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.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive. For example, Skitarii are just better Tau Firewarriors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 20:53:06
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
So you think that Vanguards and Rangers should be 9 and 8 PPM like they were before?
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
So you think that Vanguards and Rangers should be 9 and 8 PPM like they were before?
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
Ugg nooooo.
Stratagems cost CP.
Units don't necessarily balance perfectly between codexes, because you need to account for internal balance.
Bloodletters getting deepstrike is a consequence of an army with very little shooting.
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
Ugg nooooo.
Stratagems cost CP.
Units don't necessarily balance perfectly between codexes, because you need to account for internal balance.
Bloodletters getting deepstrike is a consequence of an army with very little shooting.
7ppm for Bloodletters was fine in the context of a index army without any way to transport a meele unit like that. They where a slow foostloging meele horde. Now they have deepstrike, and that changes everything.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.
The synergies Guard have that GSC don't existed pre-codex, though? Neophytes are a shooting unit in an army where all HQ buffs are designed to aid melee. They have nothing comparable to Guard orders.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
Rotfl Sniper Rifles in 8TH 2018...seems like you have NEVER played remotely competitive if you are really mentioning that 4+ as an additional counter to weapons that are never used due to their poor efficiency
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Oh please. I heard nothing but people whining about Alaitoc Rangers being a reason that we need Dark Reapers to exist.
So which is it, are Alaitoc Rangers such a big problem that we need Dark Reapers to exist or do "most people" not pack snipers?
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm. Without a way to make Vanguards enter meele in a reliable way that T debuff aura isn't even worth a full point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:03:34
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Oh please. I heard nothing but people whining about Alaitoc Rangers being a reason that we need Dark Reapers to exist.
So which is it, are Alaitoc Rangers such a big problem that we need Dark Reapers to exist or do "most people" not pack snipers?
Alaitoic rangers are there to field a Battalion and therefore are played in minimum 2x5 squads. Even without the arguably "useful" 4+ for GSC leaders they wouldn't do much. I'd like have the model cost reduced to ACCEPTABLE levels (since a 76 points model shouldn't have a company commander profile) without that rule instead of the gak we have now
People don't bring rangers because of their sniper special rule. They bring them because they're a very durable alternate deployment method that can block and screen effectively.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Rotfl Sniper Rifles in 8TH 2018...seems like you have NEVER played remotely competitive if you are really mentioning that 4+ as an additional counter to weapons that are never used due to their poor efficiency
And it seems like you do nothing but play against people who gunline(or let you do the same) rather than fire & maneuver.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Mathematically they are. But when you factor the faction where they are: Adeptus Mechanicus, a shooting army without transports, then Vanguards come out as weaker than Rangers.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Mathematically they are. But when you factor the faction where they are: Adeptus Mechanicus, a shooting army without transports, then Vanguards come out as weaker than Rangers.
I don't actually agree with that, as I think most Mechanicus players would actually prefer to have Vanguard over Rangers all things being equal, even without transports. I could be wrong, but I certainly would if I played Mechanicus (which I do, a bit, but not much. Interestingly enough, I chose Vanguards even over the cheaper rangers, and it wasn't a hard choice for me even with the rangers being 1ppm cheaper).
7ppm for Bloodletters was fine in the context of a index army without any way to transport a meele unit like that. They where a slow foostloging meele horde. Now they have deepstrike, and that changes everything.
I'm not so positive of that, but i'm sure someone has some clever soup to shore up the deficiencies.
Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel. For whatever thing I say I have on average a 70% of being wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:10:38
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel
Haha. I might try rangers instead of vanguard my next few games and see how they do. Interestingly, it will exactly make up the points that I lost from this Imperial Guard FAQ, so I hope they turn out as badass as the Vanguard have for cheaper.
Galas wrote: Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel
Haha. I might try rangers instead of vanguard my next few games and see how they do. Interestingly, it will exactly make up the points that I lost from this Imperial Guard FAQ, so I hope they turn out as badass as the Vanguard have for cheaper.
I do regret having a primarily Ranger army from 7th. I miss the Precision Shots on the Galvanic Rifles and the extra dice when rolling for Armour Pen on vehicles with the Arquebi.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:12:42
Of course it's not, it doesn't change that people were whining so heavily that Dark Reapers are "needed" to deal with the Rangers.
That's the tournament mindset. That because X is so widely prevalent(whether or not it actually does gak), Y is "needed".
I don't know where you're seeing that. Are you sure you're not just extrapolating from something else?
Dark Reaper DO serve a roll in the meta to keep people from dragging out things like Alaitoc too often, but rangers have very little to do with that. That doesn't mean they don't deserve a point increase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:17:04
Of course it's not, it doesn't change that people were whining so heavily that Dark Reapers are "needed" to deal with the Rangers.
That's the tournament mindset. That because X is so widely prevalent(whether or not it actually does gak), Y is "needed".
I don't know where you're seeing that. Are you sure you're not just extrapolating from something else?
Dark Reaper DO serve a roll in the meta to keep people from dragging out things like Alaitoc too often, but rangers have very little to do with that. That doesn't mean they don't deserve a point increase.
Did you not read the Dark Reaper nerf thread that Galef had running?
Someone literally brought up Alaitoc Rangers as an example and then further went to compare Marine Scouts with them, assuming that Marine Scouts also get -1 to Hits when they have Camo Cloaks because of the fact that Alaitoc Rangers do.
Dark Reapers can serve that same role with a flat +1 to Hit rolls, they don't need to be neutering Raven Guard or Mechanicus or <Insert Army Here>.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:20:42
If dark reapers were just great at countering - to hit shenanigans and average heavy fire otherwise things would be kind of fine they would be good but not as OP as right now, they probably need a points hike.
I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
IG still need a lot more nerfs, too, unfortunately.
Baneblade chassis needs to be brought in line with other LoW Mortars too good
Primaris psyker still too good
Basilisk still too good
Manticore still too good
Officers too cheap
And some FW stuff, too
Much of that is indirect fire being super obnoxious this edition. Quit literally an "I win, you lose" button.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/06 21:46:28
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
