustrated that the mech part of the list (~75% of the army) was generally harmless, and that the game did not illustrate mech guard winning handily, we will just have to agree to disagree because clearly we have different definitions of what "harmless" and "winning handily" means. I'm inclined to agree with Deadalus; that so much exposure to 7th has left people with totally unrealistic expectations of what single units are supposed to do on their own. Also, Chimera's and Hellhounds were defined as tanks in 7th, so it's reasonably to still call them tanks.

If any impartial observer looks at a game of 7th Edition mech guard vs necrons and compares it to the 8th edition game in question they will conclude mech guard is better. In 7th the mech guard would have been totally slaughtered, as I have experienced many times while doing little damage to the crons. In the game I posted, the crons were pinned in their deployment zone, unable to heavily damage most of the vehicles while themselves taking heavy casualties from the guard assault. That is a complete turnaround from 7th, and I considered such a game to sufficiently demonstrate that mech guard is not only alive and well, but significantly improved over its 7th edition incarnation.

edit:

 master of ordinance wrote:


Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.

All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.

You didn't see all the veterans in chimeras?

Well I see our problem now. You gentlemen don't see a game where a mechanized infantry force (with only 1 footslogging unit of ogryns), supported by tanks, walkers and artillery which pinned a necron force in it's deployment zone inflicting heavy casualties upon it while taking few in return and going on to win the game as a successful demonstration that mech guard can work in 8th. You don't even consider such a a force to be mech guard. As I said above, our ideas of what counts as a successful game, and what even constitutes a "mech guard" army are so far apart that there isn't any point debating it. I can't dispute your definitions any more than you can mine, so I will, in the interests of avoiding pointless bickering with fellow Guardsmen, cease to press my point.

...
Chimeras?
There was ONE chimera on the entire battlefield, and I assume it contained a command section.
Your 'Mech guard' army may or may not have done well, but that is not the point people are debating. People are looking at the damage output of our tanks, and finding them woefully lacking. And of certain units (like Ogryns) and finding them lacking for the cost.
The artillery? The Manticore CARRIED the Basilisk in terms of effectiveness.

That is what people are debating, not that one or two aspects are good, but the fact that the vast majority of the army (barring those bits people did not usually have) stink.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:


If you consider that game to have illustrated that the mech part of the list (~75% of the army) was generally harmless, and that the game did not illustrate mech guard winning handily, we will just have to agree to disagree because clearly we have different definitions of what "harmless" and "winning handily" means. I'm inclined to agree with Deadalus; that so much exposure to 7th has left people with totally unrealistic expectations of what single units are supposed to do on their own. Also, Chimera's and Hellhounds were defined as tanks in 7th, so it's reasonably to still call them tanks.

If any impartial observer looks at a game of 7th Edition mech guard vs necrons and compares it to the 8th edition game in question they will conclude mech guard is better. In 7th the mech guard would have been totally slaughtered, as I have experienced many times while doing little damage to the crons. In the game I posted, the crons were pinned in their deployment zone, unable to heavily damage most of the vehicles while themselves taking heavy casualties from the guard assault. That is a complete turnaround from 7th, and I considered such a game to sufficiently demonstrate that mech guard is not only alive and well, but significantly improved over its 7th edition incarnation.

That necron player might as well have been a "goldfish". I only watched turn-to-turn IG shooting phases, but he barely moved and sat in the open with all those guys. That deployment in 7e would have been a very quick defeat for the Necron player in earlier editions, between the Manticore, Russ, and Basilisk he would have lost all of that infantry within a turn or two. He didn't have any arks, or flyers, or anything really. I'm actually wondering where all his points were spent! Yes, the Guard won handily, and it's a wonder considering how much of his list did absolutely nothing! The Chimerae were successful, but that could have gone disastrously if the Necron player had been remotely competent.

I play Heavy Mech Guard against Necrons right now, and in 5e, 6e, and 7e I haven't experience the problem of being "totally slaughtered". 7e has been, by far, the hardest for me since I can't focus fire to block Res Protocols for easy wiping of enemy units. Warriors supported by Arks are an absolute PITA.

Also: Hellhounds are tanks. A Chimera is not a tank. Is a Bradley Fighting Vehicle a tank? Is a M3 Halftrack a tank? The "Tank" rule means "Has Tracks", and provides effectively no representation of what a tank actually is. A Chimera is a Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It looks like a tank, but it has a distinctly different battlefield purpose.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

edit:

 master of ordinance wrote:


Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.

All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.

You didn't see all the veterans in chimeras?

Well I see our problem now. You gentlemen don't see a game where a mechanized infantry force (with only 1 footslogging unit of ogryns), supported by tanks, walkers and artillery which pinned a necron force in it's deployment zone inflicting heavy casualties upon it while taking few in return and going on to win the game as a successful demonstration that mech guard can work in 8th. You don't even consider such a a force to be mech guard. As I said above, our ideas of what counts as a successful game, and what even constitutes a "mech guard" army are so far apart that there isn't any point debating it. I can't dispute your definitions any more than you can mine, so I will, in the interests of avoiding pointless bickering with fellow Guardsmen, cease to press my point.

I did. There were 3. The Chimerae were successful at moving guardsmen to the front, which means sure, they're decent. They did their job, and that's it. I do consider that to be Mech Guard, and it's a fair example of a Mech Guard list, if somewhat small. Nobody's concerned about the viability to using Chimerae to move guardsmen into firing positions, though. And that's only 3 Chimerae and 3 squads of Vets, almost none by IG standards.

Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.

Does anyone have some sort of TL;DW for that vid?

When did I become old?

I agree Blacksails. I've not watched it for that reason. I miss Ailaros's battle reports.

 daedalus wrote:
I agree Blacksails. I've not watched it for that reason. I miss Ailaros's battle reports.

I was just about to say! That man had the best bat reps. Beautiful army too.

 Blacksails wrote:
Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.

Does anyone have some sort of TL;DW for that vid?

When did I become old?

TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds versus a big blob of necrons on foot, who were standing side by side in a big blob at the front edge of their deployment zone.

The IG advanced. The tank killed 0 models. The Manticore and Basilisk together vaguely annoyed some Destroyers. The IG reached the Necrons, who were basically in the same place they started the game. The Necrons countercharged but didn't kill the tanks and forgot to surround them. Some flayed ones deep-striked near the artillery, and the artillery had to disengage from melee and Sentinels went back to save them. The IG unloaded and shot then there was some close combat, then the IG won.

I prefer to read too. 2 hours is a bit long for a battle report. I just watched the IG shooting phases.

Blacksails wrote:Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.

Does anyone have some sort of TL;DW for that vid?

When did I become old?

daedalus wrote:I agree Blacksails. I've not watched it for that reason. I miss Ailaros's battle reports.

Agree on both counts. I vastly prefer reading reports to watching them. I also loved Ailaros's reports. I've barely been on Dakka for all of 7th edition. I assume he's not around much any more? It is pretty great to see some familiar faces from all the Guard threads.

Played a test game last night against space wolves. Conscripts were my MVP for sure. Lol. He never got to attack anything else in close combat because he couldn't get through them. I think I still had 21 left at the end of the game

How many of the poor expendable conscripts did you bring? And how many encouraging commissars did you take to inspire them to hold?

I brought 50. I used a priest and Primaris to support and used some standard Ogryn to help out. I strung them out from my lord commissar with a standard as well as a company commander. So they were ld 10 and had access to orders. I used front rank second rank first turn then repeatedly multi charged and then fell back but then got back in the fight. I tied up Bjorn, thunder wolves, blood claws, and 2 predators long enough to kill everything else I could shoot at with my entire army.

Neat, thanks for sharing!