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.

BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

Martel732 wrote:
BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

Martel, BA don't have a codex yet.

Pump the brakes big rig. Let's wait until the BA codex drops before you complain it.

Breng77 wrote:
Synapse is also a 12" bubble not 18", and hive tyrants cost just a bit more than a commissar and can be targeted at all times.

They literally said yesterday that Hive Tyrants have 18" Synapse.
Source

It gets better! All Hive Tyrants now have an improved Synapse range of 18”, a Toughness stat of 7 (up from 6), and winged Hive Tyrants can drop in from above like other teleporting and flying units.

Also, Hive Tyrants are not the only source of Synapse in a Tyranid army...

I don't care. The codex won't fix a thing. Mark my words.

Sounds like this thread should die, though.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care. The codex won't fix a thing. Mark my words.

Sounds like this thread should die, though.

Look man, complaining about a codex that hasn't even entered the rumour mill is a little ridiculous. I get you're a glass half empty guy, but maybe you should just wait before bitching about something that doesn't exist yet.

I don't like the index vs codex excuse, because plenty of index lists can pound gk.

Breng77 wrote:
I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.

You've argued multiple times during this thread that Fleshborers are bad because of shorter range and requiring Termagants to get closer and thus get shot.

I literally showed you a thing that allows a mass of forty Termagants(they mentioned today one of the Stratagems with a 40 strong brood) to get into CC to protect themselves before the next shooting phase while still advancing and shooting their oh-so terrible Fleshborers with no penalty.

12" range on Fleshborers plus the range of Advancing and then Charging. It basically removes the only penalty for advancing and using an Assault weapon; the removal of Charge and a -1 to Hit penalty for shooting with the Assault weapon.

Martel732 wrote:
BA and GK have problems that can't be fixed by a codex.

I guess then the only thing you can do is to hold out hope that, if you're lucky at all, maybe, just maybe, GW will smile down upon you and make sure that 9th edition won't fix your problems either.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Orks need to be buffed.

Just imagine a world with BS 4 Orks with 5+ saves...GLORIOUS !!!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.

You've argued multiple times during this thread that Fleshborers are bad because of shorter range and requiring Termagants to get closer and thus get shot.

I literally showed you a thing that allows a mass of forty Termagants(they mentioned today one of the Stratagems with a 40 strong brood) to get into CC to protect themselves before the next shooting phase while still advancing and shooting their oh-so terrible Fleshborers with no penalty.

12" range on Fleshborers plus the range of Advancing and then Charging. It basically removes the only penalty for advancing and using an Assault weapon; the removal of Charge and a -1 to Hit penalty for shooting with the Assault weapon.

Alright Kanluwen, proxy/borrow/steal/whatever some Termagants, and the other Nids you need to give your OP Termagant strat a try. Let us know the results; I'm really curious. This strategy WILL NOT MAKE TERMAGANTS WITH FLESHBORERS WORK. It's just not good. I don't know why I'm bothering with this post, because it won't matter, but I've just got to say it. FLESHBORERS ARE BAD. Also, the article was edited; no blobs of 40. I'll betcha though; even if there were, Termagants with fleshborers would still be bad.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Alright Kanluwen, proxy/borrow/steal/whatever some Termagants, and the other Nids you need to give your OP Termagant strat a try. Let us know the results; I'm really curious. This strategy WILL NOT MAKE TERMAGANTS WITH FLESHBORERS WORK. It's just not good. I don't know why I'm bothering with this post, because it won't matter, but I've just got to say it. FLESHBORERS ARE BAD. Also, the article was edited; no blobs of 40. I'll betcha though; even if there were, Termagants with fleshborers would still be bad.

Please point out once where I stated that said strategy or Fleshborers would be "OP".

I'm simply pointing out that even with the basic Termagant, there are ways to make it work and allow for the Termagants to protect themselves/mitigate the time spent in the open--which was supposedly a big deal for the Termagants.

Simply saying a thing is bad does nothing. Repeating that Fleshborers are "BAD" means nothing when it's a weapon that synergizes very well with the army's playstyle and allows for a unit that can be replenished/spawned from an HQ choice to both engage in ranged combat and potentially get sent to its death en masse to trigger a stratagem that further penalizes the CC attackers.
Also: Oh noes. They edited the article from 40 to 30.

Still the same number of models as a Conscript Squad, just a point higher each for a 6+ 4+/4+ T3 1W gribbly that can still attack in CC.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Not really, the 6+ saves lost the 4++ cover whilst the 5+ saves still retain it

It seems this thread has moved passed this topic now, but I created a bar chart of average morale losses with and without the Commissar and summary execution.

Attached to this post. Also attached is R code to reproduce it.

If correct, it shows that summary execution with a reroll in itself does not help for morale losses. A flat Ld 8 would always be better. It does improve over Ld 7 though, for lower casualties.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

Better and simpler yet, run the same type of calculations but replace the 20 Space Marines with their equal points(ish) worth of Assault Cannon Razorbacks. Then with the same logic, tell us how expensive a Guardsmen should be.

Ie. Two Razorbacks, 50 Guardsmen, between 13 and 24 inches.

T1 - G 39 - R 1.4 wounds taken

See where this goes?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Are you suggesting the Navy Seals charge them in melee?

If being in melee has a decent chance of magically stopping all of the insurgents from shooting at the Seals, and will give the Seals more kills, with the added benefit of making more of the insurgents give up the fight and run away... Then yeah, it sure beats the alternative of just standing there and dying. It's a chance vs. no chance.

It's a poor scenario because that's not how elite troops actually function (so why do people expect them to gunction that way?) nor is it ideal play from the perspective of the game mechanics.

And as pointed out above, replacing the marines with a different unit will give you a completely diffetent result. It's basically a brilliant example of the myopea of mathhammer.

1. Nobody argued that Assault Cannon Razorbacks were appropriately priced ever.
2. Except, as the math shows, Tactical Marines are not an elite Troop choice, they're just a bad one. People would bring up "player skill" argument if Cultists now had 10" movement, BS/WS2+, a 2+ save, and carried Assault Cannons standard for their current price point.
You can only attribute so much to player skill.

Neither of these points work on any examination.

@ #1: You could increase the cost of Razorbacks by 40 points each, and buy 20 more Guardsmen. The Razorbacks still win.

@ #2: Using "the math" to argue against a post about how poorly "the math" models the environment is a non-starter, first of all.

Second, whether or not you think Space Marines are "elite" doesn't even matter. The given mathematical model assumes no play to begin with, and is therefore a poor representation of the worth of a unit in game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.

You've argued multiple times during this thread that Fleshborers are bad because of shorter range and requiring Termagants to get closer and thus get shot.

I literally showed you a thing that allows a mass of forty Termagants(they mentioned today one of the Stratagems with a 40 strong brood) to get into CC to protect themselves before the next shooting phase while still advancing and shooting their oh-so terrible Fleshborers with no penalty.

12" range on Fleshborers plus the range of Advancing and then Charging. It basically removes the only penalty for advancing and using an Assault weapon; the removal of Charge and a -1 to Hit penalty for shooting with the Assault weapon.

You are crediting me with an argument I literally never made. The argument I made is that mathematically a lasgun is superior to a fleshborer in ever circumstance. For 2 reasons, 1 at more than 12" (without the use of a psychic power) they do 0 damage, at 12" or less they have fewer shots. Period end of argument. WIth the termagants better BS they end up just about equal to lasguns fired by conscripts (assuming no orders), which means they are a worse gun, because with a better BS they do about the same damage, with the same BS they do significantly less.

I never said it was bad because you would get shot to get in range. I said it was bad because it is bad, as in not an effective weapon. It is literally a bolt pistol, I don't see people beating down the door to arm all their guys with bolt pistols because they are so much better than other options. Let me put it simply, if as a guard player I gave you the option to swap out all your lasguns for fleshborers for free, you would never take it. Further no you did not show me a way not to get shot first, just a way to not get rapid fired. You are likely not going from beyond 24" range to combat in a single turn on average you are going about 17" Now maybe you can burn a whole ton of resources to get into combat, but congrats you blew that on a squad of termagants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Synapse is also a 12" bubble not 18", and hive tyrants cost just a bit more than a commissar and can be targeted at all times.

They literally said yesterday that Hive Tyrants have 18" Synapse.
Source

It gets better! All Hive Tyrants now have an improved Synapse range of 18”, a Toughness stat of 7 (up from 6), and winged Hive Tyrants can drop in from above like other teleporting and flying units.

Also, Hive Tyrants are not the only source of Synapse in a Tyranid army...

but unless others have an 18" synapse bubble they are the only ones with that much of one. Most synapse units are not <10 wound characters either and can be killed, none to my knowledge are as cheap as commissars (which I already said I believe got over nerfed)

Termagants can't even beat tactical marines though. If tactical marines are garbage, as many of the people complaining about guardsmen claim, what does that make termagants?

And why should guardsmen be condemned to the same "worse than tacticals" tier?

 ross-128 wrote:
Termagants can't even beat tactical marines though. If tactical marines are garbage, as many of the people complaining about guardsmen claim, what does that make termagants?

And why should guardsmen be condemned to the same "worse than tacticals" tier?

That is an overall issue with the design of the game. Based on points at the moment guardsman should be ~1/3rd as good as tacticals, but the game never really works out that way, which is why it has balance issues.

The 1/3 value seems to be what GW targets in general, but always 1 point above or below. Previous prices have been 16:5, and 14:5, which was obviously done because that was closer to 1/3 than 14:4 would be.

But now tacs are 13, and that means the 1/3 rule puts them at 13:4 even if 4 is 0.33 on the cheap side, because 13:5 would be 0.67 on the expensive side.

But that doesn't answer the question of "why". If given the choice between 0.33 too cheap and 0.67 too expensive, why should GW go with "too expensive"?

Why are termagants the measure for balance when they lose badly to "garbage" tactical marines? (I for one don't believe tacs are garbage, but most of the people arguing that guardsmen should be measured against 'gants do, so I'm going to hammer that contradiction.)

Why should guardsmen be made just as terrible? Sure, right now tacs can't just walk up to a guard gunline and shoot it off the table, while if guardsmen were as points-inefficient as 'gants they could. But *should* they be able to? If so, why?

 ross-128 wrote:
The 1/3 value seems to be what GW targets in general, but always 1 point above or below. Previous prices have been 16:5, and 14:5, which was obviously done because that was closer to 1/3 than 14:4 would be.

But now tacs are 13, and that means the 1/3 rule puts them at 13:4 even if 4 is 0.33 on the cheap side, because 13:5 would be 0.67 on the expensive side.

But that doesn't answer the question of "why". If given the choice between 0.33 too cheap and 0.67 too expensive, why should GW go with "too expensive"?

Why are termagants the measure for balance when they lose badly to "garbage" tactical marines? (I for one don't believe tacs are garbage, but most of the people arguing that guardsmen should be measured against 'gants do, so I'm going to hammer that contradiction.)

Why should guardsmen be made just as terrible? Sure, right now tacs can't just walk up to a guard gunline and shoot it off the table, while if guardsmen were as points-inefficient as 'gants they could. But *should* they be able to? If so, why?

If all the swarm infantry units are comparatively "similar" to each other in value per point whilst AM infantry represents an outlier, the problem definitely rests on AM alone

 ross-128 wrote:
The 1/3 value seems to be what GW targets in general, but always 1 point above or below. Previous prices have been 16:5, and 14:5, which was obviously done because that was closer to 1/3 than 14:4 would be.

But now tacs are 13, and that means the 1/3 rule puts them at 13:4 even if 4 is 0.33 on the cheap side, because 13:5 would be 0.67 on the expensive side.

But that doesn't answer the question of "why". If given the choice between 0.33 too cheap and 0.67 too expensive, why should GW go with "too expensive"?

Why are termagants the measure for balance when they lose badly to "garbage" tactical marines? (I for one don't believe tacs are garbage, but most of the people arguing that guardsmen should be measured against 'gants do, so I'm going to hammer that contradiction.)

Why should guardsmen be made just as terrible? Sure, right now tacs can't just walk up to a guard gunline and shoot it off the table, while if guardsmen were as points-inefficient as 'gants they could. But *should* they be able to? If so, why?

This goes back to why it is a game design issue of points not being granular enough. It is also not just about points it is about stats. They might remain the same points but be worse in some other way. There are a lot of moving parts in the game and having small whole number point values makes it difficult to balance things well. Guardsman and Gants should be different, but they should also not have the same points value to represent those difference.

 ross-128 wrote:
Why should guardsmen be made just as terrible? Sure, right now tacs can't just walk up to a guard gunline and shoot it off the table, while if guardsmen were as points-inefficient as 'gants they could. But *should* they be able to? If so, why?

Because using tactics and strategy and brainpower is hard, mkay.

 Blacksails wrote:
Let's wait until the BA codex drops before you complain it.

To be fair, this IS Martel we're talking about. Complaining is all he knows how to do.

*smirk* Something we can agree about.

Guardsmen shouldn't be terrible, but a given points value of basic infantry should be able to interact with each other in a reasonably equal way. Admittedly, faster moving units won't be as points-efficient at killing other things. But Marines and Guardsmen are both of equal movement, so should be pretty close in terms of what they can do each other.

It is my honest experience that IG infantry are currently undercosted. They have no game breaking abilities, but they are undercosted. That's why I advocate for a single point increase per model, probably for all infantry. I haven't checked the codex, so I don't know what Scions cost these days, but they are remarkably powerful in the Index, for their cost.

The Tyranid codex is capable of similar shenanigans as Guard. They aren't as killy at shooting, but they are very capable of quickly taking over the board, and if they get first turn can pretty nearly deny any advance. But their game plan isn't about killing everything, it's about control. Use gribblies to control the board so that your big guys can do their jobs without getting up close [when you don't want them to]. You can't rapid fire plasma at a trio of Fexen [or whatever is good these days] when you have 40 chumps around you, spread out. But you can reasonably charge something that is tied up by your Gaunts. Remember, falling back out of combat isn't just for shooty troops. It's so that you can tie something up with chumps, get out of the way, and then charge with your big guys!

 greatbigtree wrote:
*smirk* Something we can agree about.

Guardsmen shouldn't be terrible, but a given points value of basic infantry should be able to interact with each other in a reasonably equal way. Admittedly, faster moving units won't be as points-efficient at killing other things. But Marines and Guardsmen are both of equal movement, so should be pretty close in terms of what they can do each other.

It is my honest experience that IG infantry are currently undercosted. They have no game breaking abilities, but they are undercosted. That's why I advocate for a single point increase per model, probably for all infantry.

lolno.

See, here's where the problem lies. Nobody is running Infantry Squads. They're the 4 ppm squads that can take a single HWT, Special Weapon, Voxcaster, and are required to have a Sergeant who has a Laspistol and Frag Grenades and can never have more than 10 models(of which you lose 2 to form a HWT making it a 9 model squad with 10W). Infantry Squads are 4+/4+ with LD7(Sergeants) and nothing preventing them from receiving Orders beyond range and the presence of an Officer.

Conscript Squads are 20 models at 3ppm with nothing but Lasguns and Frag Grenades with a special rule that makes you have to roll a D6 for the squad to receive Orders.

So how do you further delineate between the two units without then stepping on the toes of Scions who are 3+/3+ with a 4+ save?

I haven't checked the codex, so I don't know what Scions cost these days, but they are remarkably powerful in the Index, for their cost.

Then maybe--just maybe--you should check the Codex? It's been out for a few weeks now...

Scions and Veterans were given a unique points bracket for Plasma Guns explicitly to counter the Index power that they had. The same thing goes for Conscripts being given the Raw Recruits special rule and the FAQ that made it so Command Squads required an Officer to 'unlock' them.

The Tyranid codex is capable of similar shenanigans as Guard. They aren't as killy at shooting, but they are very capable of quickly taking over the board, and if they get first turn can pretty nearly deny any advance. But their game plan isn't about killing everything, it's about control. Use gribblies to control the board so that your big guys can do their jobs without getting up close [when you don't want them to]. You can't rapid fire plasma at a trio of Fexen [or whatever is good these days] when you have 40 chumps around you, spread out. But you can reasonably charge something that is tied up by your Gaunts. Remember, falling back out of combat isn't just for shooty troops. It's so that you can tie something up with chumps, get out of the way, and then charge with your big guys!

I think you might want to rethink your "aren't as killy at shooting" statement, given the way things are looking to shake out. Four Devourers now nets you 24 shots from what GW has said--and that's something just one Carnifex can take, which can further be boosted up to a BS3+ thanks to Enhanced Senses.

Basically the ig players want us to see what else gw vomits forth before the condemnation of ig continues. Fine. But marks my words that ba will be an autolose to ig even after the codex comes out. Just like gk are right now.

Martel732 wrote:
Basically the ig players want us to see what else gw vomits forth before the condemnation of ig continues. Fine. But marks my words that ba will be an autolose to ig even after the codex comes out. Just like gk are right now.

If it makes you feel any better, in that scenario, you'd likely be an auto lose to most other codices too.

Maybe you could spread your complaining about BA to some other factions, like vanilla marines and Daemons and Chaos.

Nah, ig are the most blatant. I at least have hope against marines because they also have a crap model count.

If you get so little enjoyment out of playing BA that all you ever do is complain, and you haven't enjoyed them since 3rd, maybe you should just pick up a different army?

The way you talk it sounds like you don't enjoy playing even when you win, so maybe they're just not the army for you. Instead of clinging to memories of 3rd edition, you should find an army you can actually enjoy through both good and bad codices. Right now you don't even seem to enjoy a good codex.

 ross-128 wrote:
If you get so little enjoyment out of playing BA that all you ever do is complain, and you haven't enjoyed them since 3rd, maybe you should just pick up a different army?

The way you talk it sounds like you don't enjoy playing even when you win, so maybe they're just not the army for you. Instead of clinging to memories of 3rd edition, you should find an army you can actually enjoy through both good and bad codices. Right now you don't even seem to enjoy a good codex.

The issue is Blood Angels have been given the short end of the stick for several editions, and only one were they really any good. Can you blame someone that if they picked up an army they'd want them to work?

It works a little better for Marines because power armor, but you'd never tell another player of a different army to pick up a different army, right?

3rd ed was only fun at the end for ba. They were very op in early 3rd. I'm not asking for that. I just want viable solutions for screens and undercosted shooters. I don't see how that is possible with the current ig codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It works a little better for Marines because power armor, but you'd never tell another player of a different army to pick up a different army, right?

If I, by all appearances, were that unhappy with the game, I don't think I'd pick up another army. I think I'd quit. Like I did back in 7th.

Life's too short to spend that kind of time doing things I don't enjoy.