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.

stratigo wrote:

People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.

So again, I have to ask:
Pre or post codex?
What did the lists look like?
What did the game actually look like?
All you're giving is incredibly vague anecdotes without explanation or context, which is about as useful as a kite in a hurricane when we're trying to discuss army viability.

Oh no that was a different game.

The game against you, stratigo is still a perfect example of my point though.

@Waaghpower, I don't use conscripts or regular guardsmen because it is unfluffy for a superheavy regiment to have access to its own integral infantry formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

stratigo wrote:

People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.

So again, I have to ask:
Pre or post codex?
What did the lists look like?
What did the game actually look like?
All you're giving is incredibly vague anecdotes without explanation or context, which is about as useful as a kite in a hurricane when we're trying to discuss army viability.

I mean, I can list every game I've lost 2 superheavies in the first two turns, but that'll go through 6 of my eight games at NOVA plus damn near a third of my eighth edition games.

Most of them are pre-codex, because the codex has been out for like five days.

Even so, the durability of the tanks did not get a buff.

"I don't use screens or infantry of any kind in a tournament environment, and am only using examples from before the codex came out, (where we got price cuts and massive damage buffs,) but that's still proof that Guard are just as vulnerable to alpha strike as anyone else."

Is that really your argument?

Waaaghpower wrote:
"I don't use screens or infantry of any kind in a tournament environment, and am only using examples from before the codex came out, (where we got price cuts and massive damage buffs,) but that's still proof that Guard are just as vulnerable to alpha strike as anyone else."

Is that really your argument?

Not at all.

My argument is that "My superheavy tanks are vulnerable to being alpha-struck, so if I want to actually /play/ the game with superheavy tanks, I need to bring 3. I do plan on bringing more things that aren't superheavy tanks to try to diversify the experience for my opponents."

But yes, my army can't use real screens. It's unfluffy for the regiment to have it's own integral infantry formations. That's just how it is, sadly. I'm not gonna cry "BUT MY ARMY IS FLUFFY" and then run an unfluffy army. The fluff giveth, and the fluff taketh away.

I'm sorry I don't have time to test the new codex for you. I work, and have a life, and I usually only get two days a week to play for a couple of hours. I can get ~2 games a week, and the codex has been out less than a week. I don't know what you want from me.

And I didn't say guard, I'm specifically trying to address the "just take fewer tanks" argument - taking fewer tanks cripples the fluff, cripples the army composition, and I won't even really get to play with them anyways.

The most recent time one of my tanks died on turn 1 it was to deep-striking Slaanesh terminators with a lord, and combi-plasmas. They used Veterans of the Long War and Endless Cacophony, and killed one tank by themselves. And this happened Saturday, after the 'dex dropped.

EDIT:

The lord may have had a combi-melta. Either way I lost a tank.

Your argument doesn't hold up, though. You say that you MUST take three super-heavies because they're vulnerable to alpha strikes, but refuse to take tools to counter alpha strikes.

And despite the fact that you refuse to use the tools that you're explicitly encouraged to use in order to cover your biggest weakness (At NOVA events, no less,) you've still got an extremely powerful army.

(It IS fluffy for regiments to work together, btw. In fact, it's more unfluffy for regiments to not support each other.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many Terminators was it, btw? Because unless he took 7-8, that's very above-average shooting for him.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Your argument doesn't hold up, though. You say that you MUST take three super-heavies because they're vulnerable to alpha strikes, but refuse to take tools to counter alpha strikes.

And despite the fact that you refuse to use the tools that you're explicitly encouraged to use in order to cover your biggest weakness (At NOVA events, no less,) you've still got an extremely powerful army.

(It IS fluffy for regiments to work together, btw. In fact, it's more unfluffy for regiments to not support each other.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many Terminators was it, btw? Because unless he took 7-8, that's very above-average shooting for him.

1) That's not the only reason I have to take 3 - it's just another reason to. And yes, I do refuse to take the tools to counter alpha-strikes, because superheavy regiments in the fluff lack access to those tools.

2) Thanks?

3) It is! I am always always always up for team games with another guard regiment! But such formed battlegroups are temporary, and it's hard to write long-lasting fluff about something that exists for one campaign, and then all the infantry feth off somewhere else. I am tracking the history of the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment, not the history of some temporary mish-mash of regiments that lasts for what could be as little as one battle. More's the pity that people don't like team games, where 1 or 2 tanks from my regiment is perfectly fluffy.

4) Five plus a lord, which is six combi-plasmas, On average I think they do 14 wounds per volley, and then Endless Cacophony makes them shoot twice.

10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.

7.78 hits.

Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.

1.94 hits.

9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.

8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.

Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.

7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.

6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.

According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...

1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.

Edit: Actually, odds are lower by a small amount. I didn't factor in the chance any Terminators die to the first volley, which would reduce the damage on the second one, or the Lord dying, which would REALLY reduce the odds since now you don't reroll ones.

 JNAProductions wrote:
10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.

7.78 hits.

Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.

1.94 hits.

9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.

8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.

Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.

7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.

6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.

According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...

1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.

Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley.
Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.

7.78 hits.

Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.

1.94 hits.

9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.

8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.

Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.

7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.

6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.

According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...

1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.

Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley.
Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.

Poopy butts.

New odds (with VOTLW on Termis only) is 9.52%. A HUGE improvement.

JNAProductions wrote:10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.

7.78 hits.

Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.

1.94 hits.

9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.

8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.

Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.

7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.

6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.

According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...

1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.

Edit: Actually, odds are lower by a small amount. I didn't factor in the chance any Terminators die to the first volley, which would reduce the damage on the second one, or the Lord dying, which would REALLY reduce the odds since now you don't reroll ones.

You forgot it is a 3+ to wound. My math is:

12 shots, hitting on 3's re-rolling 1's (I'll ignore the lord hits on 2s). Should be right around 10 hits.

10 hits wounding on 3's is right around 7 wounds.

I save on 6's, so maybe 1.

6 is 12 wounds on overcharged plasma, so 24 wounds ish. Doesn't take too much luck to make it 26.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.

7.78 hits.

Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.

1.94 hits.

9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.

8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.

Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.

7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.

6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.

According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...

1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.

Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley.
Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.

It wasn't a tournament environment. It was my usual saturday club day game.


EDIT:

I also mentioned in my edit that the Lord may have had a combi-melta, don't remember that well, didn't write it down.

Odds of doing wounds (not accounting for overcharged death) are as follows:

0 wounds-0%
2 wounds-.01%
4 wounds-.06%
6 wounds-.28%
8 wounds-1.02%
10 wounds-2.76%
12 wounds-5.88%
14 wounds-10.13%
16 wounds-14.31%
18 wounds-16.77%
20 wounds-16.43%
22 wounds-13.5%
24 wounds-9.32%
26+ wounds-9.52%

Edit: And average damage is 7.78 hits per volley, 5.19 wounds, 4.32 past the saves, or 8.64 damage on average. Double that for the stratagem, and you get just over 17 damage.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Odds of doing wounds (not accounting for overcharged death) are as follows:

0 wounds-0%
2 wounds-.01%
4 wounds-.06%
6 wounds-.28%
8 wounds-1.02%
10 wounds-2.76%
12 wounds-5.88%
14 wounds-10.13%
16 wounds-14.31%
18 wounds-16.77%
20 wounds-16.43%
22 wounds-13.5%
24 wounds-9.32%
26+ wounds-9.52%

So it looks like he's got a good bet of doing 14-26 wounds, which means he either cripples or kills the Baneblade.

Thanks for helping prove my point, buddy.

10.01% chance of not doing enough damage to cripple it even slightly.

If you're the guard that gets to double wounds for purposes of damage charts, you've got a better than 50% chance of being fine.

Edit: Also, you could easily drop some CP on Take Cover, to decrease wounds taken, and spend other CP to improve its BS. Not to mention you can actually charge them and do damage with CRUSH THEM.

 JNAProductions wrote:
10.01% chance of not doing enough damage to cripple it even slightly.

If you're the guard that gets to double wounds for purposes of damage charts, you've got a better than 50% chance of being fine.

Edit: Also, you could easily drop some CP on Take Cover, to decrease wounds taken, and spend other CP to improve its BS. Not to mention you can actually charge them and do damage with CRUSH THEM.

All of what you say is true, but there were other things going on in the game than this 531 or whatever points getting alpha'd by 400 or whatever points of terminators. Sorry my anecdote doesn't fit into your narrative.

And at the time, I was trying Catachan. *shrug* maybe I should go Valhallan, I don't know. We can have that chat if you like!

Either way, I hope you guys see the problem now. A single, cheaper unit (with 3 CP spent) has a 90% chance of crippling a baneblade, and it's not even an anti-tank unit (though I recognize that overcharged plasma is good enough against tanks that it essentially is).

Also, he could've done more, if he was list tailoring, including picking Alpha Legion instead of Word Bearers and infiltrating before walking up with combi-meltaguns.

Infiltrating and walking up works... If you get first turn.

And I'd hardly call a 5+ to-hit Baneblade crippled. Weakened, yes, but it has a LOT of Dakka, and Stratagems that let you effectively ignore your damage.

...Unit, that isn't a PROBLEM. That is a weakness you choose to live with and not even that big of one. You said yourself, you are taking three tanks either way. They aren't even killing the tank, just spending 3 CP to mildly inconvenience it. Wow a unit got hurt by an alpha strike? Amazing.

Everyone is vulnerable to an alpha strike, this isn't something special.

You don't take a fluffy list and then complain about the supposed weaknesses of it. Especially when it is a list that would get a few raised eyebrows from people about how fluffy it is.

JNAProductions wrote:Infiltrating and walking up works... If you get first turn.

And I'd hardly call a 5+ to-hit Baneblade crippled. Weakened, yes, but it has a LOT of Dakka, and Stratagems that let you effectively ignore your damage.

Actually there's about a 48% chance of the Baneblade being reduced to BS6+, movement 4 and with only 3 attacks in a single volley from that kind of firepower (as well as it basically dying to the cherriest of taps afterwards, if it hasn't actually died). At that point it's basically worse at firing than a drunk Ork. Even with Crush It being used on it, it's actually more likely to get stomped by the same terminators, especially if they are actual EC terminators (since the EC trait gives you Always Strike First). So yeah, at that point that particular Baneblade is pretty screwed. You could use Stratagems on it, but that'd be like trying to patch a sinking boat with duct tape rather than just make sure your other two boats don't hit a rock.

Quickjager wrote:...Unit, that isn't a PROBLEM. That is a weakness you choose to live with and not even that big of one. You said yourself, you are taking three tanks either way. They aren't even killing the tank, just spending 3 CP to mildly inconvenience it. Wow a unit got hurt by an alpha strike? Amazing.

Everyone is vulnerable to an alpha strike, this isn't something special.

You don't take a fluffy list and then complain about the supposed weaknesses of it. Especially when it is a list that would get a few raised eyebrows from people about how fluffy it is.

He wasn't complaining. Other people were complaining that his fluffy list had no weaknesses and he's simply explaining that there is. He does have a right to defend himself.

That isn't a weakness.

Everyone suffers from, he shot me first syndrome. It isn't special, there are no lists that perfectly mitigate this anymore.

If he was playing against a mirror list he would have the same problem. A Shadowsword shot my Shadowsword isn't a weakness, it is just how a IGOUGO game system works.

It isn't even that he put all his points in one basket, because everyone can splitfire now.

 Quickjager wrote:
That isn't a weakness.

Everyone suffers from, he shot me first syndrome. It isn't special, there are no lists that perfectly mitigate this anymore.

If he was playing against a mirror list he would have the same problem. A Shadowsword shot my Shadowsword isn't a weakness, it is just how a IGOUGO game system works.

It isn't even that he put all his points in one basket, because everyone can splitfire now.

Right...

So what started this was "Just take 1 or 2 tanks and then other stuff."

And I am explaining that 1 or even 2 tanks is incredibly vulnerable to getting shot first and the tank destroyed.

Not if it's bubblewrapped. Conscripts out to 3" away from the edge of it means no rapid-firing Plasmas, halving the damage.

 Marmatag wrote:
There are quite a few major differences between a stormsurge and a baneblade. Survivability is one of them.

The standard Stormsurge has a 4++ and a 6+++. They're actually roughly as survivable as each other, depending on what's shooting at them,

Yea, because like you said, you went to NOVA. Where people are taking the most optimal lists possible. It isn't a big surprise they can very effectively dismantle a fluffy list. Baneblade chassis has two problems that will hold them back from NOVA.

The first is since it is a single unit/model, it has to declare all of its shooting before actually seeing what happens, you mentioned this yourself earlier, incredible overkill is possible. People also gave suggestions on how to patch this up.

The second is the sheer size of the tank prevents it from getting cover easily as well as not being able to be out of LoS.

It just so happens alpha strikes are able to expose that second problem incredibly well. Which when combined with the lack of a deepstrike screen of say... Conscripts means they can easily get within melta or plasma rapidfire range.

So yes you are actually making your survivability WORSE by taking more of the same unit because you can't screen them properly, its like having a howitzer going up against infantry within 100m, not something its supposed to do. Because it is a fluffy list you say you refuse to drop a tank in order to take other units that can patch up this issue. So yea, to me that is complaining. Because having two tanks and the unit that can screen them from deepstrikers would solve that issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not if it's bubblewrapped. Conscripts out to 3" away from the edge of it means no rapid-firing Plasmas, halving the damage.

Which Unit doesn't do.

Seriously, you can apply that logic to most other players, but UNit has made it clear that that's not a tactic they will use, because to them it's unfluffy.

You might as well be saying "Yeah, Tactical Marines suck, but if you take them with Guilliman..."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not if it's bubblewrapped. Conscripts out to 3" away from the edge of it means no rapid-firing Plasmas, halving the damage.

Which Unit doesn't do.

Seriously, you can apply that logic to most other players, but UNit has made it clear that that's not a tactic they will use, because to them it's unfluffy.

You might as well be saying "Yeah, Tactical Marines suck, but if you take them with Guilliman..."

Fair enough. Unit's list is vulnerable to specific alpha-strike options.

Doesn't stop guard from being top dog.

So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?

That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".

Who the hell is afraid of superheavies? All I saw was people saying that it would be an obnoxious list to fight against similar to how people see playing against all Imperial Knight lists, people have different mindsets. Besides it isn't a contradictory statement what you said.

An above average unit being spammed is annoying, but is it any surprise that a mono-unit list has a counter?

Like in the thread Unit started, he says he sees people in his new area roll their eyes when they see his SHV. SHV still are a stigma, they probably will continue to be for quite a while longer. People like seeing things leave the table that are not their models, a SHV doesn't give that. You dread losing models more and more with the less that you field. I know that going from Orks to GK, "Oh damn I lost a single basic troop model, thats 21 points!" compared to before where I would go, "well there goes a trukk and 7 guys, 68 points, I got 6 more of the same". Did it make its points back? Did it capture or deny an objective? All questions people have that do have an impact on their enjoyment of the game.

Then the biggest one, "What could I have done differently?".

For SHV it comes down to one answer, kill it faster than it can kill me. Unit has himself said he frequently puts it on top of objectives and as a result the enemy cannot capture it without outright killing the SHV. So people notice; they realize they can't DO anything without killing it. So guess what they do? They kill it as fast as possible. It as a result can cripple Unit as he relies on them to do mostly everything. So what can HE do to counter? Perhaps build lists that focus a tad bit less on having SHV do everything from denying objectives to killing the enemy. He doesn't HAVE to take screening units, but he should take some basic troops with obj. secured for objective denial. It gives the enemy less reason to kill his tanks if they have to kill something else first to get a victory point.

But even with that they would still target his SHV, centerpiece models are lucrative targets afterall. So how can he protect them if he won't have a screen of some kind. The answer is reserves, which IS an option now with the new codex. Of course only 50% of his army can be in reserve, but that shouldn't be an issue with enough drops of objective secured infantry squads WHICH would also provide the CP needed to use that stratagem.

The answer is going to be regardless, hey you need less SHV focus. It would solve all of his problems, from being seen in his new scene as a powergamer. To being crippled from an alpha strike. You need variety or you end up boring to play against. So yea IT IS COMPLAINING, YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?

That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".

He doesn't even take special weapons on the Scions in his list because he didn't think he had the points for 7 point Plasma Guns.
It's bad list building in the first place and you know it

 Unit1126PLL wrote:



About half as good in firepower (and not even because you forgot the re-roll ones, as you admit) but more durable against big guns is fine. The Baneblade's also actually 703 points and does slightly more damage because you forgot one Twin Heavy Bolter.

Besides, if you mix and match the Baneblade's weapons more it changes.

For example, my Baneblades are the "classic" loadout, with only one set of sponsons (2 lascannons and 2 twin heavy bolters per tank, plus the default armament (1 baneblade cannon, 1 autocannon, 1 demolisher cannon, 1 twin heavy bolter)). Alternatively, the Baneblade you're testing against could be "optimized" with heavy flamers, in which case the cost rockets to 767 points and it actually loses firepower until the enemy is 8" away. So it all depends on what you've given the tank.[/spoiler]

How are you getting to 703 points for a Index Baneblade with 4 HB sponsons and heavy stubber? My calculations only bring it to 639.

Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.

Eh, I've only played IG once this edition. If he wants to fix his problems with his army/scene he has all the tools. He just needs to realize his fun might not be fun for others. Remember kids, no means no!