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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Yes it was full of Taurox Primes, which while are not tanks, are still vehicles doing the job of a tank.

Mathhammer does not do this justice, though, considering the predator needs line of sight and the others don't. That's a *huge* thing. If you took away the LOS buff from the manties and wyverns, and gave them a 48" range, then yes, the quad-las predator would be superior.

Do you honestly, genuinely feel that Space Marines have the best tanks? I mean, really, genuinely believe that? Have you actually played a game of 8th edition using space marine tanks?

Space marines have the best flyers. And until boots on the ground, they were a viable build.

Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Probably nothing as screening doesnt stop you from shooting the tanks.

Sure it stops deep strike tactics but you are still exposing those preds to other lascannons.

The artillery shooting from out of LOS makes them untouchable. but then you would need to add the points for the screen to prevent derp strikes.

ITT:

"Marine tanks are better than guard tanks."

"BUT ARTILLERY"

"Yes, guard artillery is better than SM artillery. Why are we comparing a tank to artillery again?"

 Marmatag wrote:
Mathhammer does not do this justice, though

Given the prior arguments made about conscripts, this is one of the most unintentionally funny things to have been posted on dakka in a long time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

Right, that != should be a ">"

Mantacore is 69 points cheaper than the Quad Las pred, has longer range, higher strength, does not need LOS, and has more shots on average. I can run 3 for every 2 predators you bring.

Basilisks are 94 points less, has longer range, same strength, does not need LOS and has ~ the same shots on average, I can essentially field 2 for every predator you run.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

You don't need 50% you need about 5% to hide a few of these tanks, + their long range.

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Mathhammer does not do this justice, though

Given the prior arguments made about conscripts, this is one of the most unintentionally funny things to have been posted on dakka in a long time.

It's horribly disingenuous to snip one line of my post and attempt to use that to create a ridiculous false equivalence.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, just to reiterate:

Artillery (or the new contender, armoured transports) != tanks

Not all artillery is tanks, but some of them are. I'd argue that things like Wyverns and Whirlwinds are tanks, whereas things like Batteries and Thunderfires aren't.

Commissars should be altered so that if they are babysitting a conscript squad, they cannot affect any other unit in range. It's not perfect, but it would add a commissar tax to every conscript unit that you want to use in that way, AND it would mean that the other infantry squads in the area would be fairly useless.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Quad-Las Predators are not as good as Manticores or Wyverns

Last time I did the math, they were both quite similar, with the predator being far more reliable damage output. But neither of those were used in the list shown in the first post-- not a single wyvern nor manticore was in it.

Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

What happens when those Marine tanks are behind a Conscript screen out of range?

Out of range of the Basilisk? or Mantacore? What tables do you play on where 10' or 30' ranges are ever out of range?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:

"Marine tanks are better than guard tanks."

"BUT ARTILLERY"

"Yes, guard artillery is better than SM artillery. Why are we comparing a tank to artillery again?"

Because the guard artillery are tanks. Just because you draw an arbitrary line between 1 chimera chasis vehicle and another doesn't mean one exists. In fact based on the game rules, the things pointed out here are vehicles, tank is a class that does not exist, and artillery is something else entirely.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
2) Fair enough, alone and with no other changes.
3) What? Why? This is one of their major functions and uses.
4) This pretty much already happens in 8th, I can barely think of any terrain pieces large enough to hold 30-50 models completely, and all it takes is 1 off by itself standing outside and the whole squad loses it (at least until the next shooting attack).

Instead of not being objective secured by default, how about either one of these two:

A) Obsec only if 50% if squad remains

or

B) If there is a friendly officer within 6"

I'll grant the cover one is quite moot - just some brainstorming really. But the fact conscripts (generally being poor individual soldiers) can capture contested objectives just doesn't seem to fit right. Either make them use their numbers to capture objectives, or get an officer to babysit them.

The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

The idea is that Conscripts are the able-bodied rabble that the IG put together to throw more bodies on the field. They gave them a helmet, a lasgun, and said "go shoot that way." That's why they can be fielded in such large units. They should not, however, be organized enough to obey orders and should not succeed morale tests by one guy being shot (when the enemy slaughtered 20 of them previously).

Boom, done. You don't adjust point costs. Just make that change. Then, commissars are still good for keeping regular infantry in line and regular infantry doesn't get a nerf in point cost or anything. Just Conscripts.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #2 - Alpharius]

Here's the wikipedia article on self-propelled artillery:
https://wiki2.org/en/Self-propelled_artillery

Just read the article. Literally. It reiterates, many times, how and why self propelled artillery isn't a tank.

For heaven's sake, just read the sentence that begins "while they may superficially resemble a tank..."

SPGs aren't tanks. Even the ones with rotating turrets aren't tanks.

Equivocating the two is just... I don't even know. Ignorant of military affairs, I guess. Sloppy, is another term that comes to mind.

As for what chassis it uses: Yes, I will draw a distinction between the Chimera, an APC, the Wyvern, an SPG, and the Hellhound, a tank, just like I will draw a distinction between the Namer APC and the Merkava MBT despite them having the same chassis.

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

The idea is that Conscripts are the able-bodied rabble that the IG put together to throw more bodies on the field. They gave them a helmet, a lasgun, and said "go shoot that way." That's why they can be fielded in such large units. They should not, however, be organized enough to obey orders and should not succeed morale tests by one guy being shot (when the enemy slaughtered 20 of them previously).

Boom, done. You don't adjust point costs. Just make that change. Then, commissars are still good for keeping regular infantry in line and regular infantry doesn't get a nerf in point cost or anything. Just Conscripts.

Except nobody uses regular infantry right now anyways.

Regular infantry suck compared to Conscripts. They're unfocused, they have weird mish-mashes of weapons, and the only real benefit they would have is in toting Vox-Casters.

Your statement is not a fix. It's neutering the army because of one unit that people can't handle with their TAC lists.

Why should we Guard players care about their W/L being disrupted? Not our problem they didn't bring a sniper-heavy list to deal with the support staff.

The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Who the feth cares whether a Manticore is a tank or artillery. Can you guys move this to a private message and stop derailing the thread, please? Same for the meme kids.

My Manticore performs very well if a bit unreliably. My two Predators (usually Destructors or Executioners) play well, too. They don't get the huge hits in like a Manticore does once in a while, but they have reliable output and they can be supported much better than a Manticore that can only get a Master of Ordnance for re-rolls above 36'' while the Preds can benefit from both a Lieutenant and Captain (or Chaptermaster even) without any range limitations.

As an eldar player I say you should care because a period of being the most OP army results in nooone wanting to play and people assuming bad things because of you army choice.

IG have 2 overperforming units conscripts (with help from a commisar) and artillery so those need a nerf and/or a points adjustment. A lot of OP armies can become by simply nerfing the one OP build.

Irl artillery and tanks work very different , but not in 40k there they are mechanically very similiar.

I care, nekooni, deeply. Because I want to be able to play an IG Tank Company and not an IG Artillery Company, much like how I don't want to play Tau or Eldar either.

The fact that people conflate the two grates on me so very much.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

The issue is that the game doesn't differentiate. SO you are drawing lines outside the grounds of the game to define a limited set of vehicles that are pretty similar to be different. Your argument becomes "the Quad Las Predator is better than the Leman Russ." Which ignores other more effective options for Guard. Saying, well I wouldn't run that because "insert arbitrary fluff reason" is no different from me removing any number of units from a discussion because I don't like them in my list.

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

Why not just remove the Conscript entry from the IG book?

Your suggestion amounts to the same thing.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

The issue is that the game doesn't differentiate. SO you are drawing lines outside the grounds of the game to define a limited set of vehicles that are pretty similar to be different. Your argument becomes "the Quad Las Predator is better than the Leman Russ." Which ignores other more effective options for Guard. Saying, well I wouldn't run that because "insert arbitrary fluff reason" is no different from me removing any number of units from a discussion because I don't like them in my list.

The Leman Russ, Hellhound, Devil Dog, and Banewolf are all tanks, actually, and the Predator is better than all of them.

And you're still wrong. If a new player came up to me and said "I want to play a tank company! What army do I pick?" and someone else said "Guard have the best tanks!" I'd go have a discussion about why they were wrong. If someone wants to play tanks, they usually don't want to play artillery.

And you're right, Breng, it is arbitrarily removing units from the discussion. Just like how "My BA are doing badly." shouldn't be replied with "Go play Eldar." then "My tanks are doing badly!" shouldn't receive the reply "Go play artillery!"

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.